Page 19 - Šolsko polje, XXIX, 2018, no. 1-2: The Language of Neoliberal Education, ed. Mitja Sardoč
P. 19
v. d’agnese ■ concealment and advertising: unraveling ...
they can then adapt to their local contexts.” In other words, PISA iden-
tifies what must be done in educational arena worldwide, with no room
for uncertainty or mistake, and local countries and schools—just—have
to follow, thus adapting OECD’s strategies, aims and criteria to their con-
text. That is why OECD enhances a vision of schooling in terms of adap-
tation and execution—gesture that is both theoretically weak and ethi-
cally problematic.
The passage quoted, then, is a significant example of OECD’s rhe-
torical strategy, one in which OECD presents its own vision of educa-
tion as an unavoidable necessity, and its work as a response to needs firm-
ly located in schooling, educational policies and society at large. In this
way OECD hinders its performative positions, thus transforming its aims
in educational necessities arising from society. In this way, OECD cre-
ates the premises, the market, if you wish, in which its own products may
be sold. In this case, rhetorical strategy prepares and grounds economic
penetration.
With respect to the issues raised thus far, it should be highlighted
that we are not facing an occasional passage. In several places OECD and
its authoritative members emphasise the power of PISA of being “a mir-
ror” of education thus “demonstrating to all countries what is possible”
(Gurrìa, 2016a). Moreover: in Gurrìa’s authoritative words, “PISA tests
the readiness for an active role in today’s society; it tests how [. . . students]
think and how they work [...]. But first of all PISA shows what achieve-
ments are possible in education.” (Gurrìa, 2016b). Left apart that, techni-
cally speaking, thinking of having a mirror of something is, scientifically,
a medieval epistemological stance, what is remarkable is that according to
OECD’s own words, we are lead to believe that the present and the future
of education are envisioned through a politics based on a two hour test.
However, this is not the only example of such a strategy. To provide
further evidence of OECD’s stance, I shall analyze two passages from
two OECD’s publication: Education Today 2013: The OECD Perspective
(OECD, 2012) and PISA 2012 Results: What Students Know and Can Do
(OECD, 2014). In the former publication we read the following:
The OECD Skills Strategy provides an integrated, cross-government
strategic framework aimed to help countries understand more about
how to invest in skills to help transform better skills into better jobs,
economic growth and social inclusion. To this end, the first main policy
lever to address is to develop relevant skills [...]. The second main lever is
to activate skills supply, encouraging people to offer their skills and to
retain skilled people on the labour market [...] The third lever is to put
17
they can then adapt to their local contexts.” In other words, PISA iden-
tifies what must be done in educational arena worldwide, with no room
for uncertainty or mistake, and local countries and schools—just—have
to follow, thus adapting OECD’s strategies, aims and criteria to their con-
text. That is why OECD enhances a vision of schooling in terms of adap-
tation and execution—gesture that is both theoretically weak and ethi-
cally problematic.
The passage quoted, then, is a significant example of OECD’s rhe-
torical strategy, one in which OECD presents its own vision of educa-
tion as an unavoidable necessity, and its work as a response to needs firm-
ly located in schooling, educational policies and society at large. In this
way OECD hinders its performative positions, thus transforming its aims
in educational necessities arising from society. In this way, OECD cre-
ates the premises, the market, if you wish, in which its own products may
be sold. In this case, rhetorical strategy prepares and grounds economic
penetration.
With respect to the issues raised thus far, it should be highlighted
that we are not facing an occasional passage. In several places OECD and
its authoritative members emphasise the power of PISA of being “a mir-
ror” of education thus “demonstrating to all countries what is possible”
(Gurrìa, 2016a). Moreover: in Gurrìa’s authoritative words, “PISA tests
the readiness for an active role in today’s society; it tests how [. . . students]
think and how they work [...]. But first of all PISA shows what achieve-
ments are possible in education.” (Gurrìa, 2016b). Left apart that, techni-
cally speaking, thinking of having a mirror of something is, scientifically,
a medieval epistemological stance, what is remarkable is that according to
OECD’s own words, we are lead to believe that the present and the future
of education are envisioned through a politics based on a two hour test.
However, this is not the only example of such a strategy. To provide
further evidence of OECD’s stance, I shall analyze two passages from
two OECD’s publication: Education Today 2013: The OECD Perspective
(OECD, 2012) and PISA 2012 Results: What Students Know and Can Do
(OECD, 2014). In the former publication we read the following:
The OECD Skills Strategy provides an integrated, cross-government
strategic framework aimed to help countries understand more about
how to invest in skills to help transform better skills into better jobs,
economic growth and social inclusion. To this end, the first main policy
lever to address is to develop relevant skills [...]. The second main lever is
to activate skills supply, encouraging people to offer their skills and to
retain skilled people on the labour market [...] The third lever is to put
17
