Page 22 - Šolsko polje, XXIX, 2018, no. 1-2: The Language of Neoliberal Education, ed. Mitja Sardoč
P. 22
šolsko polje, letnik xxix, številka 1–2
does the translation from life to a two-hours test occur? Here, I do not
wish to be naïve: a job is a relevant part of living, and life may hardly be
good when making a bad job. However, the problem with equating “bet-
ter jobs” to “better lives” is that not only—as argued above—what is good
depends on who you are and what you wish to achieve; moreover, a good
job is part of good life, for it is common sense that one’s life depends on
several factors, such as love, health, social and familiar relationships and
so on. In this way, OECD enhances a vision in which a “good job” is the
only commitment one should have, in that happiness strictly depends on
which a job one obtains. Such a gesture comes to enhance a narrow and
misguided vision of life, society, relationships and education. Once again,
it should be noted that the use of the term “interconnected global econo-
my”, in which the term “economy” stands for the term world, is significant
of such a narrowing down of living to its economic features. In OECD’s
picture of education students are not required to participate in the world;
rather, they are “required to [...] participate in an increasingly intercon-
nected global economy” —an argument OECD recalls in its PISA tri-
fold brochure (OECD, 2017). The difference is pivotal, in that being in
the world and with the world, means seeing oneself and others as active
part of such a world; it means exercising criticism, while listening to oth-
ers’ reasons and debating. It means, also, questioning the very structure of
our questioning.
Then, we may note that OECD, with its taken-for-grantedness stra-
tegy, by which a particular view of society is presented as the world in all
of its features, erases the very conditions for sharing and debating, condi-
tions without which schooling makes little sense. For schooling to be in-
clusive, one has to provide a framework in which students may also que-
stion the very order in which they find themselves. This is not the case
with PISA, in which a conception of economy comes to frame education
in all of its features, thus silencing from the very beginning even the need
and the desire for questioning and thinking otherwise.
The third point I wish to raise is that of levelling what one is expected
to learn, do and be as a citizen and what one is expected to learn, do and be
as a worker. This is clear in OECD’s statement that “[h]ighly skilled peo-
ple are also more likely to volunteer, see themselves as actors rather than
as objects of political processes, and are more likely to trust others.” Here,
the following question arises: how does OECD draw the conclusion that
political participation and active citizenship linearly derives from high-
skills qualification? Which studies offer evidence for such a conclusion?
Again, OECD draws sharp conclusions and boldly makes claims about
slippery and controversial arguments, without further qualification.
20
does the translation from life to a two-hours test occur? Here, I do not
wish to be naïve: a job is a relevant part of living, and life may hardly be
good when making a bad job. However, the problem with equating “bet-
ter jobs” to “better lives” is that not only—as argued above—what is good
depends on who you are and what you wish to achieve; moreover, a good
job is part of good life, for it is common sense that one’s life depends on
several factors, such as love, health, social and familiar relationships and
so on. In this way, OECD enhances a vision in which a “good job” is the
only commitment one should have, in that happiness strictly depends on
which a job one obtains. Such a gesture comes to enhance a narrow and
misguided vision of life, society, relationships and education. Once again,
it should be noted that the use of the term “interconnected global econo-
my”, in which the term “economy” stands for the term world, is significant
of such a narrowing down of living to its economic features. In OECD’s
picture of education students are not required to participate in the world;
rather, they are “required to [...] participate in an increasingly intercon-
nected global economy” —an argument OECD recalls in its PISA tri-
fold brochure (OECD, 2017). The difference is pivotal, in that being in
the world and with the world, means seeing oneself and others as active
part of such a world; it means exercising criticism, while listening to oth-
ers’ reasons and debating. It means, also, questioning the very structure of
our questioning.
Then, we may note that OECD, with its taken-for-grantedness stra-
tegy, by which a particular view of society is presented as the world in all
of its features, erases the very conditions for sharing and debating, condi-
tions without which schooling makes little sense. For schooling to be in-
clusive, one has to provide a framework in which students may also que-
stion the very order in which they find themselves. This is not the case
with PISA, in which a conception of economy comes to frame education
in all of its features, thus silencing from the very beginning even the need
and the desire for questioning and thinking otherwise.
The third point I wish to raise is that of levelling what one is expected
to learn, do and be as a citizen and what one is expected to learn, do and be
as a worker. This is clear in OECD’s statement that “[h]ighly skilled peo-
ple are also more likely to volunteer, see themselves as actors rather than
as objects of political processes, and are more likely to trust others.” Here,
the following question arises: how does OECD draw the conclusion that
political participation and active citizenship linearly derives from high-
skills qualification? Which studies offer evidence for such a conclusion?
Again, OECD draws sharp conclusions and boldly makes claims about
slippery and controversial arguments, without further qualification.
20
