Page 23 - Šolsko polje, XXIX, 2018, no. 1-2: The Language of Neoliberal Education, ed. Mitja Sardoč
P. 23
v. d’agnese ■ concealment and advertising: unraveling ...
The fourth point I wish to discuss is strictly connected to the one
discussed above, and it is that of the link OECD makes between “[f]air-
ness, integrity and inclusiveness in public policy” and “the skills of citi-
zens.” Here, it is difficult to see why “[f]airness, integrity and inclusive-
ness in public policy” should depend on “the skills of citizens”. To put
the point directly: what have skills to do with fairness and integrity? It
is common sense that one may be both un-skilled and fair, or, alterna-
tively, skilled and unfair. The point is even more paradoxical when we
come to inclusiveness, in that one would expect that such a founding val-
ue should be enacted regardless which skills one has. Moreover, society
should be more inclusive exactly towards those who are less skilled, in that
it is expected that highly skilled people are either already included, or have
strong means to be included.
Then, through the analysis of OECD’s own words, I hope to have
argued that in OECD’s model students—and society as well—are con-
ceived as a kind of container for the right skills and competencies. By
rendering education subservient to learning and learning subservient to
predetermined set of skills, OECD makes dealing with education a ques-
tion of mere functionality, a matter of put and remove. The only possi-
ble option for education, in OECD’s vision, is to follow and adapt to the
existing—neoliberal—regime.
Moreover: the supposed leap OECD claims to perform from the giv-
en contents of national curriculum to skills and competencies apt to man-
age real-life situations, is only an ostensible one. This is true for OECD
repeats the mistake of the “traditional schooling model” (OECD, 2016)
OECD itself criticizes, namely, that of rendering students subservient
to a framework lowered from above. We should note that both the mod-
el OECD criticizes, and OECD’s own framework come to schools from
above, as already settled and defined. The whole set of skills and learn-
ing outcomes which students are expected to perform comes as a package
from OECD to Nation States to schools, and OECD seems to know in
advance which the aims and purposes of girls and boys worldwide are. In
other words, both the “traditional schooling model” and OECD conceive
of schooling as just a matter of reproduction and adaptation. The only dif-
ference between them lies in what is to be reproduced—predefined con-
tents, on the one hand, and predefined skills, on the other. The uncritical
adherence to the social and economic model in force OECD pursues ends
in betraying education.
It should be highlighted that such a model affects and limits both
students and society. On the one hand, students are forced to meet pre-
conceived standards and values; as a matter of fact, students are implicitly
21
The fourth point I wish to discuss is strictly connected to the one
discussed above, and it is that of the link OECD makes between “[f]air-
ness, integrity and inclusiveness in public policy” and “the skills of citi-
zens.” Here, it is difficult to see why “[f]airness, integrity and inclusive-
ness in public policy” should depend on “the skills of citizens”. To put
the point directly: what have skills to do with fairness and integrity? It
is common sense that one may be both un-skilled and fair, or, alterna-
tively, skilled and unfair. The point is even more paradoxical when we
come to inclusiveness, in that one would expect that such a founding val-
ue should be enacted regardless which skills one has. Moreover, society
should be more inclusive exactly towards those who are less skilled, in that
it is expected that highly skilled people are either already included, or have
strong means to be included.
Then, through the analysis of OECD’s own words, I hope to have
argued that in OECD’s model students—and society as well—are con-
ceived as a kind of container for the right skills and competencies. By
rendering education subservient to learning and learning subservient to
predetermined set of skills, OECD makes dealing with education a ques-
tion of mere functionality, a matter of put and remove. The only possi-
ble option for education, in OECD’s vision, is to follow and adapt to the
existing—neoliberal—regime.
Moreover: the supposed leap OECD claims to perform from the giv-
en contents of national curriculum to skills and competencies apt to man-
age real-life situations, is only an ostensible one. This is true for OECD
repeats the mistake of the “traditional schooling model” (OECD, 2016)
OECD itself criticizes, namely, that of rendering students subservient
to a framework lowered from above. We should note that both the mod-
el OECD criticizes, and OECD’s own framework come to schools from
above, as already settled and defined. The whole set of skills and learn-
ing outcomes which students are expected to perform comes as a package
from OECD to Nation States to schools, and OECD seems to know in
advance which the aims and purposes of girls and boys worldwide are. In
other words, both the “traditional schooling model” and OECD conceive
of schooling as just a matter of reproduction and adaptation. The only dif-
ference between them lies in what is to be reproduced—predefined con-
tents, on the one hand, and predefined skills, on the other. The uncritical
adherence to the social and economic model in force OECD pursues ends
in betraying education.
It should be highlighted that such a model affects and limits both
students and society. On the one hand, students are forced to meet pre-
conceived standards and values; as a matter of fact, students are implicitly
21
