Page 25 - Šolsko polje, XXIX, 2018, no. 1-2: The Language of Neoliberal Education, ed. Mitja Sardoč
P. 25
v. d’agnese ■ concealment and advertising: unraveling ...
The first passage is taken from a video presenting the PISA-based
Test for Schools, a tool aimed at measuring and benchmarking schools’
competitiveness and efficiency. I quote two significant passages from the
video and then provide my commentary:
For more than ten years now PISA, the world’s premier students as-
sessment, has evaluated and compared student’s systems all around the
world. [...]
[PISA-based Test for Schools task is] provide tangible insights on how
to leverage improvements. And that is exactly what PISA-based Test for
Schools is about. They [policy makers, teachers, educators] know how
important it is for their students to enter a global economy where they
will be competing for the best jobs with young people from all over the
world. And in a global economy the benchmark for educational success
is no longer improvement by national standards alone, but the best-per-
forming education systems internationally. (Schleicher, 2016a)
Above all, we may note a clear similarity – if not uniformity – with
both Gurrìa’s words and several OECD’s documents (see Gurrìa 2016a,
2016b; OECD, 2014, 2016). The language being spoken, the terms used,
the syntax emerging from comparison and even the ‘mood’ which perme-
ates both Schleicher’s, Gurrìa’s and OECD’s words seem to come from
the same source. Of course, consistency and concord within organiza-
tions are expected. However, here a different mechanism seems at work:
OECD and its authoritative members speak in unison, with one voice, so
to speak. Such a stance reveals a problematic gesture toward society and
education, for one would expect more nuanced and even diverse positions
within such a complex and articulated organization as OECD is, espe-
cially on a matter such education that is, by definition, complex, uncer-
tain and multifaceted. Education, in fact, is related to societies, which are,
by definition, complex and variegated. The argument I raise is related to
the overall politics enacted by OECD: in narrowing down education, liv-
ing and society, in uniforming them to one’s vision one must use a well-de-
fined and standardized language, a language in which diversity and dif-
ferences are not allowed. Then, such uniformity is but another example of
the severe reduction of education enacted by OECD.
Returning to Schleicher’s statements, we find a clear expression of
the features education must have in OECD’s framework: a) success and
money as the measure for a good education; b) competition as the basic
educational engine; and c) a performance-based conception of education.
Such elements are clearly expressed in the last four lines:
23
The first passage is taken from a video presenting the PISA-based
Test for Schools, a tool aimed at measuring and benchmarking schools’
competitiveness and efficiency. I quote two significant passages from the
video and then provide my commentary:
For more than ten years now PISA, the world’s premier students as-
sessment, has evaluated and compared student’s systems all around the
world. [...]
[PISA-based Test for Schools task is] provide tangible insights on how
to leverage improvements. And that is exactly what PISA-based Test for
Schools is about. They [policy makers, teachers, educators] know how
important it is for their students to enter a global economy where they
will be competing for the best jobs with young people from all over the
world. And in a global economy the benchmark for educational success
is no longer improvement by national standards alone, but the best-per-
forming education systems internationally. (Schleicher, 2016a)
Above all, we may note a clear similarity – if not uniformity – with
both Gurrìa’s words and several OECD’s documents (see Gurrìa 2016a,
2016b; OECD, 2014, 2016). The language being spoken, the terms used,
the syntax emerging from comparison and even the ‘mood’ which perme-
ates both Schleicher’s, Gurrìa’s and OECD’s words seem to come from
the same source. Of course, consistency and concord within organiza-
tions are expected. However, here a different mechanism seems at work:
OECD and its authoritative members speak in unison, with one voice, so
to speak. Such a stance reveals a problematic gesture toward society and
education, for one would expect more nuanced and even diverse positions
within such a complex and articulated organization as OECD is, espe-
cially on a matter such education that is, by definition, complex, uncer-
tain and multifaceted. Education, in fact, is related to societies, which are,
by definition, complex and variegated. The argument I raise is related to
the overall politics enacted by OECD: in narrowing down education, liv-
ing and society, in uniforming them to one’s vision one must use a well-de-
fined and standardized language, a language in which diversity and dif-
ferences are not allowed. Then, such uniformity is but another example of
the severe reduction of education enacted by OECD.
Returning to Schleicher’s statements, we find a clear expression of
the features education must have in OECD’s framework: a) success and
money as the measure for a good education; b) competition as the basic
educational engine; and c) a performance-based conception of education.
Such elements are clearly expressed in the last four lines:
23
