Page 27 - Šolsko polje, XXIX, 2018, no. 1-2: The Language of Neoliberal Education, ed. Mitja Sardoč
P. 27
v. d’agnese ■ concealment and advertising: unraveling ...
limit to education improvement, we have laid the foundations for better
policies and better lives. (Schleicher, 2016b)
Here, let me say that I acknowledge that, as Schleicher states, “better
degrees don’t automatically translate into better skills and better jobs and
better lives.” But I believe that the reason for this mismatching Schleicher
has in mind is dramatically erroneous. It is not so much that better degrees
do not automatically guarantee better skills, as if better skills could auto-
matically lead to better jobs and, in turn, better lives—as OECD states
(OECD, 2014: p.3). It is that the whole string, which should conduct from
“better skills” to a “better life” is both scientifically unfounded, and eth-
ically problematic. This is so for scientifically, the last passage—that con-
verting better jobs into better lives—is a leap between incommensurable
entities. Ethically, through such a leap a severe reduction and impoverish-
ment of what living may be is enacted. Students, in fact, are pushed to be-
lieve that education is just a matter of acquiring the right skills’ set, one
that, in turn, should conduct to a fulfilling life. Schleicher, in fact, states
that “[e]very student knows what matters. Every student knows what’s re-
quired to be successful.” I believe that this ostensibly simple statement has
to be carefully scrutinized. By such a statement the equivalence between
“what matters” and success is enacted. In other words, what matters in ed-
ucation, and living as well, is reaching success. Again, we are pushed to
ask about the opportunity to use an ambiguous concept like success as the
key-aim for a delicate matter such as education.
Here, let me make an additional remark about the concluding claim.
When reading that “we have laid the foundations for better policies and
better lives”, one cannot help to think how much such a statement is vague,
and, in a sense, presumptuous. Thinking that one, whether that one is an
individual or an organization, has “laid the foundations for better policies
and better lives”, is an affirmation that is more in line with advertisement
language than with scientific language—and here, I wish to recall that
what is problematic is not advertisement language in itself, but the mix-
ture of scientific authority and advertisement fascination, which OECD
enacts. Specifically, we cannot help to ask what such foundations for bet-
ter lives are, if such a better life is to be evaluated through a two-hour test.
To be very clear: what kind of evidence does OECD have in mind for as-
sessing such a betterment of living? Otherwise stated, when hearing that
“employers say they cannot find the people with the skills they need. And
that tells you that better degrees don’t automatically translate into bet-
ter skills”, we are within what, from a scientific and political perspective,
may well be argued and sustained. However, when we come to living as a
25
limit to education improvement, we have laid the foundations for better
policies and better lives. (Schleicher, 2016b)
Here, let me say that I acknowledge that, as Schleicher states, “better
degrees don’t automatically translate into better skills and better jobs and
better lives.” But I believe that the reason for this mismatching Schleicher
has in mind is dramatically erroneous. It is not so much that better degrees
do not automatically guarantee better skills, as if better skills could auto-
matically lead to better jobs and, in turn, better lives—as OECD states
(OECD, 2014: p.3). It is that the whole string, which should conduct from
“better skills” to a “better life” is both scientifically unfounded, and eth-
ically problematic. This is so for scientifically, the last passage—that con-
verting better jobs into better lives—is a leap between incommensurable
entities. Ethically, through such a leap a severe reduction and impoverish-
ment of what living may be is enacted. Students, in fact, are pushed to be-
lieve that education is just a matter of acquiring the right skills’ set, one
that, in turn, should conduct to a fulfilling life. Schleicher, in fact, states
that “[e]very student knows what matters. Every student knows what’s re-
quired to be successful.” I believe that this ostensibly simple statement has
to be carefully scrutinized. By such a statement the equivalence between
“what matters” and success is enacted. In other words, what matters in ed-
ucation, and living as well, is reaching success. Again, we are pushed to
ask about the opportunity to use an ambiguous concept like success as the
key-aim for a delicate matter such as education.
Here, let me make an additional remark about the concluding claim.
When reading that “we have laid the foundations for better policies and
better lives”, one cannot help to think how much such a statement is vague,
and, in a sense, presumptuous. Thinking that one, whether that one is an
individual or an organization, has “laid the foundations for better policies
and better lives”, is an affirmation that is more in line with advertisement
language than with scientific language—and here, I wish to recall that
what is problematic is not advertisement language in itself, but the mix-
ture of scientific authority and advertisement fascination, which OECD
enacts. Specifically, we cannot help to ask what such foundations for bet-
ter lives are, if such a better life is to be evaluated through a two-hour test.
To be very clear: what kind of evidence does OECD have in mind for as-
sessing such a betterment of living? Otherwise stated, when hearing that
“employers say they cannot find the people with the skills they need. And
that tells you that better degrees don’t automatically translate into bet-
ter skills”, we are within what, from a scientific and political perspective,
may well be argued and sustained. However, when we come to living as a
25
