Page 30 - Šolsko polje, XXIX, 2018, no. 1-2: The Language of Neoliberal Education, ed. Mitja Sardoč
P. 30
šolsko polje, letnik xxix, številka 1–2
are—just—committed to prepare girls and boys to strive in the market
arena. Education, then, is narrowed down to supplying young people with
the skills needed in order to compete for such “best jobs”.
Related to this, is the fourth video I present, which is extrapolated
from the London Conference on Employer Engagement in Education and
Training. In this video we learn that
Our role is really to develop better policies for better lives … Developing
for example the right skills for people [...] and making sure that children
from early ages all over the world [. . .] may get the kind of skills they need.
PISA works “to make sure children have this kind of perspective of what
they could be [...] so they can look out at in all [...] successful professions.
(Schleicher, 2018b)
When reading this passage, a number of questions arise: which is the
concept of “better live” Schleicher has in mind? Is it possible to establish a
unique set of skills needed by people in order to accomplish such a better
life? Which is the model for children development Schleicher has in mind?
Once again, a totalizing logic is at work, and such a gesture is even
more problematic when addressing subjects at earlier and earlier age. This
is true for when people, since childhood, are conceived of as a kind of re-
cipient for the the “right skills”, education – and society as well – are no
longer the space where diverse perspectives, desires, aspirations, feelings,
and ideas meet and confront one another, joining, connecting, colliding,
melting, and giving rise to diverse feelings, ideas, perspectives and aspira-
tions. Education, schooling and society alike are narrowed down to a per-
petual arena, where girls and boys are trained to compete since their child-
hood for “successful professions”.
Conclusions
In my paper, I have argued that in order to understand neoliberal educa-
tional agenda and its power of persuasion and penetration, a thorough
analysis of its rhetoric and language is required. In order to accomplish
this task, I have focused my attention on OECD’s language and rheror-
ic, analyzing its public documents from 2012 to 2018. I have argued that,
along with a severe standardization of education and language, and the
concealment of its normative and performative role, we find in OECD’s
educational documents a mix of diverse logics and languages, namely, sci-
entific and advertisement language. Such a mix confers OECD an undu-
ly advantage, namely, that of captivating people attention while reassur-
ing them about the truthfulness, impartiality and objectivity of its own
assertions. I have also argued that OECD presents a narrow vision of what
28
are—just—committed to prepare girls and boys to strive in the market
arena. Education, then, is narrowed down to supplying young people with
the skills needed in order to compete for such “best jobs”.
Related to this, is the fourth video I present, which is extrapolated
from the London Conference on Employer Engagement in Education and
Training. In this video we learn that
Our role is really to develop better policies for better lives … Developing
for example the right skills for people [...] and making sure that children
from early ages all over the world [. . .] may get the kind of skills they need.
PISA works “to make sure children have this kind of perspective of what
they could be [...] so they can look out at in all [...] successful professions.
(Schleicher, 2018b)
When reading this passage, a number of questions arise: which is the
concept of “better live” Schleicher has in mind? Is it possible to establish a
unique set of skills needed by people in order to accomplish such a better
life? Which is the model for children development Schleicher has in mind?
Once again, a totalizing logic is at work, and such a gesture is even
more problematic when addressing subjects at earlier and earlier age. This
is true for when people, since childhood, are conceived of as a kind of re-
cipient for the the “right skills”, education – and society as well – are no
longer the space where diverse perspectives, desires, aspirations, feelings,
and ideas meet and confront one another, joining, connecting, colliding,
melting, and giving rise to diverse feelings, ideas, perspectives and aspira-
tions. Education, schooling and society alike are narrowed down to a per-
petual arena, where girls and boys are trained to compete since their child-
hood for “successful professions”.
Conclusions
In my paper, I have argued that in order to understand neoliberal educa-
tional agenda and its power of persuasion and penetration, a thorough
analysis of its rhetoric and language is required. In order to accomplish
this task, I have focused my attention on OECD’s language and rheror-
ic, analyzing its public documents from 2012 to 2018. I have argued that,
along with a severe standardization of education and language, and the
concealment of its normative and performative role, we find in OECD’s
educational documents a mix of diverse logics and languages, namely, sci-
entific and advertisement language. Such a mix confers OECD an undu-
ly advantage, namely, that of captivating people attention while reassur-
ing them about the truthfulness, impartiality and objectivity of its own
assertions. I have also argued that OECD presents a narrow vision of what
28
