Page 67 - Šolsko polje, XXIX, 2018, no. 1-2: The Language of Neoliberal Education, ed. Mitja Sardoč
P. 67
m. a. peters ■ neoliberalism as political discourse ...
with conservativism touting a moral conservativism that is anti-socialist,
anti-feminist and anti-immigrant.
Education as a Commodity
In terms of education the discourse of neoliberalism became a discourse
aimed at changing the prevailing discourse of public policy that devel-
oped after WWII as one derived from social welfare, state redistributive
policies, and social democracy. It aimed to convince voters that educa-
tion shares the main characteristics of other commodities traded in the
marketplace, and that it is not a ‘public good’. The benefits of education
accrue to individuals, it is argued. Often neoliberal have argued that we
have been too optimistic about the ability of education to contribute to
economic growth and equality of opportunity. Furthermore, they argue
increased expenditure in education does not necessarily improve educa-
tional standards or equality of opportunity, or, indeed, lead to improved
economic performance. The standard argument is that the education sys-
tem has performed badly despite absorbing increased state expenditure.
Sometimes, this argument has been supported by a manufactured dis-
course of ‘crisis’ – the crisis of educational standards, the crisis of teacher
education, the crisis of literacy.
The neoliberal discourse suggest that the reason education has per-
formed badly is because teachers and the educational establishment have
pursued their own self-interest rather than those of pupils and parents;
that is, they are not responsive enough to the market and consumer in-
terests. The discourse frames this by arguing, specifically, the education-
al system lacks a rigorous system of accountability. There is not enough
information for consumers to make intelligent choices and a lack of na-
tional monitoring so that consumers cannot compare the effectiveness of
schools. The main problem under welfare state according to the neoliber-
al discourse is that government intervention and control has interrupted
the ‘natural’ free-market contract between producer and consumer caus-
ing bureaucratic inflexibility, credential inflation and hence, education-
al inequality.
The policy solutions are prescribed by the logic of the market dis-
course. They fall out of the history of liberal political economy and the re-
cent revival of homo economicus as the main theoretical motivation for
neoliberal discourse. Break up and disestablish large state education bu-
reaucracies, introduce school governance with autonomous boards, and
competitive funding; re-evaluate the role of the State in the provision,
management and funding of education; introduce the merits of market or
quasi-market models relating to issues such as consumer choice in relation
65
with conservativism touting a moral conservativism that is anti-socialist,
anti-feminist and anti-immigrant.
Education as a Commodity
In terms of education the discourse of neoliberalism became a discourse
aimed at changing the prevailing discourse of public policy that devel-
oped after WWII as one derived from social welfare, state redistributive
policies, and social democracy. It aimed to convince voters that educa-
tion shares the main characteristics of other commodities traded in the
marketplace, and that it is not a ‘public good’. The benefits of education
accrue to individuals, it is argued. Often neoliberal have argued that we
have been too optimistic about the ability of education to contribute to
economic growth and equality of opportunity. Furthermore, they argue
increased expenditure in education does not necessarily improve educa-
tional standards or equality of opportunity, or, indeed, lead to improved
economic performance. The standard argument is that the education sys-
tem has performed badly despite absorbing increased state expenditure.
Sometimes, this argument has been supported by a manufactured dis-
course of ‘crisis’ – the crisis of educational standards, the crisis of teacher
education, the crisis of literacy.
The neoliberal discourse suggest that the reason education has per-
formed badly is because teachers and the educational establishment have
pursued their own self-interest rather than those of pupils and parents;
that is, they are not responsive enough to the market and consumer in-
terests. The discourse frames this by arguing, specifically, the education-
al system lacks a rigorous system of accountability. There is not enough
information for consumers to make intelligent choices and a lack of na-
tional monitoring so that consumers cannot compare the effectiveness of
schools. The main problem under welfare state according to the neoliber-
al discourse is that government intervention and control has interrupted
the ‘natural’ free-market contract between producer and consumer caus-
ing bureaucratic inflexibility, credential inflation and hence, education-
al inequality.
The policy solutions are prescribed by the logic of the market dis-
course. They fall out of the history of liberal political economy and the re-
cent revival of homo economicus as the main theoretical motivation for
neoliberal discourse. Break up and disestablish large state education bu-
reaucracies, introduce school governance with autonomous boards, and
competitive funding; re-evaluate the role of the State in the provision,
management and funding of education; introduce the merits of market or
quasi-market models relating to issues such as consumer choice in relation
65
