Page 7 - Šolsko polje, XXIX, 2018, no. 1-2: The Language of Neoliberal Education, ed. Mitja Sardoč
P. 7
The Language of Neoliberal Education:
Problems, Challenges and Opportunities
Mitja Sardoč
For over two decades now, neoliberalism has been at the forefront of
discussions not only in economy and finance but has gradually infil-
trated our vocabulary in a number of areas as diverse as governance
studies (Wacquant, 2009), criminology (Bell, 2011), health care (Glynos,
2014), jurisprudence (Grewal & Purdy, 2014), identity politics (Chun,
2016), education (Grek, 2009) etc. Its economistic language associated
with the promotion of effectiveness and efficiency combined with indica-
tors and other empirical data claimed to have established a ‘culture of ob-
jectivity’ (Porter, 1995). As Christopher W. Chun emphasizes,
[n]eoliberal policies and practices have attempted to remake our every-
day lives so that every aspect is minutely measured, assessed and evalu-
ated as ‘outputs’, in accordance with manufacturing-based standards of
production, and defined as ‘best practices’, which is another term adopt-
ed from corporate culture now widely used in education. (Chun, 2016:
558).
In fact, education has been at the very centre of the neoliberal pub-
lic policy agenda as it allegedly represents one of the main indicators of
future economic growth and individual well-being. Its – for many schol-
ars dystopian – ‘vision’ of education as an investment is based on a [deter-
ministic] assumption that ‘better educational outcomes are a strong pre-
dictor of economic growth’ (OECD, 2010: 3). Pupils’ achievements is said
to represent an indicator of the ‘future talent pools’ (PISA, 2012: 26) and
should therefore be a valid or sufficient indicator of the [economic] success
in the future [assumption of the translatability of learning achievements
5
Problems, Challenges and Opportunities
Mitja Sardoč
For over two decades now, neoliberalism has been at the forefront of
discussions not only in economy and finance but has gradually infil-
trated our vocabulary in a number of areas as diverse as governance
studies (Wacquant, 2009), criminology (Bell, 2011), health care (Glynos,
2014), jurisprudence (Grewal & Purdy, 2014), identity politics (Chun,
2016), education (Grek, 2009) etc. Its economistic language associated
with the promotion of effectiveness and efficiency combined with indica-
tors and other empirical data claimed to have established a ‘culture of ob-
jectivity’ (Porter, 1995). As Christopher W. Chun emphasizes,
[n]eoliberal policies and practices have attempted to remake our every-
day lives so that every aspect is minutely measured, assessed and evalu-
ated as ‘outputs’, in accordance with manufacturing-based standards of
production, and defined as ‘best practices’, which is another term adopt-
ed from corporate culture now widely used in education. (Chun, 2016:
558).
In fact, education has been at the very centre of the neoliberal pub-
lic policy agenda as it allegedly represents one of the main indicators of
future economic growth and individual well-being. Its – for many schol-
ars dystopian – ‘vision’ of education as an investment is based on a [deter-
ministic] assumption that ‘better educational outcomes are a strong pre-
dictor of economic growth’ (OECD, 2010: 3). Pupils’ achievements is said
to represent an indicator of the ‘future talent pools’ (PISA, 2012: 26) and
should therefore be a valid or sufficient indicator of the [economic] success
in the future [assumption of the translatability of learning achievements
5
