Page 8 - Šolsko polje, XXIX, 2018, no. 1-2: The Language of Neoliberal Education, ed. Mitja Sardoč
P. 8
šolsko polje, letnik xxix, številka 1–2
in economic performance]. This assumption – most visible in studies dis-
cussing international large-scale student assessments, e.g. PISA etc. – has
brought to the forefront of both media and political attention the vari-
ous aspects of teaching and learning. Large-scale assessments and quanti-
tative data in general have thus become an important mechanism of the
‘neo-liberal toolkit’ associated with the process of ‘governing by numbers’
(Grek, 2007).
While the analysis of the neoliberal agenda in education is well doc-
umented (e.g. d’Agnese, 2017; Giroux, 2014; Olssen, 2010; Peters, 2011),
the examination of the language of neoliberal education has been at the
fringes of scholarly interest (Holborow, 2015). In particular, the expan-
sion of the neoliberal vocabulary with egalitarian ideas such as fairness
(Bøyum, 2014), justice and disadvantage (Gazeley, 2018), well-being etc.
has received [at best] only limited attention. For example, one of the lat-
est additions to the neoliberal vocabulary has been the idea of talent. For
much of its history, the notion of talent has been associated with the idea
of ‘careers open to talent’. Its emancipatory promise of upward social mo-
bility has ultimately radically transformed the distribution of advantaged
social positions and has had a lasting influence on the very idea of social
status itself. Nevertheless, despite its emancipatory link with the equali-
ty of opportunity and social mobility itself, the notion of talent came to
be affiliated also with some of the most pressing contemporary issues as-
sociated with (in)equality including the ‘ownership’ of talents (Goldman,
1987), desert (Sher, 2012), brain drain (Brock in Blake, 2015), ‘war for tal-
ent’ (Michaels, Handfield-Jones in Axelrod, 2001), talent management
(Lewis i& Heckman, 2006), ‘taxation’ of talents (Hasen, 2006; Roemer,
1996 [ch. 6]; Zelenak, 2006) etc.
This shift of emphasis in the use and application of language and
ideas firmly grounded in some of the well-known slogans (and other buz-
zwords) has had a transformative influence on our way of thinking about
public policy in general. Yet, this shift of emphasis from concepts and ide-
as that are part of the ‘standard’ vocabulary of neoliberal education, e.g.
effectiveness, efficiency, commodification, privatization, deregulation etc.
to concepts and ideas that are part of a more egalitarian vocabulary, not
only put large-scale assessments and quantitative data as its main product
at the very centre of education policy-making but – perhaps equally im-
portant – has had a profound effect on education in general.
This journal special issue of Šolsko polje entitled ‘The Language of
Neoliberal Education’ brings together both conceptual and empirical pa-
pers as well as an interview that addresses a wide range of problems and
challenges associated with the language of neoliberalism in education
6
in economic performance]. This assumption – most visible in studies dis-
cussing international large-scale student assessments, e.g. PISA etc. – has
brought to the forefront of both media and political attention the vari-
ous aspects of teaching and learning. Large-scale assessments and quanti-
tative data in general have thus become an important mechanism of the
‘neo-liberal toolkit’ associated with the process of ‘governing by numbers’
(Grek, 2007).
While the analysis of the neoliberal agenda in education is well doc-
umented (e.g. d’Agnese, 2017; Giroux, 2014; Olssen, 2010; Peters, 2011),
the examination of the language of neoliberal education has been at the
fringes of scholarly interest (Holborow, 2015). In particular, the expan-
sion of the neoliberal vocabulary with egalitarian ideas such as fairness
(Bøyum, 2014), justice and disadvantage (Gazeley, 2018), well-being etc.
has received [at best] only limited attention. For example, one of the lat-
est additions to the neoliberal vocabulary has been the idea of talent. For
much of its history, the notion of talent has been associated with the idea
of ‘careers open to talent’. Its emancipatory promise of upward social mo-
bility has ultimately radically transformed the distribution of advantaged
social positions and has had a lasting influence on the very idea of social
status itself. Nevertheless, despite its emancipatory link with the equali-
ty of opportunity and social mobility itself, the notion of talent came to
be affiliated also with some of the most pressing contemporary issues as-
sociated with (in)equality including the ‘ownership’ of talents (Goldman,
1987), desert (Sher, 2012), brain drain (Brock in Blake, 2015), ‘war for tal-
ent’ (Michaels, Handfield-Jones in Axelrod, 2001), talent management
(Lewis i& Heckman, 2006), ‘taxation’ of talents (Hasen, 2006; Roemer,
1996 [ch. 6]; Zelenak, 2006) etc.
This shift of emphasis in the use and application of language and
ideas firmly grounded in some of the well-known slogans (and other buz-
zwords) has had a transformative influence on our way of thinking about
public policy in general. Yet, this shift of emphasis from concepts and ide-
as that are part of the ‘standard’ vocabulary of neoliberal education, e.g.
effectiveness, efficiency, commodification, privatization, deregulation etc.
to concepts and ideas that are part of a more egalitarian vocabulary, not
only put large-scale assessments and quantitative data as its main product
at the very centre of education policy-making but – perhaps equally im-
portant – has had a profound effect on education in general.
This journal special issue of Šolsko polje entitled ‘The Language of
Neoliberal Education’ brings together both conceptual and empirical pa-
pers as well as an interview that addresses a wide range of problems and
challenges associated with the language of neoliberalism in education
6
