17325509 Assessment 1: Report Rebecca Wilman

ASSESSMENT 1: NEOLIBERALISM AND EDUCATION

Many education systems are experiencing the effects of neoliberal policies/programs. Your task is to use at least 8 unit
readings (the essential and extended readings) from Topics 1-5 and other credible sources to write a report into the topic of
neoliberalism and school education. You must demonstrate a critical awareness of ‘neoliberalism’ and its effects in the field
of education.

Introduction
According to Gobby, education occurs in the context of social, economic and political forces
(2018). With the rise of Neoliberalism or ‘new liberalism’, it has in multiple ways, changed the
directive of education through these very forces utilized to continue a revolution of Australia’s
education system (Rudd & Smith, 2007, p. 27). Increasingly, an awareness of neoliberal
education as a domain of contested policies, ideas and practices has ignited debate as to
whether these changes are indeed influencing a higher level of human capital. Through the
adoption of a critical lens, the effects of Neoliberalism will be discussed in this report with
reference to the increased accountability and performativity of principals, teachers and
students, resulting in what Neoliberalists claim are policies for an education reform (Rudd &
Smith, 2007, p. 27). In doing so, it also discusses increased marketization and issues
surrounding ‘schools of choice’ that governments and society have perpetuated with access to
the ‘my schools’ website. Including, how corporatisation has effected choice in the public,
independent and private sectors.

1. Neoliberalism in Education: The changing principles, practices and curriculum

Education has been profoundly influenced by the rise of a Neoliberal political, economic and
cultural agenda in the face of a perceived crisis in education (Connell, 2013 & Dinham, 2014).
Since the 1970’s, the principles of Neoliberalism have increasingly become entrenched in the
education of most Western societies (Welch, 2013; Mudge, 2008). These principles are
according to Foucault, driven by ‘modes of reason’ that are inherently economic and assume
17325509 Assessment 1: Report Rebecca Wilman

markets are an effective governance model linked to political rationality (Savage, 2017, p. 148).
This is compounded by the defining feature of neoliberalism, the aim to create an education
market that increases human capital; an economic driving force of Australia’s wealth (Savage,
2017, p. 148). This change in principle signalled a more in depth revival of Australia’s education
system based on economic ways of thinking that has prioritised economic goals and
competitiveness between Public, Independent and Private schooling today (Savage, 2017, p.
148). The ultimate aim is to increase competitiveness between schools and create a ‘choice’ for
parents to send their child to a perceived ‘better’ school that will educate them ‘better’ and
give them all the advantages of being knowledgeable. While this appears to be a very economic
pathway to increased human capital, how do those who are unable to compare schools based
on merit decide and eventually pay for this privilege that was once free in the public sector?

Neoliberalism observed from another critical lens, observes the shift in the fundamental
principle of education as a shift away from the best interests of the students in pursuit of a
failed model (Dinham, 2014). Dinham argues that originally the perceived problems
underpinning the ‘crisis’ in schooling such as ‘Public education is failing’ and “Private schools
are better than Public schools” are unconfirmed or disproved by research evidence, yet these
facts are disregarded in favour of deregulation, privatisation, corporatisation and ‘quick fix’
solutions seen in the United Kingdom (UK) and United States of America (USA); that according
to Dinham have negative effects on education (2014). This increase in Independent Public
Schools in response to the above issues has created challenges in schools such as increased
workload; and the added advantages over other schools in regards to funding, autonomy and
scope for innovation resulting in perceived higher student achievements and greater human
capital (Dinham, 2014). Concerns against this Neoliberalist practice are founded on the
evidence that independent schools exclude lower Socio-Economic Status (SES) students and
select those who can offer improved results, which ultimately works against ethnic and social
diversity and results in a cycle of segregation (Dinham, 2014).

Another important Neoliberalist principle that has changed education practice is the
economisation of the official curriculum (Savage, 2017, p. 156). The idea of schooling has been
17325509 Assessment 1: Report Rebecca Wilman

changing since the 1980’s and now includes new terms used to define the knowledge and skills
students learn (Savage, 2017, p. 156). Essentially, the curriculum has been reimagined and in
some instances transformed to conform to economic and market based forms of reason;
known as political rationality (Savage, 2017, pp 148-156). This has led to both positive and
negative reforms in a growing knowledge economy. Most notably is the creation of a Vocational
Education Training (VET) pathway which aligns with many students not willing or able to follow
an academic model and is remarkably proven to increase retention rates in high school and the
attainment of Tafe certificates needed for obtaining jobs (Savage, 2017, p. 157). As Australian
society seems to be split into three distinct bands, upper, middle and lower; the VET pathway
has unfortunately negatively affected those within by providing low level skills training that
marginalises post-school employment, regardless of the certificates attained. This division of
students has perpetuated a divided population, set up in a cycle of segregation and a continued
lack of acknowledgement (Savage, 2017, p. 158). It seems, no matter what choices politicians
make to improve Australian education, one social group is disadvantaged; perhaps a more
equitable ratio is needed.

2. Politics: Increased Accountability and performativity

Neoliberalism has most notably increased the accountability and performativity aspects of
teaching staff and principals alike. The driving factor behind this increase is the perception that
an increase in accountability will lead to increased performativity and evidence of this success
or failure is visible through standardised testing; that emphasises economic goals and priorities
(Walker & Gobby, 2017, p. 327). In response to this principle and practice, teachers are now
more than ever, increasingly being pressured to ‘teach to the test’ in order to raise the
standards of the school, rather than meeting the educational needs of the students. This has
become evident through educators learning to ‘game the system’ since the introduction of The
National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN), by the Rudd-Gillard
Government (Walker & Gobby, 2017, p. 329). Contrary to the Governments faith in NAPLAN,
further evidence based research that compares the educational achievements of many
17325509 Assessment 1: Report Rebecca Wilman

countries that have adopted the Global Education Reform Movement (GERM), shows a
consistent decline in performance since standardised testing was implemented and trust in
educators declined (Sahlberg, 2013a). GERM is essentially not achieving the Rudd-Gillard
Neoliberalist agenda and it seems that politicians are blind to the failures of a biased and
unequivocally trusted system that has omitted previous countries failures, so easily quantifiable
by testing (Dinham, 2014).

Not only has Neoliberalism’s use of GERM resulted in a decline in academic achievement by
the very testing system it has adopted. Neoliberalism has resulted in a decrease in teacher
satisfaction and belief in the current system due to the increased pressure of accountability
from principals and politicians (Stroud, 2016). The effects of being devalued coupled with
increased reporting and standardising of education; instead of being trusted to make
educational judgements has taken a toll.

“…My fire has turned to ash, burnt out from relentlessly keeping account when I should have been
teaching, reporting when I should have been listening, making standard when I should have been
making a difference.”

This account from the Griffith Review highlights the enormous effects Neoliberalism has had on
teachers and is only deepened by politicians restructuring schools towards becoming small
businesses competing for customers and profit (Stroud, 2016 & Dinham, 2014). Walker and
Gobby argue that while testing does give schools a snapshot of student’s deficits to target in
the future, it also reveals a great deal about the effects of government policies and the
increased socio-economic inequalities has on students learning (2017, pp 327-328). A sample
of experiences taken from a year three NAPLAN test in a higher SES school, claims over 70% of
the children described some form of anxiety in response to believing it was high-stakes for
grades or resented the test style (Howell, 2016, pp 179-169). The impact this has had on
student’s perception of self-worth is unconscionable. The negative audit centred culture of an
education based economic business model is perpetuating a cycle of low self-esteem in lower
SES schools (Howell, 2016 & Dinham, 2014). Figure 1 below is an example of this occurrence
17325509 Assessment 1: Report Rebecca Wilman

from a year five student in a low SES school highlighting resenting fears towards being
academically judged and compounds the impact high-stakes testing.

Figure 1: Response to high-stakes testing (Howell, 2016)

As schools are given more autonomy, such as in Independent Public Schools, the pressures of
accountability and performativity increases. The purpose of teaching has now effectively
changed from student centred culture to an audit centred culture (Dinham, 2014).

3. Quality vs Equity: Marketization & schools of choice

Marketization has been at the forefront of Neoliberalism agenda and furthers the notion that
education needs to be deregulated, privatised and open to market forces in order to succeed
(Dinham, 2014). Due to schools running as small businesses (corporatisation) and funding being
tied directly to student numbers, marketization has increasingly influenced a principals need to
uplift schools to new heights, that impresses and entices parents to send students to a
particular school; via advertising. This has for many years been the prerogative of private
17325509 Assessment 1: Report Rebecca Wilman

schooling, supported by the disproven perception that those schools are ‘better than public’
(Dinham, 2014). However, with the creation of independent public schools, competition
between schools and even suburbs has increasingly caused an exodus in public schools over to
the highly marketed Independent and Private options. Options that did not exist previously and
therefore, only now is evident of this unstable exodus causing public schools to be left with the
lowest SES students with perceived difficulties and high levels of Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander students (Windle, 2017, p. 176). According to Fitzgerald, Stacey, McGrath-Champ,
Parding, & Rainnie this is the opposite of what Independent Public schools were trying to
achieve as the Australian Government was claiming to “…create more diversity in the public
school system” (2017, p. 2). Instead, in figure 2, it appears that Australia’s socio-economic
divide is being increased into the three types of schooling where Public gets the greater amount
of lower SES; disproportionately divided.

Figure 2: Sector Shares of Students by SES Quintile (Windle, 2017, p. 176)

Supported by both major political parties, schools actively promote and advertise education
in an online marketplace were parents have greater choice (Proktor & Sriprakash, 2013).
Parents are now more that ever highly invested in advertised results on the ‘my school’ website
created by the Gillard Government and use economic and marketed ‘school choice’ when
sending their children to the ‘best school’ possible. While this does assist parents in finding
what the Government defines as a ‘quality school’, Proctor and Sriprakash (as cited in Connell
17325509 Assessment 1: Report Rebecca Wilman

et al., 2013, p. 231) argue that Independent and Private school costs are discriminatory and can
exclude students of lower SES. Furthermore, Windle and Forsey (2017, pp 177-179 & 2008) also
suggest students with higher SES have the advantage of choice, whereas students from lower
SES are further disadvantaged; especially in remote areas. This engagement in ‘school choice’
enabled by the ‘my schools’ website has reaffirmed the reality that some students have no
choice but to choose (Forsey, 2008).

Parents undoubtedly have been forever changed into becoming active educational agents or
‘tiger mums’ when committed to choosing a ‘quality school’. However, Sahlberg, Director of
Finland's education system argues that ‘school choice’ has created an inequitable education
system that disadvantages lower SES Students and advocates for an equitable system that does
not disadvantage; aiming to give schools different resources based on what students in those
schools need to succeed (Sahlberg, 2013b). The most effective way to interpret Sahlberg is
reflected in figure three, and reflects Finland’s success as an education system not based on a
GERM model.

Figure 3: Illustrating Equality VS Equity (Maguire, 2016)

Contrary to this different education style, Bottrell argues, how and what young people learn in
the Neoliberalist context may empower their ways of being and knowing (2014). Create a
sharing of information, feeling a sense of belonging, and the freedom to explore common
identities and experiences (Bottrell, 2014). However, he also admits that historical and
17325509 Assessment 1: Report Rebecca Wilman

emergent social inequities are infiltrating students’ lives and effecting communities (Bottrell,
2014). The challenge now is both schools and communities need to be responsible and
adaptable in the move towards inclusive education and a sustainable society (Bottrell, 2014).

Conclusion

The emergence and rise of Neoliberalism has resulted in a profound change in education. No
longer is education a complete student centred approach. Instead, it now focuses on an audit
culture that is perceived to increase human capital (Howell, 2016 & Dinham, 2014). Education
has been redesigned as a business operating in a competitive market with a key focus on high-
stakes testing that measures principals, teachers and student performances. Therefore,
educators are increasing becoming concerned about Neoliberal principles and practices which
have become embedded within the context of Australian education. Neoliberalism is most
noticeably continuing an increasingly inequitable society through changes to curriculum and
how it is delivered and accessed, accountability and performativity for all and increased
marketization and need for ‘school choice’. If these effects of Neoliberal education continues
unchanged, the most disadvantaged people in Australia will become increasingly segregated. It
is critical that Governments consider relevant policies seen to be quantifiably effective in
Finland’s education system and demonstrate effective use of resources to ensure a more
equitable society for all.

Word count: 2215

17325509 Assessment 1: Report Rebecca Wilman

References

Bottrell, D. (2014). Schools and communities fit for purpose. In Proctor, H., Brownless, P., &
Freebody, P. (eds). Controversies in education:orthodoxy and heresy in policy and
practice (27-38). Springer: Dordecht
Connell, R. (2013). The neoliberal cascade and education: an essay on the market agenda and
its consequences, Critical Studies in Education, 54:2, 99-112. Retrieved from
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080%2F17508487.2013.
776990
Dinham, S. (2014). The worst of both worlds: How the US and UK are influencing education in
Australia. 2014 Walter Neal Oration. Australian College of Educators. Perth.
Fitzgerald, S., Stacey, M., McGrath-Champ, S., Parding, K., & Rainnie, A. (2017). Devolution,
market dynamics and the Independent Public School initiative in Western Australia:
'winning back' what has been lost? Journal of education policy, Online First, 1-20.
Forsey, M. (2008). No choice but to choose: selecting schools in Western Australia. In M.
Forsey, S. Davies, & G. Walford (Eds.), The globalisation of school choice? (pp. 73-93).
Oxford: Symposium Books.
Gobby, B. (2016). Cultural contexts in primary education [ilecture]. Retrieved from
https://echo.ilecture.curtin.edu.au:8443/ess/echo/presentation/36e656cc-7b67-4745-
b264-93b515881dec?ec=true
Howell, A. (2016). Exploring children's lived experiences of NAPLAN. In B. Lingard, G. Thompson,
& S. Sellar. (2016). National testing in Schools: An Australian Assessment. (pp. 164-180).
Oxon: Routledge.
Maguire, A. (2016). Illustrating Equality VS Equity. Interaction Institute for Social Change
[image]. Retrieved from http://interactioninstitute.org/illustrating-equality-vs-equity/
Mudge, S.L. (2008). What is neo-liberalism? Socio-Economic Review, 6(4), 703-731. DOI:
10.1093/ser/mwn016
Proctor, H. & Sriprakash, A. (2013). School systems and school choice. In R. Connell, A. Welch,
M. Vickers, & D. Foley (Eds.), Education, change and society (pp. 213-233). South
Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
Rudd,K. & Smith S. (2007). The Australian Economy Needs and Education Revolution. Retrieved
from
http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22library
%2Fpartypol%2F181M6%22
17325509 Assessment 1: Report Rebecca Wilman

Sahlberg, P. (2013a). 4 test based accountability v high trust. [video]. Retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLs2upXBVxaGl4_mSoz0jkNOIHm0PS1eIc&time_
continue=5&v=JSdR5vcVI0g
Sahlberg, P. (2013b). 3 school choice v equity. [video]. Retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trRX9Q9DA18&index=3&list=PLs2upXBVxaGl4_mS
oz0jkNOIHm0PS1eIc
Savage, G. (2017). Neoliberalism, education and curriculum. In B. Gobby & R. Walker (eds).
Powers of curriculum: Sociological perspectives on education (pp. 142-165). South
Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
Stroud, G. J. (2016). Teaching Australia: Fight or flight? Griffith review 51(1), 228-237.
Walker, R. & Gobby, B. (2017). Testing times for assessment and pedagogy. In B. Gobby & R.
Walker (eds). Powers of curriculum: Sociological perspectives on education (pp. 322-
349). South Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
Welch, A. (2013). Making education policy. In R. Connell, A. Welch, M. Vickers, D. Foley, N.
Bagnall, D. Hayes, H. Proctor, A. Sriprakash and C. Campbell, Education, Change and
Society, (3rd ed., pp.186-212). South Melbourne: Oxford University Press. Retrieved
from
http://curtin.eblib.com.au.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=1986002
Windle, J. (2017). The education system and SES: Mapping disadvantage. In B. Gobby & R.
Walker. (eds). Powers of curriculum: Sociological perspectives on education. (pp. 169-
192). South Melbourne: Oxford University Press.