1

Education Reform and Philosophy of Education:

Taking a closer look at the Regime re-definingeducation, knowledge and human beings

Mina O’Dowd

Lund University, Sweden

Paper presented at the International Seminar on thePhilosophy of Education hosted by the Azim PremjiUniversity in Bangalore, India on January 23, 2013.

Introduction

International Organizations (IO) have increasingly grownin power and importance, not least as regards theirinfluence on education. Included in this term are suchorganizations as Organisation for Economic Cooperationand Development (OECD), United Nations Scientific andCultural Organisation (UNESCO), the World TradeOrganisation (WTO), the European Union (EU), theEuropean Commission and its many directories and theWorld Bank. In this context, the following definitionsof regimes are used: “Regimes are sets of implicit orexplicit principles, norms, rules and decision-makingprocedures around which actor’s expectations converge ina given area of international relations” (Krasner, 1983,p. 1). Of interest in this context is Young’s definitionof regimes as “social institutions governing the actionsof those involved in specifiable activities or set ofactivities” (Young, 1989, p.62). It is generallyacknowledged that a regime entails some principles,norms or rules and that these form the “intrinsicfeatures of a regime, while the conventions anddecision-making procedures would be subsidiary featuresthat could change without affecting the essence of thoseinstitutions” (de Senarclens, 2001, p. 456). Given that

1

2

the above organizations, through funding, programs andpolicy, influence national and global policy andpractices, it is argued here that they indirectly exertinfluence on international relations.

We maintain here that each of these InternationalOrganizations (IOs) constitute a regime in and ofitself, according to the definitions above. In otherwords, each IO has its own sets of principles, norms orrules and the IO itself is an institution that strivesto govern “the actions of those involved in specifiableactivities or set of activities”. If, for the sake ofargument, we even maintain that these IOs functiontogether and in collaboration and co-operation with oneanother, which seems to be a fair assumption, we mighteven stretch ourselves to maintain that taken together,these IOs constitute one powerful regime, with similargoals and expectations, especially as regards education,the topic of our concern. If we accept this assumption,we can go on to identify the common goals as regardseducation that characterize this one Regime. An attemptwill be made in the following to do so. Finally thiscommon goal will be discussed from a philosophicalperspective.

Background

Today such phrases as “the knowledge society”, “theknowledge economy” and “the learning economy” havebecome so commonplace that little attention is given totheir origin or to their meaning. These metaphenomenaare constructions and are part of a thick discourse, adiscourse that is characterized by a common theoreticalstarting point, an economic perspective on humandevelopment. Underlying this discourse is the use of thesame theoretical perspective, that of human capitaltheory.

A brief history of Human Capital theory

2

3

Gillies (2011) argues that Human Capital Theory cantoday be considered “one of the most powerful theoriesin modern economics.” The importance of this theory canbe seen in such phrases as those above, especially thephrase “knowledge economy”, which underlines a maintenant of Human Capital Theory (HCT), the link betweeneducation and training and economic growth. Fägerlindand Saha (1989) describe Theodore Schultz’s presidentialaddress to the American Economic Association on December28, 1960 on the theme of “Investment in Human Capital”as “[o]ne of the first systemic articulations of humancapital theory” (Fägerlind & Saha, 1989, p. 18). Sobelrefers to this occasion as the inauguration as “thehuman investment revolution in economic thought” (Sobel,1978, p. 268 cited in Baptiste, 2001, p. 185).

In this widely cited address Schultz statedthat education was not to be viewed simplyas a form of consumption but rather as aproductive investment. He argued thateducation does not only improve theindividual choices available to men, butthat an educationed population provides thetype of labor force necessary forindustrial development and economic growth…As with modernization theory, human capitaltheory provided a basic justification forlarge public expenditures on education bothin developed and developing countries(Fägerlind & Saha, 1989, p. 18).

Human capital theory met with opposition, especially inthe work of Jencks et al. (1972, 1979), but also in thework of Fägerlind (1975). Among the criticism directedtowards HTC the following can be noted: “the theory’soverly mechanistic, one-dimensional view of humanbeings; its narrow understanding of labor; its use ofcorrelational data to establish cause; theinconclusiveness of its empirical evidence; and the

3

4

insurmountable methodological hurdles associated withcalculating returns on education investment” (Baptiste,2001, p. 198). Criticism was also directed toward “thetheory’s ominous societal impact, for instance, itsexacerbation of social inequalities, its development ofunderdevelopment, “scholarization”, and its blaming ofthe victims” (Berg, 1970; Blaug, 1970; Bluestone, 1977;Carnoy, 1977; Frank,1984, 1989; Marginson, 1993; Paci,1977; Samoff, 1994; Thurow, 1977, 1983) (Baptiste, 2001,195). Notwithstanding the criticism aimed at humancapital theory, the role that it has played in broachingthe topic of a causal link between education anddevelopment and maintaining it for years should not beunderestimated. Besides Schultz, Denison (1962) andBecker (1962,), among others, have been implementary insustaining faith in this link.

Both Theordore Schultz and Gary Becker were associatedwith “the ‘Chicago School’ of neo-liberal thought”(Gillies, 2011. P. 225) and both were awarded the NobelPrize for Economics1 . However, the first to mint theconcept was another American economist, Jacob Mincer,who published a journal article in 1958 entitledInvestment in Human Capital and Personal IncomeDistribution. After being met with “a flurry ofacademic, political, and economic activity throughoutthe 1960s” the theory lost some of its impact, “beforere-emerging with significant vigour in the last 20years” (Gillies, 2011, p. 225). This re-emergence can beattributed to the influence of Ronald Reagan and MargretThatcher, who championed HCT. Becker’s contribution toHCT is his addition of rational choice theory, by whichhe claimed that all decisions are based on economiccriteria.

Becker’s analysis shifted paradigmaticallyfrom economics in terms of a relational

1 Theordore Schultz was awarded the Nobel Prize for Economics in 1979 and Gary Becker in 1992.

4

5

mechanism between things or processeswithin a social structure, to the analysisof an activity---the internal rationalitygoverning an individual’s choices andbehaviour (Gillies, 2011, p. 227).

Essentially there are two key features of the theory.The first is the assumption that there is a causalrelationship between education and development, i.e.that “wage differentials or income distribution can becausally connected to education” (Gillies, 2011, p.225). Shultz himself describes Human Capital theory inthe following terms: “I propose to treat education as aninvestment in man and to treat its consequences as aform of capital. Since education becomes part of theperson receiving it, I shall refer to it as humancapital” (Shultz, 1960, p. 571) cited in Gillies, 2011,p. 226). The second feature of human capital theory,advanced by Schultz (1961, 1962) and expanded on byBecker (2002a, 2000b) is that, even if education is anindividual investment, the cumulative effect ofindividual investments in education will directly affectthe national economy. Or as Gillies explains thisfeature: “Just as individual choices about education andtraining could be understood in relation to judgmentsabout likely returns on such investment, so at thenational level the education system could be justifiedin light of the likely returns in the form of economicgrowth” (Gillies, 2011, p. 226). Baptiste adds that HCTrests on “three pillars: maximizing behavior, marketequilibrium and stable preference” (Baptiste, 2001,191). In short these three pillars imply that 1) humanbeings only engage in behaviors from which they derivethe maximum benefit, according to Bruner ( 1990, p. 28);and that 2) the only recognized regulatory system isthat of a free and competitive market and that3)“people’s desires “do not change substantially overtime, nor are they very different between wealthy orpoor persons, or even between persons in different

5

6

societies or culture” (Becker, 1977, p. 5) cited inBaptiste, 2001, p 192).

The first key feature of HCT was severely criticized byAdams:

The causal relationship between education anddevelopment became accepted by academics andpolicy-makers in the late 1950s and early1960s. Supported by the publications andfunding programs of OECD and UNESCO,education came to be viewed almost withoutquestion as an important, and indeed‘crucial’, agent for the rapid economicgrowth of nations. The degree of theoreticalconviction was so high, while the level ofempirical evidence was so scant, that thebelief in the benefits of education has beencalled “one of the most romantic tales of thecentury (Adams, 1990, p. 300).

Notwithstanding this critic, HTC maintains a strongtheoretical hold on education. However, HTC has changedover the years since its introduction in the 1960s. Itsexpansion has been encouraged by the OECD, which, notonly supported the inclusion of technology, but alsoincorporated elements of screening theory:

Like Schultz (1975) and Wozniak (1984), theOECD argued that education is not the onlyfactor in determining income, as the earliervariant implied, but that the relationshipis especially mediated by availabletechnology. Furthermore, the OECDincorporated elements of the screeninghypothesis into its revised model. Unlikeits earlier framers, the OECD contended thateducation and training perform importantscreening functions that are likely to

6

7

positively affect worker productivityregardless of whether or not the trainingprovides specific, job-related skills. Thekey, according to the OECD, appears to bethe ability of workers to cope withtechnological changes and to turn them intoadvantages in the future. The OECD believedthat education, through its screeningfunction, streamlines the available pool offlexible and adaptable workers andconsequently enhances the efficiency of boththe recruitment and production processes(Marginson, 1993; Organization for EconomicCo-operation and Development, 1985, 1986a,1986b, 1986c).

Given the above, it can come as no surprise that such anew concept as “employability” has entered both the “EUspeak” and numerous IO’s policies and programs. Thesharp focus on the needs of the labor market has, forall intents and purposes, displaced the needs ofindividuals, societies and social and cultural groups,classes and genders.

Baptiste (2001) summarizes the version of Human Capitaltheory that is in use today in the following manner:“the contemporary version of human capital theorydiffers from its predecessors in three importantrespects: (a) it incorporates technology as a factorthat mediates the relationship between human capital andproductivity, (b) itintegrates elements of the screening hypothesis, and (c)it advocates private over public investment ineducation” (Baptiste, 2001, p. 189). Not only does HCTcontinue to prescribe the agenda for education andeducation reform, it does so, through the particular wayof seeing education that it represents. “The theorypositions actors in a particular way, understandingthemselves and acting on themselves, and others, as

7

8

‘human capital’. This is central to neoliberalgovernmentality and the notion of the self asenterprise” (Foucault, 2005; Rose, 1999; Miller & Rose,2008)” (Gillies, 2011, p. 228).

Contextualizing human capital theory in IO strategiesAmong the numerous contexts in which HCT is present andconstitutive are strategies/programs such as LifelongLearning, and the EU’s Bologna process, which will bebriefly discussed below.

Lifelong learning

Focusing on lifelong learning as a strategy Coffield(1999) summarized its characteristics in the followingmanner:

• It focuses attention on education investments, rather than on structural failures and injustices and blames the victims for their poverty (Karabel &Halsey, 1997; Hewison et al, 1998, cited in Coffield, 1999) and places responsibility for educational failure on learners, rather than on education systems, education policy and practices;

• It has serious theoretical and empirical flaws (Levin & Kelley, 1997);

• It lacks a sense of history and an awareness of “the maintenance of particular gendered power relations in the workplace” (Blackmore, 1997, p. 233 cited in Coffield, 1999;

• It has a “fundamental weakness”, as it regards “human capital as a “thing” to be acquired and utilized alongside other factor inputs”, ignoring “the social context of skills and of technology” (Ashton & Green, 1996, p. 17 cited in Coffield, 1999) ;

• It creates credential inflation;• It deflects interest and awareness from a discourse

on social justice and social cohesion.

8

9

It should be noted that LLL, in its present guise, does not resemble Life Long learning as it was originally conceptualized as utopianism (See O’Dowd, 2009a) for discussion of LifeLong Learning as Utopianism.

EU’s Bologna process

In the European Union, the Bologna process has radicallyre-defined education, starting with higher education.The Bologna Declaration specified the creation of amobile European Higher Education Area (EHAE) to beaccomplished by 2010. It aims to achieve this goalthrough the use of three instruments in particular,i.e., the introduction of the three-cycle system,Quality Assurance and recognition of qualifications andperiods of study (EU, 2008a). Through these threeinstruments, the re-construction of higher education isto be accomplished, it is maintained, transforming HE inEurope into a transparent, standardized system that willfurther the aims of the Community, as specified in theLisbon agenda, i.e., “becoming the most dynamic,competitive knowledge-based economy in the world,capable of sustained growth, with more and better jobsand greater social cohesion” (Dale, 2006, p. 29).Through these three instruments, competitiveness isfurthered the master discourse.

According to Keeling (2006), what we are experiencing inEurope is the construction of a hegemonic discourse onhigher education with the following characteristics:higher education is purposeful, it leads somewhere, it is aninherently productive activity, the outcomes of which aremeasureable, while higher education itself is economicallybeneficial (Keeling, 2006, p. 209). Indeed, this discoursehas affected the way in which all education is viewed.Wain maintains that “the discourse of performativity hasinfiltrated the world of education at all levels, thatit has become the dominant discourse in Europe and that,notwithstanding protestations to the contrary, it

9

10

largely informs the EU’s lifelong learning agenda whichhas, over recent years, very significantly, abandonedthe socially oriented notion of the learning society andreplaced it with the technocratic notion of a knowledge-based society” (Wain, 2006, p. 108).

In short, education has been re-defined, or as Harrisputs it: It has become “impoverished” by its re-definition in terms of learning. “Learning is valued forits contribution to the preservation and growth of thelearning capacity…while little meaning is attached tothe meaning of individual’s life…The value of educationas important in itself is not recognized. There is norecognition of the purpose of education as a means ofquestioning the self and society. There is no space tothink about difference and what it means in a globalisedeconomy” (Harris, 2007, p. 354). Harris goes on todescribe the effects of what Wain terms performativity:“knowledge has been reduced to information. Instrumentalreasoning, new regimes of accountability, and strictadherence to the economic imperative”, not onlycharacterise higher education, but increasinglyinfluence an understanding of what education is and whatits goals are. This re-definition is furthered by a“measurable input-output model of education” with“unambiguous aims and objectives, learning outcomes anda transparent assessment system”, which are all featuresof a pervasive education model, a model whichperpetuates a view of education as instrumentalism”(Harris, 207, p. 349).

Why the fuss? What, exactly, is the problem with Human Capital theory?

In recent times, the definition of humancapital has widened somewhat so that it isnot simply knowledge or skills but also‘competencies’, ‘attributes’, and‘attitudes’ such as ‘reliability, honesty,

10

11

self-reliance, and individualresponsibility’(Becker 2002b, p. 6).Education remains centre stage, however, asthe key factor in forming such humancapital, which itself remains crucial for‘economic success’ (Gurria 2007). (Gillies,2011, p. 246).

Despite much research over the years, which contradictedits postulates, human capital theory has managed tosurvive. Coffield provides the following answer to theimportant question, “If the thesis is so poor, why is itso popular? “. His answer focuses on four main reasonsfor its “invulnerability to criticism”:

• ”it legitimates increased expenditures on education; human capital theory flourished in the USA because it offered “quantitative justification for vast public expenditures on education” (Karabel& Halsey, 1997 cited in Coffield, 1997, pp. 486);

• “it provides politicians with the pretext for action: “politicians exalt educational reform because they believe they see in it unusual opportunities for acting both decisively and nationally. They then tend to greatly over-estimatethe problems which more effective schooling would alleviate or solve” (Edward, 1998, p. 144 cited in Coffield, 1999, p. 486);

• Strategies such as lifelong learning, supported by IOs and national governments, based theoretically on human capital theory, ”deflect attention from the need for economic and social reform”; “divert attention away from more fundamental causes of low productivity” and “convert deep-seated economic problems into short-lived educational projects” (Coffield, 1999, p. 486);

• Polarization has received little attention, according to the critics of human capital theory.

11

12

Indeed, these critics maintain that human capital theory is incapable of taking polarization into account. Polarization in income and wealth is not dealt with internationally (Castels, 1998) or in Britain (Rowntree Report, 1995, 1996). Indeed, it is maintained that performance indicators function to increase polarization (Robinson & Oppenheim, 1998), constructing “educational apartheid” (Walden, 1996) in cities in Britain, and creating “a sharp divide between valuable and not-valuable people and locales” (Castells, 1998, p. 161). As a result, what we are left with is “ a fundamental split in societies all over the world: on the one hand, active, culturally self-defined elites …on the other hand, increasingly uncertain, insecure, social groups, deprived of information, resources and power, digging their trenches of resistance” (Castells, 1998, p. 340).

• “it offers the comforting illusion that for every complex problem there is one single solution”: “To many politicians and policy-makers the “seductive appeal” of this approach at a time of economic uncertainly” offers the illusion of control and managerial solutions” (Hodkinson et al., 1996, p. 138 cited in Coffield, 1999, p. 486).

The key point, however, is that HTC “diminishes theconcept of the human and it diminishes the concept ofeducation”, according to Gillies (2011, p. 234). Overand above re-definition of education in terms ofinstrumentality and performativity, HCT focuses on “thehuman as an individual unit and on education as solely amatter of individual choices”, according to Brown,Lauder & Ashton, 2007, p. 132 cited in Gillies, 2001, p.235). Social and structural inequality anddiscrimination on the basis of race, religion or genderis ignored in HCT, which attributes lack of success or

12

13

accomplishment to individual shortcomings. If we acceptthat HCT can and does promote economic growth, thequestion remains. What is economic growth good for?:

The theory essentially makes an abruptstop at this point as if economic growthwere an end in itself. It is this gap thatmeans that issues around education andvalues re-emerge as crucial (Sen, 1999).Even if economic growth is accepted as a‘good’, it remains to be argued what it isgood for (Galbraith, 1999, . 69; Weiss,1995, p. 151; Ozga & Lingard, 2007, p. 68;Rizvi & Lindgard, 2010, p. 81) (Gillies,2011, p. 236).

Other understandings of education and “the human”

From the perspective of critical pedagogy, Buras & Apple(2008,p. 31) argue that education is necessarily utopianand that anti-utopianism, such as that advanced by neo-conservatives in the USA, robs education of its goal ofpersonal, social and cultural transformation, which givesit its legitimacy. Understanding oneself and one’sposition in the world and in relation to others is one ofthe main tasks of education, as is instilling anunderstanding of “the infinite process of struggle”,which can not only transform education, but “educate allof us about the “great things that can happen when youfight for what is right” and look at the world through athird set of eyes” (Buras & Apple, 2008: 31). Knowledgeand understanding cannot be seen as two separateprocesses. They do not bear any resemblance toinformation, nor do they lend themselves well to

13

14

“instrumental reasoning, new regimes of accountability,and strict adherence to the economic imperative”. Mostimportantly “academic subjects and high status knowledge…is essential for traditionally marginalized students ina world where epistemology and stratification are closelylinked” (ibid: 297):

At the very same time, suchknowledge needs to be organisedcritically and connected to thepressing problems faced by thosewho have the least amount ofeconomic and cultural power (Buras& Apple, 2008).

The emancipatory power of education is not anunimportant issue, although there are those who wish usto view education as a “cognitive-technical processthrough which factual content is transmitted” (Buras &Apple, 2008: 297). The similarity between this view andthe recently published EU definition of knowledge oughtnot to be considered coincidental2. Against this viewof education and knowledge is placed the vital rolleducation plays to instil hope, where there is none, toprovide understanding in the face of ignorance, toprovide the tools for living with others and envisioninga better world for us all. This is a utopian view ofeducation.

With education undergoing a redefinition andreconceptualization as instrumentalism andperformativity (O’Dowd 2009a, 2009b), voices can beheard of those who reject this perception of the goals

2 ”Knowledge” means the outcome of the assimilation of information through learning. Knowledge is the body of facts, principles, theories and practices that is related to a field of work or study. (EQF 2008: 11).

14

15

and purpose of education (Harris 2007; Buras and Apple,2008; Standish, 2008; O’Dowd 2009a, 2009b), whileexpressing concern for the practice of education and thetraining of future generations. Expressing his concernwith “the importance of questions of naming” withreference to new philosophies of learning, Standish(2008, p. 352) states that there is reason “to questionhow far accounts of emotional intelligence, well-beingand self-esteem, fight shy of direct considerations ofethical matters, becoming in the process a conceptualmuddle and offering no more than a panacea.” In the wakeof new learning philosophies, Standish sees asinevitable the categorizing of people as a result of thenew learning becoming “jargon.” Suggesting that the useof such familiar terms as “intelligent” or “non-intelligent,” as “normal” or “abnormal,” can lead toeducational deprivation, Standish asks: “whatimpoverishments may that new jargon hold in store?” Inthe USA Buras & Apple (2008) criticize “theunimaginative emphasis of neoconservatives on enforcingacademic standards while dismissing the difficult butessential work of debating whose standards count (and towhich effect) is narrow and politically naïve” (Buras &Apple, 2008. p.297).

In the European tradition, bildung has a special place.For many, the purpose of education is just bildung.

Bildung is one of those German words forwhich there is no English translation. Itmeans not just education, but cultivation,with the connotation of appropriating theculture of one’s time so as to become aself-determining individual sharing inresponsibility for the maintenance of theculture of the community. To acquireBildung means to be free, not so much byhaving choices, but by knowing what one

15

16

must do by acts of self-determination(Blunden, 2011, p.2).

In the context of Sweden, with which I am most familiar,bildung is termed bildning and forms the core of the term foreducation, utbildning. The Swedish word bildning is derivedfrom the German word bildung and has similar connotations. Itsignifies a broad understanding of the core of education---toenhance, to enrich and to develop. It is a humanistic view ofthe purpose of education, which broadens the scope of theeducational process by broadening the purpose of education. Theimage that bildning brings forth is that of a highly importantendeavor in which human traits, depths and understandings arenurtured and cultivated for the good, not only of the individual,but for the greater good of humanity. This is the purpose ofeducation.

One important question remains. What is “the human”? It isproposed herein that “the human” is closely linked to theconcept of bildung above. “The human” is a social being whoassumes responsibility for “the maintenance of the culture ofthe community in which she/he lives”, where ever that may be.It is suggested here that “the human” is a socio-culturalconstruction that is not universal, but highly dependent on thecontext in which it exists. As “the human” is dynamic and in aconstant state of change, education of the human must take thisinto consideration. Universal recipes, standards andmeasurements that disregard the contextual nature of “thehuman” are not considered relevant, appropriate or acceptable,but “impoverishing”. Even assuming, as does HCT, that humanpreferences do not change over a life time, but remain constantand stable is a misrepresentation of “the human” and thepurpose of education.

Schultz’s original thesis that “education becomes part of theperson receiving it” describes education as a process affecting

16

17

a passive recipient who uncritically accepts the “education”she/he receives and makes it a part of her/himself. Thisperception of education as a process of passive inculcationfits well with the perception of “the human” as an uncriticalconsumer. It also fits well with the EU definition ofknowledge: “Knowledge” means the outcome of the assimilation ofinformation through learning. Knowledge is the body of facts,principles, theories and practices that is related to a field of workor study” (EQF 2008, p. 11). In this definition the use of theword “assimilation” is noteworthy, when viewed in relation toPiaget’s theory of learning. In short, Piaget maintains thatlearning occurs through cognitive constructivism that involvesprocesses of assimilation and accommodation. With assimilationnew information is easily accepted and fits into the learner’sexisting scheme. New information that does not fit intoexisting schemes requires of the learner that she/he modifiesher/him existing scheme in order to “make it a part ofher/himself”, in order to accept the new information. Throughassimilation, “surface” learning occurs, while throughaccommodation that which is referred to as “deep” learningoccurs (Marton & Säljö, 1976). What is important to note isthat 1) learning through assimilation does not require changeof existing schemes; 2) “a surface approach involves minimumengagement with the task, typically a focus on memorization orapplying procedures that do not involve reflection, and usuallyan intention to gain a passing grade”, 3) In contrast, a deepapproach to learning involves an intention to understand andimpose meaning and 4) High-quality learning outcomes areassociated with deep approaches whereas low-quality outcomesare associated with surface approaches (Biggs 1987; Entwistle2001; Marton and Säljö 1984)cited in Smith & Colby, 2007,p.206.

If learning is the outcome of assimilation, as the EUdefinition stipulates, then it will produce surface learning,rather than deep learning, by virtue of the process by which itis taught and learnt. Research shows that this is the case.Smith, Gordon, Colby & Wang (2005) studied teaching practicesand student learning outcomes in 17 states in the US. They

17

18

found that the “majority of the teacher (64 percent) aimedinstruction and assignments toward surface learning outcomes”.Furthermore, “analysis of student work samples collected in thestudy suggested that the student outcomes in most of theteachers’ classrooms were at the surface level (78 percent)”.Smith et al. conclude that their findings suggest that “most ofthe learning in these classrooms were characterized byreproduction or categorizing of information or replication of asimple procedure” (2007, p. 205).

Discussion

It is argued that surface learning, or reproduction, thecategorization of information or the replication of a simpleprocedure, bear no resemblance to knowledge. It can furthermorebe argued that surface learning is neither the aim of educationnor the aim of human endeavor. The value of surface learning isquestioned, other than as a standard by which to acquire andallot grades in a system in which accomplishments,understanding, insight and comprehension are displaced by anumerical representation that works well in a complex system ofevaluating the outcomes of the system itself. This is a systemthat has increasingly come to view people as “individual units”solely intent on maximizing their own benefit, dis-regardingsocio-cultural differences and the effects of social andstructural inequality and discrimination on the basis of race,religion or gender, while allotting the free and unregulatedmarket a god-like stature, in the concerted effort to increaseeconomic growth, the purpose of which remains unclear.

Standish (2005) protests against a view of education asrestricted to that which can “be given expression, measured,standardized and quantified”. Rather he maintains that what istaught “should not be conceived in terms of banks of knowledge,or transferable skills or competences of whatever kind”(Standish, 2005,p. 61). Citing Oakeshott, Standish argues thatlearning a subject is “the initiation into a conversation, aconversation of which we are the inheritors” (Oakeshott, 1989as cited in Standish, 2005):

18

19

Education, properly speaking, is an initiationinto the skill and

partnership of this conversation in which welearn to recognize the

voices, to distinguish the proper occasions ofutterance, and in which

we acquire the intellectual and moral habitsappropriate to conversation. And it is thisconversation which, in the end, gives placeand character to every human utterance(Oakeshott, 1989).

It is also in conversation in which we re-affirm our humanity, learn to listen to others and recognize our responsibility for them.

References

Adams. M.B. (ed) (1990). The Wellborn Science. Eugenics in Germany, France, Brazil, and Russia. Oxford: Oxford University press.

Ashton, D. & Green, F. (1996). Education, Training and the GlobalEconomy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Baptiste, I. (2001). Educating Lone Wolves. Pedagogical implications of Human Capital Theory. Adult Education Quarterly, Vol. 51 No. 3, May 2001 184-201.

Becker, G. (1962). Becker, G. (1962). Investment in human capital: A theoretical analysis. Journal of Political Economy, 70(Suppl. 5), 9-49.

Becker, G. (1975) Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis,with reference to education (2nd ed.). New York: National Bureauof Economic Research.

Becker, G. (1976). The economic approach to human behavior. Chicago: University of Chicago.

19

20

Becker, G. (1985). Human capital, effort, and the sexualdivision of labor. Journal of Labor Economics,3(1), S33-S58.

Becker,G. (1992). The Adam Smith address: Education, labor force quality, and the economy. Business Economics, 27(1), 7-12.

Becker, G. 2002a. The Age of Human Capital. In Lazear, E. (Ed.), Education in the21st Century. Stanford CA: Hoover Institution Press, 3-8.

Becker, G. 2002b. Human Capital [online], May, 2011 <http://www.um.edu.uy/docs/revistafcee/2002/humancapitalbecker.pdf>

Berg, I. (1970). Education and job: The great training robbery. New York: Praeger.

Biggs, J. 1987. Student approaches to learning and studying. Melbourne:Australian Council for Educational Research

Blackmore, J. (1997). The Gendering of Skill and Vocationalism in Twentieth-century Australian Education.In A.H. Halsey, H. Lauder, P. Brown & A.S. Wells. (Eds) Education: Culture, Economy and Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ,

Blaug, M. (1970). An introduction to the economics of education. London: Penguin.

Bluestone, B. (1977). Economic theory and the fate of the poor. In J. Karabel & A. H. Halsey (Eds.),Power and ideology in education (pp. 335-340). New York: Oxford University Press

20

21

Blunden, A., (2011). The Socio-historical Project and the Philosophy of Education, htp://home.mira.net/~andy/works/bakhurs-review.htm

Brown, P., Lauder, H., Ashton, D. 2007. Education, Globalisation and the Future ofthe Knowledge Economy. In European Educational Research Journal, 7 (2): 131–156.

Coffield, F. (1999). Breaking the Consensus. Lifelong learning as social control. British Educational ResearchJournal, Vol. 25,No. 4.

Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press

Buras, Kristen L. & Apple, Michael W. (2008). Radical Disenchantments: Neoconservatives and the disciplining of desire in an anti-utopian era. Comparative Education, vol. 44, No. 3,August 208, 291-304

Carnoy, M. (1977, January). Education and economic development: The first generation. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 25(Suppl.), S428-S448

Castells, M. (1998). End of the Millennium. Vol. III. Oxford:Blackwell.

Dale, R. (2006). ‘Policy Relationships Between Supranational and National Scales: Imposition/Resistance or Parallel Universes?’ in Johanna Kallo and Risto Rinne (Eds.) Supranational Regimes and National Educational Policies: Encountering Challenges. Finland: Finnish Educational Research Association.

Denison, E. (1962). The sources of economic growth in the United States. New York: Committee for Economic Development.

21

22

Edwards, T. (1998). A Daunting Enterprise? Sociological Inquiry into Education in a Changing World. British Journal of the Sociology of Education, 19(19, pp. 143-147.

Entwistle, N. 2001. Conceptions, styles and approaches within higher education: Analytic abstractions and everyday experience. In Perspectives on cognitive, learning, and thinking styles, ed. R. Sternberg and L. F. Zhang, 103–36. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum

European Union (2008a). The Bologna Process: Towards the European Higher Education Area.http://ec.euopa.eu/education/policies/educ/bologna/bologna_en.html (Retrieved March 12, 2008).

European Qualifications Framework for Lifelong Learning.(EQF) European Communities, (2008b).

Foucault, M. 2005. The Hermeneutics of the Subject: Lectures at the Collège De France 1981/1982. New York: Picador..

Fischer, K. W. (2009). Mind, Brain, and Education: Building a Scientific Groundwork for Learning and Teaching. Presidential Address. First Conference of the International Mind , Brain and Education Society. Mind, Brain and Education Vol. 3, No. 1.

Frank, A. G. (1984). The unequal and uneven historical development of theworld economy. Contemporary Marxism, 9, 71-95.

Frank, A. G. (1989). The development of underdevelopment. Monthly Review, 41(2), 37-51.

Fägerlind, I & Saha, L. ((1989). Education and National Development. A comparative perspective. 2nd. Edition. London: Pergamon Press Ltd.

22

23

Fägerlind, I. 81975). Formal Education and Adult Earnings. A longitudinal study on the economic benefits of education. Stockholm: Almquist & Wiksell International. S

Galbraith, J.K. 1996. The Good Society. London: Sinclair-Stevenson.

Gillies, D. (2011), State Education as High-Yield Investment: Human Capital Theory in European Policy Discourse. JoP 2 (2): 224 – 245. P EDA G O G I C K Ý Č AS O P I S 2 / 2 0 1 1.

Halliday, J. (2004) Who Wants to Learn Forever? Studies in Philosophy and Education, Vol.22, Nos. 3-4, 195-210.

Harris, S. (2007). Internationalising the University. Educational Philosophy and Theory, Vol. 40, No. 2. Doi;10.1111/j.1469-5812.207.0336.x

Hewison, J. Millar, B., Dowswell, T. (1998),Changing patterns of training provisions: Implications for accessand equity. Swindon: Economic and Soical Research Council. End of Award report.

Hodkinson, P. Sparkes, A.C. & Hodkinson, H. (1996). Triums and Tears: Young people, markets and the transition from school to work. London: David Fulton.

Howe, I. (2004) Two cheers for Utopia, In 5 years of Dissent, (eds). N. Mills and M.Walzer, 247-251. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Ilyenkov, E.V., (2009) Ideals in Human Activity., Pacifica Ca: Marxists Internet Archive Publications.

23

24

Jencks, C.,et al., (1972) Inequality: a reassessment of the effect offamily and schooling in America. New York: Basic books.

Jencks, C.,et al., (1979). Who gets ahead? The determinants of economic success in America. New York: Basic books.

Joseph Rowntree Foundation.(1995). Inquiry into Income and Wealth. New York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation

Joseph Rowntree Foundation.(1996).Income and Wealth. Thelatest Evidence, Edited by John Hills. New York: JosephRowntree Foundation

Karabel, J. & Halsey, A.H. (1997).(Eds) Power and Ideology in Education. New York: oxford University press.

Keeling, R. (2006). The Bologna Process and the Lisbon Research Agenda: the European Commission’s expanding role in higher education discourse. European Journal of Education,Vol.. 41, No. 2, pp. 203-223.

Klees, S. (2008). A Quarter Century of Neoliberal Thinking in Education: Misleading Analyses and Failed Policies. In Globalisation, Societies and Education, 6(4): 311–348.Krasner, S. (1983) (ed.) International Regimes, London: Cornell University Press

Levin, H.M. & Kelley, C. (1997). Can Education Do it Alone? In . . In A.H. Halsey, H. Lauder, P. Brown & A.S.Wells. (Eds) Education: Culture, Economy and Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Marginson, S. (1993). Education and public policy in Australia. NewYork: niversity of Cambridge Press.

24

25

Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1984). Approaches to learning. In The experience of learning, ed. F. Marton, D. Hounsell, and D. N. Entwistle, 39–58. Edinburgh:Scottish Academic Press.

Miller, P., Rose, N. 2008. Governing the Present. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Oakeshott, M. (1989). Education: The Engagement and its Frustration. In The Voice of Liberal Learning: Michael Oakeshott on Education, (ed) T. Fuller. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

O’Dowd, M (2009a). The God that Failed. Lifelong learning: From Utopianism to Instrumentalism. The Bulgarian Comparative Education Society, Conference proceedings, Vol. 7, 2009. (eds) James Ogunleye, Bruno Leutwyler, Charl Wolhuter and Marinela Mihova.

O’Dowd, M. (2009b) Project Europe, The Bologna Process and The Restructuringof Higher Education: Who will bear the brunt of “unexpected outcomes? InVandra Masemann (Ed.) Festscrift for David Wilson.

OECD (1973). Recurrent Education: A strategy for Lifelong Learning. Paris: Centre for Educational Research and Innovation.

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (1985). Education in modern society. Paris: Author.

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (1986a). Education and effective economic performance: A preliminary analysis of the issues. Paris: Author.

25

26

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (1986b). Productivity in industry. Paris: Author.

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (1986c). OECD science and technology indicators, no. 2: R&D, inventions and competitiveness. Paris: Author.

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (1987). Structural adjustment and economic performance. Paris: Author.

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (1990). OECD in figures. Paris: Author.

Ozga, J., Lingard, B. 2007. Globalisation, Education Policy and Politics. In B. Lingard, B., Ozga, J. (Eds.),The Routledge Falmer Reader in Education Policy and Politics.Abingdon: Routledgefalmer, 65–82.

Paci, M. (1977). Education and the capitalist labor market. In J. Karabel & A. H. Halsey (Eds.), Power and ideology in education (pp. 340-355). New York: Oxford University Press.Rizvi, F., Lingard, B. 2010. Globalizing Education Policy. Abingdon: Routledge

Robinsson, P. & Oppenheim, C. (1998). Social Exclusion Indicators. London: Institute for Public Policy Research.

Rose, N. 1999. Powers of Freedom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Samoff, J. (1994). (Ed.). Coping with crisis: Austerity, adjustment and human resources. New York: UNESCO/ILO.

Schultz, T. W. (1960). Capital formation by education. Journal of Political Economy, 68(6), 571-583.

26

27

Schultz, T. W. (1961). Investment in human capital. American Economic Review, 51(1), 1-17.

Schultz, T. (1962). Reflections on Investment In Man. InThe Journal of Political Economy, 70 (6): 1–8.

Schultz, T.W. (1975). The value of the ability to deal with disequilibrium. Journal of Economic Literature, 13(3), 827-846.

de Senarclens,P. (2001).Regime Theory and the Study of international organizations. UNESCO; Paris

Smith, T.W. & Colby, S.A. (2007). Teaching for Deep Learning The Clearing House, ISSN 0009-8655, 05/2007, Vol. 80, Number 5, pp. 205 – 210.

Smith, T. W., B. Gordon, S. A. Colby, and J. Wang. 2005.An examination of the relationship between depth of student learning and national board certification status. http://www.nbpts.org/UserFiles/File/Applachian _State_study_D_-_Smith.pdf (accessed January 8, 2007).

Sobel, I. (1978). The human capital revolution in economic development: its current history and status. Comparative Education Review, 22(2), pp. 279-308. Standish, P. (2005). Towards an economy of higher education. Critical Quarterly. Vol. 47,Nos. 1-2. 53-71.

Standish, P. (2005). Towards an economy of higher education. CriticalQuarterly. Vol. 47, Nos. 1-2.53-71.

Thurow, L. C. (1977). Education and economic equality. In J. Karabel & A.H. Halsey (Eds.), Power and ideology in education (pp. 325-335). New York: Oxford University Press..Thurow, L. C. (1983). Dangerous currents: The state of economics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

27

28

Tuijnman, A. (1989). Recurrent Education, Earnings and Well-being. Afifty-yearlongitudinal study of a cohort of Swedish men. Stockholm: Almquist &Wiksell International.

Wain, K. (2006). Some Reflections on the Learning Society in a Postmodern World. In Johanna Kallo. & RistoRinne (Eds.) Supranational Regimes and National Educational Policies: Encountering Challenges. Finland: Finnish Educational Research Association., 101-114.

Walden, G. (1996). We Should Know Better.: Solving the Education Crisis. London: Fourth Estate.

Weiss, A. (1995). Human Capital V. Signalling Explanations of Wages. In The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(4): 133–154.

Wozniak, G. (1984). The adoption of interrelated innovations: A human capital approach. Review of Economics and Statistics, 66(1), 70-79.

Young, O. R. (1989). International Co-operation. Building Regimes for National Resources and the Environment. London: Cornell University Press.

28