Exploring the Inherent Tensions at the Nexus of Education for Sustainable Development and Neoliberalism

Abstract

To overcome the anthropogenic and global issues facing humanity today, young people will require a level of democracy, citizenship and altruism that is lacking in our current education system and is often antagonistic to the dominant neoliberal values, structures and underlying assumptions of our increasingly globalized education systems. This article explores the inherent tension between education for sustainable development within a neoliberal political and economic system, through conducting post-structural policy analysis on SDG 4—Target 4.7. This process highlights a highly politicized education development agenda that problematizes both the current state of the world and global education systems as failing to equip young people with the knowledge and skill necessary to promote sustainable development. This leads to a range of discursive and lived effects including the increased reliance on transnational organizations, increasing performativity in schools and the subjectification of teachers and students.

Keywords

Neoliberalism education sustainable development

Introduction

Our recent narrative is full of troubling themes, connected and compounding: growing inequality; an increasingly dangerous climate; depleting resources and endangered ecosystems; cultural, ideological, and geopolitical battles intrinsically linked to all of these problems. So complex and daunting are our challenges that it is easy to feel disconnected, powerless. (Worldwatch Institute, 2016)

Humanity is increasingly facing new and challenging global issues that pose existential threats to our development and existence. The United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development describes how today’s world still faces inequalities among individuals, communities and countries and that in the case of wealth, health, power and opportunity these inequalities are often expanding (United Nations General Assembly, 2015). Gender inequality is still a very real issue and we may be facing a new level of inequality with the rise of a new transnational ruling class (Robinson & Harris, 2000). Billions of people are still living in poverty, we face increased threats of geopolitical instability, extreme terrorism, various humanitarian crises and more severe global health threats. The climate crises poses yet another array of concerns including resource depletion and increased risk of resource-related conflict, global warming and all this encompasses, including threats to food and water security, increased quantity and severity of natural disasters, sea-level rise and irreversible impacts to ecosystems (Bengtsson et al., 2018, p. 51). Simonelli (2016) extends these concerns through exploring climate trends and the effects this will have on human health, industry, settlements and society, including the forced or planned climate-related migration and displacement of communities. This is but a sample of the current and potential future issues that today’s young people and students are facing.

In his classic work, ‘The Tragedy of the Commons’, Hardin (1968, p. 1) posits that the population problem is a ‘no technical solutions problem’ in relation to the overconsumption and degradation of common resources. He states that there is no scientific or technological solution to the tragedy of the commons, only one of moral progress through a change in human values and ideas. This article will explore a similar proposition, that the anthropogenic and existential threats that our youth will face in the future are also predominantly ‘no technical solution problems’. It is of course plausible that development in the formal and natural sciences fields will offer solutions to many of these threats, though the inherent nature of these human-induced problems will remain moralistic. To overcome these global issues will require young people to develop a deep sense of global citizenship, altruism and democracy during their education (Hargreaves, 2003), values that are currently misaligned with the performative demands of our neoliberal education systems. This discourse surrounding the need for a more democratic education was first popularized over 100 years ago by Dewey (1916) in his foundational work Democracy and Education, where he also refers to the previously influential work of Ancient Greek philosophers such as Plato.

As proposed by Lauder et al. (2006) in their 2020 vision for the future of education, this article will question; what is the role of education in addressing the major issues that confront humanity, exploring how this conflicts with the neoliberal influences and expectations on education. Lauder et al. (2006, pp. 93–94) indicate that key issues being faced by humanity such as ‘environmental survival, inequalities and poverty’ are ‘intimately tied to economic questions’. While acknowledging the multitude of theoretical and political views on this point, it remains unquestionable that education will play a vital role in enabling individuals, societies and humanity as a whole to address these issues. This requires a greater focus on democratic education, sustainable development and in the words of the authors ‘would require a fundamental transformation of education’.

The United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development is society’s response and roadmap to overcoming these inevitable challenges facing humanity. It is also a key intersection of what is commonly termed ‘Education for Sustainable Development’ and the increasingly globalized and neoliberal educational system, exemplifying this inherent tension which is the focal point of this article. After reviewing the key policy documents throughout the development decades to better understand the road to Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 4: Quality Education, a poststructuralist method of analysis, drawing on key questions from Bacchi and Goodwin’s (2016) WPR approach to ‘Making Politics Visible’, will be used to consider the inherent conflicts between neoliberalism and Education for Sustainable Development.

Education for Sustainable Development

in the global My World 2030 survey run by the United Nations… respondents consistently ranked ‘a good education’ as the single most important issue that would make a difference in their life, ahead of better healthcare and job opportunities…. good education was chosen as the number one priority by both women and men, by all age groups, by respondents from countries at all levels of national development, and at all levels of individual education (Bengtsson et al., 2018, p. 12).

The United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development is currently the most comprehensive roadmap to achieve economic, social and environmental change. The United Nations refers to this agenda as a ‘plan of action for people, planet, prosperity and peace’ (United Nations General Assembly, 2015, p. 1). Seeking to build upon the previous Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), this agenda represents 17 specific, yet interconnected SDG’s constructed of 169 targets:

Through their critical discourse analysis of SDG 4: Quality Education, Brisset and Mitter (2017) trace the key policy artifacts of the preceding education development initiatives. They credit the 1924 Declaration of the Rights of a Child as the first significant step towards an education development movement, followed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which adheres to the United Nations guiding principles of ‘non-discrimination, equality of opportunity, universal access and solidarity’ (United Nations General Assembly, 1948, p. 1). This is widely attributed by development scholars as the most important step towards global education development, through dictating that education is a basic human right for all in article 26:

Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

Source: United Nations General Assembly (2015, p. 15).

Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedom. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.

Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children. (United Nations General Assembly, 1948).

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) is the specialized wing of the United Nations tasked with the promotion of world peace and security through international collaboration on education, science and culture (UNESCO, 2016). They provide a timeline of the key policy documents of the global education movement. In 1990, the adoption of The World Declaration on Education for All (EFA): Meeting Basic Learning Needs, at the World Conference on EFA in Jomtien, Thailand, was a move to greater international collaborative efforts (UNESCO, 1990). The focus on accessibility to basic education for all children, youth and adults supported some progress in enrolment rates, though the specific targets were not achieved by the 2000 deadline. At The World Education Forum in Dakar, 164 governments pledged to achieve six EFA outcomes that demonstrated progress by including access to quality education, rather than just accessibility to basic education. The resulting Dakar Framework for Action was a reaffirmation of the vision set out in the World Declaration on Education for All in Jomtien a decade ago (UNESCO, 2017b). It expresses the international community’s collective commitment to pursue a broad-based strategy for ensuring that the basic learning needs of all are met within a generation and sustained thereafter.

The achievement of universal primary education was adopted as Goal 2 of the United Nations MDGs, endorsed unanimously by all 189 UN member states in 2000. Hulme and Scott (2010, p. 293) posit that although this rights-based agenda resulted in a substantial shift towards tackling global poverty reduction, its perceived overall impact remains highly questioned by the global development community. Progress in meeting the MDGs is often described as ‘mixed’ in critical discourse literature, with the authors providing several recognized reasons for this failure; ‘the continuing lack of political concern about poverty; the lack of a social movement behind the MDGs; and the lack of a well-formed epistemic community for the MDGs to tie into’. Some clear successes are also visible though, including the reduction of extreme poverty from around half the world’s population in the 1990s to little more than a quarter in 2005, as well as the increase in primary school enrolments to 88 per cent in 2007 (United Nations, 2009). Regardless, Hulme and Scott (2010, p. 302) present an argument that the MDGs were not a complete failure. Rather that this development agenda should be contextually considered as a long-term initiative that has influenced international values and morals, without underestimating the norms created around global poverty reduction and access to education that are foundational to the SDG’s.

The World Education Forum held in Incheon in 2015, adopted the Incheon Declaration which proclaimed to reaffirm the commitments of EFA made in Jomtien and Dakar (UNESCO, 2015). This Declaration provided the blueprint for the construction of and commitment to the new Global Education 2030 Agenda and Sustainable Development Goal 4—Quality Education:

Goal 4. Ensure Inclusive and Equitable Quality Education and Promote Lifelong Learning for All

4.1 By 2030, ensure that all girls and boys complete free, equitable and quality primary and secondary education leading to relevant and Goal-4-effective learning outcomes

4.2 By 2030, ensure that all girls and boys have access to quality early childhood development, care and pre-primary education so that they are ready for primary education

4.3 By 2030, ensure equal access for all women and men to affordable and quality technical, vocational and tertiary education, including university

4.4 By 2030, substantially increase the number of youth and adults who have relevant skills, including technical and vocational skills, for employment, decent jobs and entrepreneurship

4.5 By 2030, eliminate gender disparities in education and ensure equal access to all levels of education and vocational training for the vulnerable, including persons with disabilities, indigenous peoples and children in vulnerable situations

4.6 By 2030, ensure that all youth and a substantial proportion of adults, both men and women, achieve literacy and numeracy

4.7 By 2030, ensure that all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development, including among others, through education for sustainable development and sustainable lifestyles, human rights, gender equality, promotion of a culture of peace and non-violence, global citizenship and appreciation of cultural diversity and of culture’s contribution to sustainable development

4.A Build and upgrade education facilities that are child, disability and gender sensitive and provide safe, nonviolent, inclusive and effective learning environment for all

4.B By 2020, substantially expand globally the number of scholarships available to developing countries, in particular least-developed countries, small-island developing States and African countries, for enrolment in higher education, including vocational training and information and communications technology, technical, engineering and scientific programmes, in developed countries and other developing countries

4.C By 2030, substantially increase the supply of qualified teachers, including international cooperation for teacher training in developing countries, especially least-developed countries and small-island developing states

(United Nations General Assembly, 2015, p. 19).

Coinciding with the adoption of the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, Koehler (2015) seized the opportunity to conduct a historical review of the previous development decades. He also acknowledged the UN Charter adopted during the foundation of the United Nations in 1945 as the beginning of the development era, quoting the vision of article 55:

Higher standards of living, full employment and conditions of economic and social progress and development; solutions of international economic, social, health and related problems; and universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedom for all without distinction about race, sex, language or religion. (United Nations, 1945; cited by Koehler, 2015, p. 734)

Of importance to the theme of this article, which explores the political–economic influences in education for sustainable development and the importance of education for democracy, Koehler (2015) clearly aligns the dominant Keynesian political and economic ideology of the time with the four international development decades leading up to the MDGs. He accurately identifies that it is real-world politics and economic structures that ultimately dictate ideas and policy discourse, creation and enactment. None the less, he and Jolly et al. (2009) refer to as the three distinct UN’s; the UN member states, the UN secretariat and agencies and UN influencers such as multinational corporations, lobbyists, NGO’s and researchers. This Keynesian approach progressively placed an increased focus on the central role of governments and the need for continued spending and economic growth to combat financial depression. Being a successful macroeconomic solution to post-wartime recovery for the industrialized world, addressing the vast unemployment, underemployment and stimulating innovation, education, technology and economic growth, it is understandable that Keynesianism was so influential throughout the development decades (Emmerij et al., 2001). As neoliberalism became the dominant political–economic system entering the 1990s, for reasons that go beyond the remit of this article, it too became the influential ideology of both the development and education sectors.

Education and Neoliberalism

‘In education not everything that counts can be counted and not everything that can be counted counts’ (Cameron, 1963).

To effectively explore the tensions between education for sustainable development and neoliberalism, we must first ascertain what neoliberalism is and how it influences the education sphere. It is widely accepted that the theoretical discourse of neoliberalism was first propounded by the likes of experts such as Friedrich von Hayek (2008) who, in his collated work ‘The Road to Serfdom’ made the case for increased individual freedom through a free market economy, and Milton Friedman (1962; 1963) who proposed privatization, deregulation and a reduction of government spending. Although Chile is credited as the first country to officially adopt a neoliberal policy in 1973, it was the Reagan and Thatcher era in which neoliberalism became the dominant political and economic ideology, supported by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank and the United States Treasury Department (Humphreys, 2009). Following this, it has also become the dominant political discourse of both the education and sustainable development agendas.

Seeking a current and authoritative definition of neoliberal economics and politics can be complex due to the diversity of the agenda and the over and loose use of the word neoliberalism (Ball, 2016, p. 1046). To ensure concurrence in the interpretation of neoliberalism for the purpose of this work, let us draw on Buscher et al.’s (2012) summation of neoliberalism as both a political and economic ideology that subjects all social, environmental and government affairs to a capitalist-free market. For decades now, it has been argued by policymakers, academicians and researchers alike, that the free-market policies of neoliberalism have become the hegemonic discourse and practice of our time (Plehwe et al., 2005). Privatization, free markets, trade liberalization and reductions in government spending on social programmes, are all relative norms in the twenty-first-century-developed world and are key characteristics of neoliberalism. Rodrigues (2003) suggests that this invariably has had adverse effects on social and environmental development, drawing into question the achievability of the SDG’s, which have been developed and enacted within this neoliberal context. Kumi et al. (2014, p. 543) further this notion in their analysis of the ‘sustainable development-neoliberal nexus in developing countries’. They argue that market mechanisms are insufficient and problematic in achieving sustainable development and suggest that addressing inequality and unfavourable power structures must be central to interventions if they are to be successful. Addressing inequalities is explicit in the SDG agenda, though noticeable not by virtue of addressing unfavourable power structures which reinforces existing inequalities.

Foucault’s analysis of neoliberalism is that the ideology has come to represent a positive conception of the role of the state, seeing the state as the active agent which creates and prioritizes the free market by providing the conditions, laws and institutions necessary for its operation (Olssen, 2003, p. 199). It is precisely this neoliberal principle of prioritizing market freedoms which is in direct conflict with education for sustainable development. In his assessment of Foucault’s work, Olssen (2003, p. 199) describes the ‘incompatibilities between law and governmental reason, between freedom and the need for surveillance, and between private interests and the common good.’ Reflecting on the conflict between private interests, namely individual capital and the common good, in this case education for sustainable development, we can clearly determine that through this model both private and public spheres become redefined as economic domains. This neoliberal method of reducing social and sustainability challenges to simply economic problems is something that is well evidenced in critical discourse literature relating to the United Nations SDG’s (Kumi et al., 2014; Rodrigues, 2003). For this neoliberal form of governing the end goals of choice, consumer sovereignty, market competition, freedom and general compliance, is state-imposed and monitored through auditing, managing and accounting. These goals and techniques, when applied to education policy and practice result in education, as critically described by Bowles and Gintis (1976) that serves capitalist interests. These authors describe an education system that prepares students for a lifetime of exploitative wage labour. A system where ‘children are taught to obey authority, follow timetables, to maintain order and to produce work according to deadlines: all necessities for the workforce of a capitalist society.’ (Cited in Shields, 2013, p. 41).

There is no shortage of research and analysis of the neoliberal influences on education systems around the world. Ball (2016, pp. 1049–1050) describes three neoliberal mechanisms or ‘technologies’, that act as an apparatus for effecting educational transformation towards an alignment with neoliberal ideology. These are the Market, Management and Performance. Privatization and the positioning of education as a profitable consumer good, through competition and choice, constitutes the marketization of education. Consequently, shifting the very meaning of education ‘from a public to a private good’ and ‘from a service to a commodity’. Ball (2016) then argues that management is the method of inculcation for these ideas and method of change implementation. Change that is not only the way things are done, but also the reason why things are done in school as well as what it means to teach and to learn. Drawing on his earlier analytic work on the growing influence of performativity in education, Ball (2000) refers to the reduction of teachers’ humanity and professionalism to quantifiable data. Professionalism becomes a measure of competences, qualifications, quantifiable results and skills rather than a reflection on relationships, connections, principals, judgments, character and human impact, precisely because the former are easily quantifiable and rewardable. While this is a view of how neoliberalism dehumanizes education professionals, it could also be argued that education institutions themselves, drawing on the work of Ozga (2008), are reduced to systems of accreditation, audit, evaluation and testing.

This ‘performativity’ is not confined to educational institutions and the profession, rather it is heavily influenced through the proliferation of transnational corporations such as the European Union (EU), World Trade Organization (WTO), United Nations (UN) and more specifically for education, the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the World Bank, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and of course their Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) (Ball, 2016). To understand the significant influence that these agencies have on education systems, Lauder et al. (2006) summarize the key organizations and both their intended and unintended impacts of which there are considerably many. It suffices to summarize that the power of educational decision making and governance has diffused from the state to transnational cooperation and intergovernmental agencies such as those listed above. The sphere of influence of transnational corporations on education also extends to areas of social and environmental responsibility such as charities and non-governmental organizations, corporate social responsibility and private foundation philanthropy. Bhanji (2008) asserts that this influences both educational policy and governance. Through aligning their goals with national and international education and development goals, these institutions are able to access and benefit from the education system, forcing a marketization of education.

As Ball (2016, p. 1048) has so succinctly summarized in relation to the Irish education system (while identifying the uniformity between other western and western-influenced education systems), that the culmination of policy influence over a period of time, through marketization, management and performativity, results in education system transformation. He posits that ‘it is not a question whether the system is neoliberal or not. The question is how neoliberal it is, and what lies in the future, what comes next in the process of neoliberalism’.

The Method

a critique does not consist in saying that things are not good the way they are. It consists in seeing on what type of assumptions, of familiar notions, of established, unexamined ways of thinking the accepted practices are based (Foucault, 1994, cited in Bacchi & Goodwin, 2016, p. 1).

Post-structural policy analysis provides an important method of questioning and critical analysis that can be summarized as providing a healthy level of scepticism towards the knowledge and structures commonly associated with policy development. Bacchi and Goodwin (2016) relate how this form of critical policy analysis promotes the reflection of policy workers on their role in governing through the production of policy artifacts. Youdell (2011, p. 10) suggests that while for the most part, post-structural approaches to policy analysis have remained marginal, they are in fact legitimate, recognizable and respected as a form of critical analysis. As an extension to this, Gulson and Metcalfe (2015) who challenge some of the notions of the productive capacity of post-structuralism, state it is clear that post-structural approaches are adaptable and resilient, though are often a frustratingly broad and amorphous approach.

The use of a post-structural approach to policy analysis is by no means contemporary or untested in the education sphere. Gulson and Metcalfe (2015) credit the Journal of Education Policy for introducing post-structural analysis to the wider education policy community and exploring the possibilities, questions and wider discourse of post-structuralism in policy analysis. They do acknowledge the previous and significant work of Ball (1994), who utilized a critical and post-structuralist method to analyse the functions of the postmodernist state within education in England and Wales, following the 1988 Education Reform Act. They also refer to the Feminist Critical Policy work of Marshall (1997), who posit that the then-current and conventional methodologies of policy analysis and resultant discourse, harbour inherent biases and are therefore unable to understand the realities of gender discrimination. It is explained that this discrimination stems from gendered ‘practices, norms, values and culture’, rationalizing the use of a post-structuralist critical analysis. These examples provide evidence of this approach being accepted and successfully applied in the wider field of sociology and policy analysis, which draws deeply on the work of Michel Foucault. As established, the use of a post-structuralist approach to policy analysis is both varied and proven to be effective, making it a suitable choice for critical analysis and discourse of the SDG 4, Target 4.7.

Olssen (2003) explains that while Michel Foucault’s early work in the 1960s had a structuralist influence, it was not significant enough to term him a structuralist, a title that Foucault himself adamantly refuted. His later work drew similarities to post-structuralist writers such as Derrida, Lyotard and Baudrilliard, though had its own distinctive character concentrated on power and knowledge construction and how this influenced social controls in society. For Foucault, culture ‘is not simply a system of signification but a system of material and discursive articulation’ (Olssen, 2003, p. 194). Bacchi and Goodwin’s (2016, pp. 14–15) guide to practice for post-structural policy analysis, stems from a self-described ‘Foucault influenced post-structural perspective’. Drawing predominantly from the work of Foucault, and also from other writers such as Derrida (cited in Johnson, 1981), the authors offer the ‘What’s the Problem Represented to Be’ (WPR) approach as a user-friendly method of post-structural analysis. The process begins with a problematization, which contextually refers to critical analysis or the products of government practices. Policy workers can only create and implement policy on behalf of the government once a problem has been identified. They do this through the constitution of ‘problems, subjects, objects and places in specific contexts’ (Bacchi & Goodwin, 2016, p. 108). The WPR approach asserts that in the attempt to solve problems in this way, the government, or policymakers, are actually creating problems. These problematizations actually act to influence and govern society, which is why Mol (2002), refers to them as ontological politics; knowledge creation as a form of politics and research that creates, rather than reflects the world. The WPR approach does not focus on the linguistic analysis of the text, similar to other post-structuralist perspectives, rather it utilizes texts to reflect on issues which arise as a result of governance. The approach is not without its criticisms, similar to those expressed in regards to the broader use of post-structural policy analysis where writers like St. Pierre (2011), believe there to always be some risk that even radical perspectives can become stagnant. Though it seems that post-structuralism continuously promotes self-critique and creates new research and policymaking possibilities. In the words of Bacchi and Goodwin (2016, p. 108), ‘the WPR approach does not offer a firm solution to assumed problems. Rather, it encourages policy workers to reflect on how policy “problems” are produced (or represented) within the policies and policy proposals they develop and implement’.

For the purpose of this article, the WPR approach has been used to extend the current critical discourse literature on SDG 4, taking a deeper post-structural analytical focus on Target 4.7.

What’s the Problem Represented to Be? (WPR) Approach to Policy Analysis

Question 1: What’s the problem (e.g., of ‘gender inequality’, ‘drug use/abuse’, ‘economic development’, ‘global warming’, ‘childhood obesity’, ‘irregular migration’ etc.) represented to be in a specific policy or policies?

Question 2: What deep-seated presuppositions or assumptions underlie this representation of the ‘problem’ (problem representation)?

Question 3: How has this representation of the ‘problem’ come about?

Question 4: What is left unproblematic in this problem representation? Where are the silences? Can the ‘problem’ be conceptualized differently?

Question 5: What effects (discursive, subjectification, lived) are produced by this representation of the ‘problem’?

Question 6: How and where has this representation of the ‘problem’ been produced, disseminated and defended? How has it been and/or how can it be disrupted and replaced? (Bacchi & Goodwin, 2016, p. 20)

Post-structural Analysis of SDG 4 (Target 4.7)

Obviously a society to which stratification into separate classes would be fatal, must see to it that intellectual opportunities are accessible to all on equable and easy terms (Dewey, 1916, p. 101)

The decision to primarily focus on an analysis of Target 4.7 was influenced by the critical discourse analysis of SDG 4, conducted by Brisset and Mitter (2017). These authors highlight the crucial role for a transformative approach to education in achieving sustainable development through contributing to human rights, peace, gender equality, environmental education and range of other priorities outlined in the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (United Nations General Assembly, 2015). Regardless, through a literature review and critical discourse analysis of key policy documents, the authors established a clearly dominant functional, or ‘utilitarian’ focus throughout SDG 4. They cite the ‘validation of STEM, technical and vocational skills, and education for employment, without an equal call for critical modes of education’ (Brissett & Mitter, 2017, p. 201) as evidence that SDG 4 functions within and adheres to the current neoliberal and capitalist political–economic system. Of the ten targets in SDG 4, the authors highlight Target 4.7 as the only truly transformative target that has the potential of achieving sustainable development. Linguistically it is the only target that explicitly refers to sustainable development. This is a notion largely supported by Unterhalter (2019, p. 40) who states that ‘4.7 is the only target that deals with the content of education aiming to develop knowledge and skills for sustainable development’. Reflecting back to the title of this article, it is a fair assumption that SDG 4 and Target 4.7 specifically, are at the nucleus of the inherent tension between education for sustainable development and neoliberalism.

Target 4.7. By 2030, ensure that all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development, including, among others, through education for sustainable development and sustainable lifestyles, human rights, gender equality, promotion of a culture of peace and non-violence, global citizenship and appreciation of cultural diversity and of culture’s contribution to sustainable development (United Nations General Assembly, 2015, p. 21)

Question 1: What’s the Problem Represented to Be in a Specific Policy or Policies?

Target 4.7 problematizes the current education system. It challenges the ability of education systems around the world to address the future needs of individuals, societies and humanity, through highlighting that fundamental knowledge and skills needed for humanity to survive and thrive are not currently successfully taught, valued or prioritized in schools.

It is also reasonable to postulate that this target problematizes the current state of the world. Promoting a culture of peace, non-violence, citizenship, human rights, equality and sustainability would be so central to the education development agenda propounds a deep sense of concern for the current state of humanity and our planet, leading one to question the dominant power structures and political and economic ideology of the time.

The view that education is predominantly a means to service the economy could also be represented as a broader problem, as the focus of Target 4.7 is on education for sustainable development and democracy rather than meeting what Lauder et al. (2006, p. 30) refer to as the ‘opportunity bargain’. They present a range of data that undermines the current and widely accepted understanding that a good and equitable education will result in social and financial advantages, suggesting a breakdown of the current neoliberal-education social contract.

Question 2: What Deep-seated Presuppositions or Assumptions Underlie this Representation of the ‘Problem’ (Problem Representation)?

The said problematizations harbour numerous assumptions about the education system. Without assuming that a level of transformation of education systems around the world is both possible and necessary, it would not be plausible to enact this policy. Utilizing the same intellection, one must assume that education systems have both an ability and responsibility towards education for sustainable development, citizenship, equality and human rights, etc. It is a powerful presupposition that education systems have this ability and responsibility to educate individuals and societies in a way that can prevent violence, geopolitical tensions, human rights violations, climate change, resource depletion and scarcity and gross and often growing inequalities in society. The International Commission on Education for the Twenty-first Century et al. (1996, p. 11) support this notion through the statement that

In confronting the many challenges that the future holds in store, humankind sees in education an indispensable asset in its attempt to attain the ideals of peace, freedom and social justice… its belief that education has a fundamental role to play in personal and social development.

Through these problematizations, education also becomes a tool or ‘technology’ that can be leveraged for political and economic influence by intergovernmental and transnational organizations such as the UN, EU, OECD and IMF, thus insinuating that the UN and its various stakeholders, many of which are transnational corporations, have the power and right to delegate worldwide educational policy.

Through constructing specific areas of education as a problem, or lacking, it highlights these areas as currently failing not only in the education sphere but also in society. It positions these domains such as human rights, sustainability, equality, peace and non-violence as global truths that should be pursued by all individuals, societies and government through a democratic education system.

Question 3: How has this Representation of the ‘Problem’ Come About?

The Education for Sustainable Development section of this document summarizes the pathway to SDG 4, from the Declaration of the Rights of a Child and the conception of the United Nations, through the development decades, Education for All agenda and MDG 2, to SDG 4.

In contrast to the MDGs which were created by a small group of western scientists, economists and politicians, alongside the IMF, OECD and World Bank (Hulme, 2009), thorough stakeholder engagement took place throughout the planning stages of the SDG’s. This involved a preceding declaration to improve the participation of civil society and marginalized groups in the sustainable development agenda, called The Future We Want. A Million Voices was a document produced by the UN that represented the voices of ‘governments, think tanks, NGO’s, civil society and academics’ who provided input to the SDG framework (Brissett & Mitter, 2017, p. 190). To allow individuals an opportunity to vote on the issues they wished to see represented in the SDG’s, the My World Survey was established. SDG 4 and more specifically Target 4.7 were most heavily influenced by the previous Education for All agendas.

This supported an overall rhetoric of participation and inclusion in the creation of the SDG’s that was an obvious and highly criticized omission of the MDG’s, though it is important to note that the SDG 4 process of policy development remains highly criticized by many academic, political and social groups (Hulme, 2009). To deconstruct and understand the process of problematization for SDG 4, this WPR approach draws upon a Foucauldian view of differential power relations and discursive practices (Bacchi & Goodwin, 2016). Hulme (2009) proposes a strong argument, supported by Easterly (2006) and others, that the structure, formation and language of the SDG framework itself are highly discursive and centred in a Western scientific method of setting quantifiable goals and targets in the form of action plans. SDG 4 is framed within a neoliberal political–economic education sphere, which at its ideological nucleus prioritizes productivity, privatization, free-market competition and choice, over the ideals laid out as priorities in Target 4.7. Education provides but one example of the inherent contradiction between neoliberalism and sustainable development, highlighted through the critical discourse analysis of Brissett and Mitter (2017) that established Target 4.7 as the only SDG 4 target to have a truly transformative approach, compared to the strong neoliberal and utilitarian composition of the other nine targets.

Turning from the context within which the SDG agenda was constructed and the actual language, framework and method employed, to the unequal power relations between stakeholders. The argument that despite aspects of inclusion, the final development of the SDG framework was ultimately led by a small group of ‘experts’ who were heavily influenced and sponsored by corporations and industries, is well founded (Koehler, 2015; Pingeot, 2014). Policies are inherently discursive texts that represent and reinforce existing knowledge, power and preferred discourses (Maguire et al., 2011). In the case of SDG 4, the power and influence of corporations and industries are far greater than that of other stakeholders, resulting in an education goal, borrowing the terms from Brissett and Mitter (2017), with a utilitarian rather than transformative approach (with the exception of Target 4.7).

Question 4: What is Left Unproblematic in this Problem Representation? Where are the Silences? Can the ‘Problem’ be Conceptualized Differently?

Can the neoliberal education system of today adequately prepare young people for the global challenges of tomorrow? This is the guiding question of this article, as well as the most significant aspect of SDG 4 and specifically Target 4.7 that is left unproblematized. The entire sustainable development agenda is replete with silence on this question, failing to acknowledge the gross neoliberal influence and the inherent conflict this has with the core values of sustainable development. How would the nature of the SDG 4 targets differ, were they to be conceived in a different political–economic system?

Target 4.7 clearly articulates curriculum focus areas necessary to promote sustainable development, though the goal fails to specify how this will be established, particularly when these areas conflict with the underlying values of neoliberal education. Unterhalter (2019) highlights that the metrics of the SDG 4 indicators used to measure the target outcomes miss many of the already poorly defined values of education for democracy and sustainable development. Highlighting that the inclusion of these objectives in education systems and curriculum, along with assessment protocol, is a problem left undefined and unaddressed.

Considering the failure of all previous education development agendas to meet their stated goals, it is reasonable to conceptualize the need for radical reform or transformation. An intriguing extension to this article could be a reform proposal for SDG 4, from a purely transformative perspective.

As established in question 2, Target 4.7 places significant emphasis on the role of educational institutions and of lifelong learning in ensuring all learners achieve the ideals set out in this target. It however fails to acknowledge the significant moral, cultural and value-based learning that takes place in the home environment and beyond the school system. The knowledge associated with sustainable development taught in schools is often in conflict with the values, morals and cultures taught at home, in the community and through various forms of media. It is fair to conceptualize this problem as a community and family problem instead of/as well as an educational problem.

Question 5: What Effects (discursive, subjectification, lived) are Produced by this Representation of the ‘Problem’?

Drawing on the second problem representation of question 2, we face a growing movement towards and reliance on the technologies of measurement and standardization to measure, assess and track progress towards SDG targets. This is led by the increasing role of transnational organizations such as the OECD and their PISA testing, which are driven by neoliberal market forces. These discursive practices all produce an effect of what Ball (2000, pp. 1–2) terms ‘performativity’. He defines performativity as a ‘technology, a culture and a mode of regulation… that employs judgements, comparisons and displays as means of control, attrition and change’. In other words, it creates discursive, subjective and lived effects for all stakeholders in the education process. If we take the role of the school teacher as an example, Ball (2000) leads discourse on how policy texts, inclusive of Target 4.7, play a role in who teachers are and what teachers do. He discusses power structures of surveillance and control that involve technologies such as audits, observations, standardized testing, annual reviews and accreditations that have a critical effect on relationships, identities and the job satisfaction of teachers. The meaning of teaching changes with performativity, as it does with policies such as SDG 4.

Through ensuring that ‘all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development’ this target acts to produce a subjectification of those who possess these skills and knowledge and those who do not. This results in what Foucault (1982) terms as dividing practices which affect the lived experience of learners, that is, either one has the knowledge and skills to promote peace and non-violence, human rights and global citizenship or one does not.

Drawing on DiMaggio and Powell’s (1983) work on institutional isomorphism, it could also be argued that SDG 4 is culpable for supporting a form of institutionalized isomorphism in global education. Through providing a framework of education development targets on a global scale, it is impossible to honour the unique cultures, political and economic structures and independent national contexts of the 193 member states. Target 4.7 does refer to an ‘appreciation of cultural diversity and of culture’s contribution to sustainable development’ (United Nations General Assembly, 2015, p. 17). Yet as already addressed in question 3, this problem representation and therefore Target 4.7 itself is conceived through a western and neoliberal political and economic substructure which can lead to a hegemony of the dominant western educational values. In this case, appreciating cultural diversity through a particular lens and/or viewing cultures as ‘other’.

Question 6: How and Where has this Representation of the ‘Problem’ been Produced, Disseminated and Defended? How Has It been and/or How can It Be Disrupted and Replaced?

It is a deep body of literature that reproduces, defends and/or challenges the two-key problem representations of Target 4.7 that this analysis has exposed. Namely reproducing the current state of the world as a problem, through postulating the need to prioritize an education based on citizenship and sustainability, which suggest the world is currently lacking in the areas of peace, equality, cultural diversity and sustainable development. Also by challenging the current ability and effectiveness of the education system to adequately prepare young people with the knowledge and skills to deal with these anthropogenic challenges. The following discussion will include examples of the literature supporting this representation of the education system as ‘lacking’, while providing suggested solutions to better prepare students to address these global issues.

In an attempt to summarize the findings of this post-structural analysis, we must first acknowledge that historically, development agendas have been highly politicized processes and the development of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development is no different. SDG 4 was developed within a neoliberal political and economic context and through a framework that was heavily influenced by previous education development agendas as well as capitalist-free market principles and the needs of transnational corporations. The policy fails to address these power dynamics and the political and economic influence of neoliberalism and the resultant utilitarian approach to education. Target 4.7 provides the goal’s lone attempt at a transformative approach and is the only target that specifically addresses sustainable development and what could be interpreted as democratic education. Identifying priority areas for educational development to meet Target 4.7, positions the current state of the world and global education system as problematic. This leads to the presumption that education has both a responsibility and ability to address these global issues, requiring a transformative approach to educational policy, which is unique to Target 4.7. These problematizations and presumptions produce a range of lived and discursive effects throughout the education sphere including an increased reliance on and influence of transnational organizations such as the OECD and their neoliberal technologies such as PISA testing and global league tables. The increasing culture of performativity impacts what it is, and what it means to be a teacher or a student, even subjectifying individuals as those who are learned in the knowledge and skills needed for sustainable development and those who are not. It is important to acknowledge that the role of this post-structural analysis is not to determine ‘answers’ or an end result and that others who conduct the same process can and should unearth alternative problematizations.

It is asserted by Bletsas and Beasley (2012, p. 23) that the WPR approach should be conceived as an open-ended method of critical analysis, rather than as a formula seeking to solve a problem. They believe that we live in an era obsessed with problem-solving and that this list of post-structuralist questions offers a much needed alternative to the presumption that ‘“problems” are fixed and uncontroversial starting points for policy development.’ The following discussion will draw on the body of work professing a need for a transformative and often reformative approach to education if we are to meet the ideals of Target 4.7; or as proposed in this article, if young people are to be adequately prepared for the diverse and global challenges of tomorrow.

Discussion

It seems to me that education has a two-fold function to perform in the life of man and in society: the one is utility and the other is culture. Education must enable a man to become more efficient, to achieve with increasing facility the legitimate goals of his life. Education must also train one for quick, resolute and effective thinking…. I often wonder whether or not education is fulfilling its purpose (King, 1947, p. 1).

In his highly regarded work On Democracy and Education, Chomsky (2012) refers to and agrees with the mid-twentieth-century work of the highly influential philosopher and education reformer, John Dewey. They share the belief that early education reform could be a major lever to social change, leading the way to a more just and free society that prioritizes the production of free and equal human beings over the production of goods and capital. Dewey held that it is ‘illiberal and immoral’ to train children to work ‘not freely and intelligently, but for the sake of the money earned,’ in which case their activity is ‘not free because not freely participated in.’ (Cited in Chomsky, 2012, p. 63). This highlights an ongoing and age-old debate throughout the education community surrounding the purpose of education. Do individuals and societies pursue education for democracy and its intrinsic values such as the development of identity and cultural awareness, to be a valued member of society, able to think freely, critically and abstractly and pursue one’s passions? (Bengtsson et al., 2018) Or is the fundamental purpose of education to indoctrinate young people into a neoliberal political and economic system, through teaching conformity, order and imposing a lifetime of debt to be repaid. Or as Biesta (2009) has more recently presented the purpose of education as qualifying young people for a life of employment and socializing them for a life as a functioning member of society.

Brown and Lauder (2006) explore the current educational policy discourse relating to the presumed relationship between increased education and increased rewards, through better employment prospects and higher salaries. These authors argue that this is no longer justified rhetoric, as there is no ‘universal law of economic development’ that guarantees an education will meet these expectations for governments, families or students (Brown & Lauder, 2006, p. 29). This emphasis on increasing individuals’ employability, a notion clearly supported in Targets 4.4, 4.B and the wider SDG agenda disregards the body of educational research and literature calling for an education that promotes intrinsic, democratic and sustainable values. As Chomsky so eloquently presented it, an education that can ‘produce free human beings whose values were not accumulation and domination but, rather, free association on terms of equality and sharing and cooperation, participating on equal terms to achieve common goals that were democratic’ (Chomsky, 2012, p. 56)

In the opinion of Hargreaves (2003, p. 60), education today must include ‘dedication to building character, community, humanitarianism, and democracy in young people; to help them think and act above and beyond the seductions and demands of the knowledge economy’. He asserts that this is only possible if teachers are recognized as professionals in their place of work and are able to express themselves in their practice as public intellectuals, rather than being reduced to the quantifiable metrics of performativity. The work of Sandoval-Hernández et al. (2018) on the importance of teaching tolerance in our global society is also extremely thought-provoking and pertinent to current global issues. The authors are consistent in their belief that this form of education is imperative if education is to succeed in developing tolerance and egalitarian values in this new globalized world. Something which their research suggests can only be successful through the type of democratic classrooms and schools promulgated by the likes of Dewey and Chomsky and echoed by more recent educational scholars such as Brown, Lauder, Ball, Hargreaves and Sandoval et al.

A promising movement is the rising number of structured and aligned plans for achieving the type of education idealized in Target 4.7. Possibly the most promising is provided by UNESCO in the form of the Education for Sustainable Development Learning Objectives. This provides a structured plan to achieve education for sustainable development through ‘full policy coherence between the education sector and the sustainable development sector’ (UNESCO, 2017, p. 48). This document predicts that the alignment of educational policy across sectors with the SDG’s can reorient the education system towards a humanist education and a sustainable future. While this may be the most important and substantial curriculum document of its kind, it is still starkly contrasted to the foundational assumptions of a neoliberal education system, as has been explored throughout this article. The SDG 4 notion of an ‘inclusive and equitable quality education for all’ is also in stark conflict with the underlying political and economic ideology of neoliberalism. It ignores the reality of the privatization of education, parent choice and the ability of some individuals to use their families’ social, material and cultural capital to exploit the neoliberal system and in turn win the competitive advantage in the marketplace (Brown & Lauder, 2006). While functioning within a neoliberal-influenced education system with conflicting values and purpose, education for sustainable development, as outlined in Target 4.7, is sadly unlikely to succeed. Jansen (2005) states that each decade, targets are set, not met, and yet new targets are continually set again. This article challenges whether SDG 4 and specifically Target 4.7, is achievable without true political and educational reform. Or put alternatively, without truly transformative reform of our current neoliberal educational structures and approaches, young people will not be prepared to overcome the global and anthropogenic challenges they will inevitably face.

Conclusion

‘Education is directly linked to economic growth and prosperity, and is critical to promoting peace and social cohesion.’ (World Bank, n.d.)

With the intention of exploring the inherent tension at the nexus of education for sustainable development and neoliberalism, this article has applied a post-structural method of analysis to SDG 4—Target 4.7. The literature review has presented a brief historical account of the successive development agendas and the political and economic influences which have led to the development of the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. This agenda acquits itself as society’s collective response and roadmap to overcome the vast list of challenges facing humanity today. Attempts were made to be inclusive of various cultures, minority groups, and individuals and societies through a range of processes as outlined by Hulme (2009), though it remains criticized by many scholars who posit that behind the guise of inclusion, the process and resultant policy remains reflective of a western scientific method and neoliberal principles (Koehler, 2015; Pingeot, 2014).

Through application of the WPR approach to Target 4.7, it is established that the existence of the target itself, positions both the current state of humanity and global education systems as problematic. This leads to a range of presumptions and lived effects. These include the presumption that education systems have the ability and responsibility to significantly change the course of humanity and that transformative education reform is feasible and necessary. This problematization also leads to the increasingly significant role that transnational organizations play in the formation, management and enactment of education policy and reform. The lived effects of this, including the increasing performativity in schools, is felt by all stakeholders but none more-so than students and teachers who become unwilling subjects of these new power relations.

It is necessary to acknowledge that this analysis focused on but one Target of SDG 4, which is part of a much larger and interconnected body of 17 Goals and 169 Targets. Using the WPR approach to critically analyse all ten targets of SDG 4, would no doubt offer tremendous value to the discourse surrounding this tension at the nexus of education for sustainable development and neoliberalism. If the post-2030 development agenda (or whatever succeeds the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development) is to be truly inclusive, transformative and successful in its aims, it is imperative to deconstruct and understand the vast political and economic influences. Another intriguing extension to this article could be a reform proposal for SDG 4, utilizing a purely transformative approach for all 10 targets. This would provide an alternate vision and process for progress, one that does not rely on growth and technology to eradicate poverty or a market-based approach to achieve sustainable development and improving quality education (Pingeot, 2014). Rather it would promote an agenda that wholly and truly embraces the values of equality, global citizenship, cultural diversity and sustainability, through democratic classrooms and schools.

Most significantly, this article supports the widely debated notion that education reform is required if young people are to develop the ability to promote sustainable development, equality, peace, tolerance and social justice, global citizenship and environmental sustainability. All of these aspects of education which have been problematized through their articulation in Target 4.7. For this transformative education reform to occur, we must first return to the most fundamental question posed by many great educationists and philosophers throughout history: what is the purpose of education?

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

References

Bacchi

, & Goodwin

(2016). Poststructural policy analysis. Palgrave Macmillan.

Ball

S. J.

(1994). Some reflections on policy theory: A brief response to Hatcher and Troyna. Journal of Education Policy, 9(2), 171–182.

Ball

S. J.

(2000). Performativities and fabrications in the education economy: Towards the performative society? The Australian Educational Researcher, 27(2), 1–23.

Ball

S. J.

(2016). Neoliberal education? Confronting the slouching beast. Policy Futures in Education, 14(8), 1046–1059. [Online] 10.1177/1478210316664259

Bengtsson

S. E. L.

, Barakat

, Muttarak

, Kebede

E. B.

, & Lutz

(2018). The role of education in enabling the sustainable development agenda (1st ed.). Routledge.

Bhanji

(2008). Transnational corporations in education: Filling the governance gap through new social norms and market multilateralism? Globalisation, Societies and Education, 6(1), 55–73. [Online] 10.1080/14767720701855618

Biesta

(2009). Good education in an age of measurement: On the need to reconnect with the question of purpose in education. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability (formerly: Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education), 21(1), 33–46. 10.1007/s11092-008-9064-9

Bletsas

, & Beasley

(2012). Engaging with Carol Bacchi: Strategic interventions and exchanges. University of Adelaide Press.

Bowles

, & Gintis

(1976). Schooling in capitalist America: Educational reform and the contradictions of economic life. Basic Books.

10.

Brisset

, & Mitter

(2017). For function or transformation? A critical discourse analysis of education under the Sustainable Development Goals. JCEPS. http://www.jceps.com/archives/3326

11.

Brown

, & Lauder

(2006). Globalisation, knowledge and the myth of the magnet economy. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 4(1), 25–57.

12.

Buscher

, Sullivan

, Neves

, Igoe

, & Brockington

(2012). Towards a synthesized critique of neoliberal biodiversity conservation. Capitalism Nature Socialism, 23(2), 4–30.

13.

Cameron

W. B.

(1963). Informal sociology: A casual introduction to sociological thinking. Random House.

14.

Chomsky

(2012). Democracy and education. Counterpoints, 422, 55–70.

15.

Dewey

(1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. Macmillan.

16.

Dimaggio

, & Powell

(1983). The Iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.

17.

Easterly

W. R.

(2006). The White Man’s burden: Why the west’s efforts to aid the rest have done so much ill and so little good. Oxford University Press.

18.

Emmerij

, Jolly

, & Weiss

T. G.

(2001). Ahead of the curve? UN ideas and global challenges. Indiana University Press.

19.

Foucault

(1982). The subject and power. Critical Inquiry, 8(4), 777–795.

20.

Friedman

(1962). Capitalism and freedom. University of Chicago Press.

21.

Friedman

(1963). Inflation: Causes and consequences. Asia Publishing.

22.

Gulson

K. N.

, & Metcalfe

A. S.

(2015). Introduction: Education policy analysis for a complex world: Poststructural possibilities. Critical Studies in Education, 56(1), 1–4. [Online] 10.1080/17508487.2015.990474

23.

Hardin

(1968). The Tragedy of the Commons. Science, 162(3859), 1243–1248. https://www-jstor-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/1724745

24.

Hargreaves

(2003). Teaching in the knowledge society: Education in the age of insecurity. Open University Press.

25.

Hayek

F. A.

(2008). The road to Serfdom. Routledge.

26.

Hulme

(2009). The millennium development goals (MDGs): A short history of the world’s biggest promise. SSRN Electronic Journal. 10.2139/ssrn.1544271

27.

Hulme

, & Scott

(2010). The political economy of the MDGs: Retrospect and prospect for the world’s biggest promise. New Political Economy, 15(2), 293–306. 10.1080/13563461003599301

28.

Humphreys

(2009). Discourse as ideology: Neoliberalism and the limits of international forest policy. Forest Policy and Economics, 11(5–6), 319–325. [Online] 10.1016/j.forpol.2008.08.008

29.

International Commission on Education for the Twenty-first Century, Delors

, & UNESCO. (1996). Learning, the treasure within: Report to UNESCO of the international commission on education for the twenty-first century. UNESCO.

30.

Jansen

J. D.

(2005). Targeting education: The politics of performance and the prospects of ‘Education For All’. International Journal of Educational Development, 25(4), 368–380. 10.1016/j.ijedudev.2005.04.009

31.

Johnson

(1981). Translator’s introduction. In Derrida

(Ed.), Dissemination (pp. 61–155). University of Chicago Press.

32.

Jolly

, Emmerij

, & Weiss

(2009). UN ideas that changed the world. Indiana University Press.

33.

King

(1947). The purpose of education. The Martin Luther King, Jr., Research and Education Institute. https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/king-papers/documents/purpose-education

34.

Koehler

(2015). Seven decades of ‘development’, and now what? Journal of International Development, 27(6), 733–751.

35.

Kumi

, Arhin

, & Yeboah

(2014). Can post-2015 sustainable development goals survive neoliberalism? A critical examination of the sustainable development–neoliberalism nexus in developing countries. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 16(3), 539–554. 10.1007/s10668-013-9492-7

36.

Lauder

, Brown

, Dillabough

J. A.

, & Halsey

(2006). The prospects for education: Individualisation, globalisation and social change. Oxford University Press.

37.

Maguire

, Hoskins

, Ball

, & Braun

(2011). Policy discourses in school texts. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 32(4), 597–609.

38.

Marshall

(1997). Feminist critical policy analysis: A perspective from post-secondary education. Psychology Press.

39.

Mol

(2002). The body multiple: Ontology in medical practice. Duke University Press.

40.

Olssen

(2003). Structuralism, post-structuralism, neo-liberalism: Assessing Foucault’s legacy. Journal of Education Policy, 18(2), 189–202.

41.

Ozga

(2008). Governing Knowledge: Research steering and research quality. European Educational Research Journal, 7(3), 261–272. 10.2304/eerj.2008.7.3.261

42.

Pingeot

(2014). Corporate influence in the post-2015 process. Bischöfliches Hilfswerk MISEREOR e.V.

43.

Plehwe

, Walpen

, & Neunhöffer

(2005). Neoliberal hegemony. Routledge.

44.

Robinson

, & Harris

(2000). Towards a global ruling class? Globalization and the transnational capitalist class (p. 31).

45.

Rodrigues

M. G. M.

(2003). Privatization and socioenvironmental conditions in Brazil’s amazonia: Political challenges to Neoliberal principles. The Journal of Environment & Development, 12(2), 205–238. 10.1177/1070496503012002004

46.

Sandoval-Hernández

, Isac

M. M.

, & Miranda

(2018). Teaching tolerance in a globalized world [Online]. IEA Research for Education. Springer International Publishing. 10.1007/978-3-319-78692-6

47.

Shields

(2013). Globalization and international education. Bloomsbury.

48.

Simonelli

(2016). Current state of affairs. In Simonelli

(Ed.), Governing climate induced migration and displacement (pp. 13–22). International Political Economy Series. Palgrave Macmillan.

49.

St. Pierre

(2011). Post qualitative research: The critique and the coming after. In Denzin

N. K.

& Lincoln

Y. S.

(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 611–635). SAGE Publications.

50.

UNESCO. (1990). World declaration on education for all: Meeting basic learning needs. UNESCO.

51.

UNESCO. (2015). Incheon declaration: Education 2030: Towards inclusive and equitable quality education and lifelong learning for all. UNESCO.

52.

UNESCO. (2016). Timeline of the global education movement. [online] UNESCO. https://en.unesco.org/themes/education2030-sdg4/timeline

53.

UNESCO. (2017a). Education for sustainable development goals: Learning objectives. UNESCO.

54.

UNESCO. (2017b). Global education monitoring report 2017/18: Accountability in education: Meeting our commitments. UNESCO.

55.

United Nations General Assembly. (1948). Universal declaration of human rights. United Nations.

56.

United Nations. (2009). The Millennium development goals report. United Nations.

57.

United Nations General Assembly. (2015). Transforming our world: 2030 agenda for sustainable development. United Nations.

58.

Unterhalter

(2019). The many meanings of quality education: Politics of targets and indicators in SDG 4. Global Policy, 10(S1), 39–51. [Online] 10.1111/1758-5899.12591

59.

World Bank. (n.d.). Education for growth and prosperity: A keynote speech by President Jim Yong Kim. [online] https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/speech/2017/02/13/education-for-growth-and-prosperity-a-keynote-speech-by-president-jim-yong-kim

60.

Worldwatch Institute. (2016). State of the world 2016. Island Press/Center for Resource Economics.

61.

Youdell

(2011). School trouble: Identity, power and politics in education. Routledge.