Article

Power & Education

PISAs colonialism: 2015, Vol. 7(1) 5672
! The Author(s) 2015

Success, money, and the Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1757743814567387
eclipse of education pae.sagepub.com

Vasco dAgnese
Second University of Naples, Italy

Abstract
This article provides a critical analysis of the OECDs Programme for International Student
Assessment (PISA) based on an examination of the OECDs public documents, including publi-
cations, webpages, and videos. Based on this analysis, I argue that PISA is not an assessment tool
but rather an all-encompassing framework that intends to govern education and schooling world-
wide. PISA, de facto, allows a monopoly on the right to establish who is well prepared for life,
who is well prepared for society, and who can achieve success. Far from being only an assessment
tool, PISA is a life brand. In a strong (although hidden) chain, the OECD identifies education with
learning, learning with assessment, and assessment with PISAs test. Thus, PISA, in the OECDs
opinion, signifies education. The OECD at the very heart of its colonialist nature expropriates
culture and knowledge from subjects, denying their legitimacy and imposing the OECDs own
univocal logic. Under the aegis of objectivity, PISA manifests a clear ideology and situates educa-
tion in a well-defined value square: money, success, evidence, and competition. This situation
raises substantial doubts concerning a tool that claims to be a mirror of education.

Keywords
Pisas Colonialism, education, assessment, Foucault

Introduction
The OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) was established in
1961 as an enlargement of the OEEC (Organisation for European Economic Cooperation).
The declared intent of the OECD is to promote policies that encourage the growth of
member economies and the development of trade and the world economy. Both the
OEEC and the OECD developed the goals established by the 1944 Bretton Woods agree-
ment, which dened the post-war global order of international economic relations.

Corresponding author:
Vasco dAgnese, Second University of Naples, viale Ellittico 31, 81100, Caserta, Italy.
Email: vasco.dagnese@unina2.it
dAgnese 57

The establishment of a new global order after the Second World War led to the birth of
several powerful organisations, such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World
Trade Organization, and the World Bank. The roles of these organisations have become
increasingly important since their formation.
According to Carroll and Kellow (2011) and Eccleston (2011), the OECD underwent
important transformations from the previous organisation (OEEC) and became an import-
ant link in transgovernmental politics; indeed, it was expected to exert pressure upon
member countries. The professed intention to foster cooperation and dialogue among
member states has increasingly disappeared and has been replaced by the will to exert
power upon member states (Woodward, 2009).
With the collapse of the Soviet bloc and the end of the Cold War, the OECD enlarged
and reinforced its inuence. The OECD reconstituted itself as a centre of policy expertise
and comparative international data based on programmes of measurement, comparison, and
analysis (Jakobi and Martens, 2010). The OECD also exercises its inuence on non-member
states (Sellar and Lingard, 2013), enhancing its relationships with BRIC nations (Brazil,
Russia, India, China). Throughout this period, the role of the OECD has increasingly moved
toward the economic dimension. According to Sellar and Lingard, [t]he slippage between
the use of nations and economies in OECD discourse is symptomatic of its largely eco-
nomic focus and the ways in which other policy domains, including education, are framed in
this way (Sellar and Lingard, 2013: 17). In addition to the increasing inuence of the OECD
on member and non-member states, we must consider the sudden growth of education as a
focus of interest within the OECD. From the 1990s to the present, furnishing data on the
performance of educational systems has become a core business of the OECD.
In 2000, the OECD launched PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) as
a triennial assessment programme, and in 2002 education was established as an autonomous
directorate. Since then, the importance of PISA has grown consistently (Henry et al., 2001;
Lawn and Lingard, 2002). Under the direction of Angel Gurra, the OECDs Secretary-
General since June 2006, the OECD has reinforced PISAs role as not merely an assessment
tool with a specic goal, but something very dierent.
In the OECDs own words:

The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) is a triennial international survey
which aims to evaluate education systems worldwide by testing the skills and knowledge of 15-
year-old students. To date, students representing more than 70 economies have participated in
the assessment. PISA is unique because it develops tests which are not directly linked to the
school curriculum. The tests are designed to assess to what extent students at the end of com-
pulsory education, can apply their knowledge to real-life situations and be equipped for full
participation in society. (OECD, 2014a, emphasis added)

In this article, I intend to provide a critical analysis of PISAs stance and hidden ideology. To
this end, two elements of the statement above should be considered: the use of the term
economies in place of countries and the testing of 15-year-old students skills for full
participation in society.
In the OECDs words, PISA has not only become the worlds premier yardstick for
evaluating the quality, equity and eciency of school systems (OECD, 2014f: 2), but also
an all-encompassing framework that intends to govern educational processes worldwide
(OECD, 2004, 2010a, 2014a). In the OECDs words, PISA shows countries . . . how eect-
ively they educate their children (OECD, 2014a). Furthermore, PISA tests provide a
58 Power & Education 7(1)

mirror to all countries and demonstrate what is possible (OECD, 2014b). PISA tests show
whether and to what extent boys and girls [are] prepared for life (OECD, 2014b), mea-
sur[ing] whether 15-year-olds around the world are well-prepared to participate in society
(OECD, 2014a). This objective involves several risks.
PISA is anything but neutral. Under the aegis of objectivity, PISA manifests a clear
ideology, situating education in a well-dened value square of money, success, evidence,
and competition. PISA conceives education and life mainly in terms of individual eco-
nomic success (OECD, 2014f; Pearson Foundation and OECD, 2014). Thus, in PISAs
philosophy, education is education for success (OECD, 2014a, 2014b), and success, in a
global economy, is measured in monetary terms. Moreover, this ideology is hidden. In the
OECDs authoritative words, PISA produces evidence (OECD, 2014b, 2014f: 2). By provid-
ing evidence regarding educational systems worldwide, PISA is in the position to say who
is right and wrong, who should have the resources to work, and who is well prepared for
life, including governments, teachers, and families. In this way, PISA seems to be more of a
life brand than an assessment tool, and one which makes expansive claims. In a clear chain,
I will argue how the OECD identies education with learning, learning with assessment, and
assessment with PISA. Thus, PISA signies education. In doing so, the OECD tends to
expropriate subjects and communities of their knowledge and culture, denying their legit-
imacy. This is a colonialist stance.
I make these points by analysing some of the main OECD public documents, including
publications, webpages, and videos. I argue that PISAs declared ideology presents several
contradictions. The contradictions can be divided into two types: (a) contradictions between
what PISA claims to produce and what it actually produces, and (b) contradictions within
PISA, or contradictions between dierent PISA statements. This situation raises substantial
doubts concerning the inuence of a tool that claims to be a mirror of education world-
wide (OECD, 2014b).

PISAs square: money, success, evidence, and competition

More and more countries are looking beyond their own borders for evidence of the most suc-
cessful and ecient policies and practices. Indeed, in a global economy, success is no longer
measured against national standards alone, but against the best-performing and most rapidly
improving education systems. Over the past decade, the OECD Programme for International
Student Assessment, PISA, has become the worlds premier yardstick for evaluating the quality,
equity and eciency of school systems. However, the evidence base that PISA has produced goes
well beyond statistical benchmarking. By identifying the characteristics of high-performing edu-
cation systems PISA allows governments and educators to identify eective policies that they can
then adapt to their local contexts. (OECD, 2014f: 2)

This is Gurras well-known opening statement from PISA Results in Focus: What 15-year-
olds know and what they can do with what they know. If the OECD Secretary-Generals
statement on the rst page of a main PISA document has importance, then this statement is
a signicant example of the essence of PISA. Several assumptions are included in this
statement; some are explicit, and others are implicit.
The statement itself is anything but neutral and innocent. A powerful direction situates
education in a well-dened value square of money, success, evidence, and competition.
Schematising my reasoning, three elements are signicant. First, according to PISA,
dAgnese 59

education and life is conceived and enacted in terms of economics, competition, and
success. Education is for success, and success, in a global economy, is measured in monetary
terms. Second, PISA is neither only an international survey nor an assessment tool. In
Gurras words, PISA produces evidence or indisputable facts. Who has given PISA this
licence (Gorur, 2011)? Finally, there is no trace of any of this. It is simply predetermined by
assumption that success, money, and competition are the aims of education, and that edu-
cation is a function of the global economy (Au, 2011; Wolf, 2002). PISA clearly exhibits a
strong nexus with the neo-liberal globalisation narrative. Furthermore, it is assumed
that these features are fully measurable and that PISA is the best tool for this measurement.
The questionable reasoning in Gurras statement is neither questionable nor reasoning; it is
a matter of evidence. Here, we encounter PISAs basic feature, namely, its colonialist
stance.
I argue that PISAs colonialism is not related to arguments, such as immigrant students
learning outcomes or intercultural analyses, although these are signicant questions that
PISA raises (Pereira et al., 2011; Shohamy, 2004). Colonialism is the very nature of PISA for
reasons that are completely internal to PISAs philosophy. PISA, in Gurras authoritative
words, is the unique model of assessment. In a strong although hidden chain, PISA
identies education with learning, learning with assessment, and assessment with its test.
Thus, PISA signies education. Of course, PISA states that every human being not just
those who come from wealthier or more intellectual or more culturally sophisticated
families (OECD, 2014c) can yearn for excellence and achieve a high PISA score.
However, this achievement is only possible within the connes of PISA. Furthermore, no
one can know PISAs individual outcomes not students, teachers, or schools. Their role is
strictly limited to taking the test. I make these points by analysing four documents: three
directly produced by the OECD and one research study on PISA.
The rst document is an OECD video that presents the PISA test, with the title PISA
Measuring student success around the world (OECD, 2014a). I quote some signicant
passages and then analyse them:

The OECD brings together 34 countries with the aim of developing better policies for better life.
In the late 1990s countries that are members of OECD came up with the idea to measure whether
15-year-olds around the world are well-prepared to participate in society . . . PISA is less inter-
ested in knowing whether students can repeat like parrots what they have been taught in
class. Rather, the survey is designed to nd out whether, for example, students can use the
reading skills they have learned at school to make sense of the information they nd in a
book, a newspaper, on a government form or in an instruction manual . . . It also helps govern-
ment, educators and parents track their countrys progress to a more successful education
system . . . PISA shows countries . . . how eectively they educate their children.

In this statement, at least two related elements in the OECDs words are signicant. First,
the OECD develops policies for [a] better life. Second, PISA does not assess students
competence regarding mathematics or problem-solving. PISA establishes whether students
are well-prepared to participate in society, show[ing] countries . . . how eectively they
educate their children. Thus, PISA is no mere tool. PISA can decide if a student can gain a
place in the world because the OECD has the key to a better life. PISA can also determine
whether a student is t to live with other human beings or participate in society. The idea of
measur[ing] whether 15-year-olds around the world are well-prepared to participate in
society entails several risks.
60 Power & Education 7(1)

Participating in society is a complex matter. It is not predetermined that this matter is

translatable into a unique set of competences and that this set is assessable. Is it possible to
establish a denition of what it means to be well-prepared to participate in society? Who
or what should be the authority that gives this licence to citizens worldwide? What is the idea
of society against which PISA judges this preparation? Focusing only on the West, there are
very dierent ideas about what is considered a good society and what it means to be a
good citizen (Biesta, 2007; Giroux, 1981, 1989; Levinson, 2011; Onosko, 2011; Torres,
1998). A response to these issues from the OECD is needed.
The second document of my analysis is PISAs homepage, which is even more explicit
about PISAs goal. Because of space limitations, I quote only two statements that show how
PISA intends to be an all-encompassing framework for education and life worldwide:
These PISA results reveal what is possible in education and [a]re boys and girls equally
prepared for life? (OECD, 2014b). It is not dicult to identify the underlying assertions that
PISA tests a students preparation for life and that PISA demonstrates what education is.
The third document I consider is the homepage of the Pearson Foundation, which works
in close collaboration with the OECD. Here, we can read the following statement:

Starting from very dierent levels, a number of countries and regions have succeeded over the
last few years in raising their students performance substantially. They display some important
common features. Their politicians and social leaders share with parents, teachers and students a
strong belief in the value of education. Resources are channelled to the areas where they will
provide the greatest results. [. . .] By showing what they achieve, the PISA tests provide a mirror
to all countries and demonstrate what is possible. (Pearson Foundation and OECD, 2014)

In this statement, several concepts are dangerous, such as PISA tests provide a mirror to all
countries and demonstrate what is possible. This statement is both fascist and inadequate.
It is fascist because the nature of fascism lies in the certainty that there is one truth and only
one truth. The violence of fascism is, ultimately, a consequence of this violence of thought.
Each of us expresses opinions, albeit scientically argued. However, individual expression is
not the case with PISA, which is a mirror that demonstrate[s] what is possible.
Furthermore, the statement is inadequate because thinking that one has a mirror of reality
is, in the best case, a medieval epistemological stance. Another statement [r]esources are
channelled to the areas where they will provide the greatest results is likely less evident in
its consequences but is nonetheless dangerous. Who judges the areas of greatest results?
PISA does, of course. Assuming that PISA has a method to establish, with no room for
error, the areas that provide the greatest results, what happens to the other areas? What is
their destiny? The message is clear: if you do not improve according to PISA, do not expect
to receive any resources.
The fourth document of my analysis is a book that summarises central outcomes of the
PISA Research Conference 2009 (Prenzel, 2013: v). Here, we nd an overview of the studies
concerning PISA, including research for PISA . . ., research with PISA . . . [and] research on
PISA (p. xvi). There are no references to critical or challenging studies regarding PISA or to
studies that go beyond the limits of PISA or raise concerns regarding it. The following
passage is signicant:
Limitations due to the design of studies are natural for researchers. In the context of PISA, such
limitations have to be communicated to policymakers and the public. As PISA may identify
severe problem areas in educational systems, researchers may feel motivated to do more and
dAgnese 61

specic research that helps to go beyond such boundaries of the usual PISA design. (Prenzel,
2013: 1415)

Two ideas must be emphasised here. First, the natural limitations that are intrinsic to
any research eort are already contained in PISAs boundaries. Second, research that
helps to go beyond such boundaries of the usual PISA design is specic. It is assumed
that research relies on the ongoing debate between dierent paradigms and models. If you
only proceed according to one model, it is dicult to see its limitations from within. It is
also presumed that every model is situated within a perceptual eld in which some things
are visible and some things are not. The entire movement of twentieth-century epistemol-
ogy from Dewey (1929a, 1929b, 1938) to Foucault (1973 [1969], 2002 [1969]) has shown
that a scientic model is, above all, dened by the phenomena at stake. The second
concept is perhaps more subtle but equally important: you can go beyond PISAs bound-
aries, but only within PISAs boundaries. Further studies, rather than challenging PISA
and broadening its limits, must be specic, moving within the space PISA permits.
Furthermore, if you do not play for PISA and with PISA, you do not play at all.
This issue is even more important given PISAs claim to represent neutral, objective,
independent research, and its intention to reect education worldwide. In a certain
sense, PISA epitomises the inner violence of the Enlightenment project (Horkheimer and
Adorno, 2002 [1944]; Ranciere, 2003 [1983]). This violence is closely related to PISAs
imposition of its own values as unique and unavoidable, and with its simultaneous con-
cealment of the ethical dimension.

Money and success: What else?

At the very heart of PISA is the desire to subsume every educational aim, possibility, or
value into its own model. PISA does this in a silent way because we nd no trace of the
identication of PISAs values with the values. It is predetermined, a matter of evi-
dence. What are PISAs values, given that PISAs model is framed according to those
ends? PISA clearly denes these values: success and money. The concept of success, con-
ceived in economic terms, is the focus of PISA. The OECD states this concept in many ways.
In the following paragraphs, I examine three documents: the homepage of PISA, a video of
Gurra produced by the OECD and the Pearson Foundation, and an OECD 2011
publication.
The homepage of PISA starts with the simple question, Do students have the drive to
succeed? It immediately continues: How many times have you heard successful people, in
all walks of life, credit their triumphs to hard work and perseverance? Now, PISA adds to
the chorus with some hard evidence (OECD, 2014b). Of course, I am not opposed to
success, and everyone most likely strives for it, but there are several problems with the
homepages statement. What is success? In what terms can I regard it? Moreover, is it
appropriate for an educational programme to sing its praises? Is it correct to speak about
success as a value in itself, with no further clarication? Can success really be the primary
index of a good education? Good education is an undened and most likely indenable
concept (Biesta, 2012; Dewey, 1938; Peters, 1966). However, success most likely is even more
ambiguous. Who are successful people? Were Stalin or Francisco Franco successful men?
A con man, too, can be very successful in his activity; to be a good con man you must be sly
and acquire several competences. How does education relate to success? I have no
62 Power & Education 7(1)

provocative intention, and I am committed to every good objective, just like PISAs sup-
porters, but by framing education and learning in terms of success, PISA commits a basic
mistake in foregrounding a dimension that is not related to ethics. Admittedly, ethics is an
uncertain dimension, but we have little choice. Either we live with ethics as our common
ground, or we proceed with very uncomfortable paradoxes.
Here, we arrive at an ordinary argument that is underestimated by the OECD. The
foundation of PISA is predetermined, not only in its method but also in its ethical choice.
PISA, in its plea for success, makes a clear value choice. There is nothing necessarily wrong
here; in education, everyone makes choices. However, the rst ethical and scientic rule is to
be aware of our choices. To the contrary, PISA appears to have become a modern day
Delphic Oracle . . . Appearing unbiased and neutral, it speaks in a detached manner in terms
of facts and gures, giving policy makers information about their own countries from its
lofty vantage point (Gorur, 2011: 77). In addition, PISA is grounded in a value choice.
PISA is completely ignorant of or intentionally omitting this grounding. PISAs values
are clearly stated as follows: an economic-based concept of life; competition; eectiveness,
which is also a value; and the belief that this is the only possible world and that PISA is the
only eective tool to assess and improve education. The fundamental weakness of PISA is its
lack of awareness; its very certainty represents a universal standard that reveals a colonialist
stance.
The second document that I analyse is a video of Gurra produced by the Pearson
Foundation and the OECD (OECD, 2014e; Pearson Foundation and OECD, 2014). The
video is a meaningful discourse on PISAs goals. I quote the main passages as follows:
In the global economy, work . . . can be done everywhere, by whoever does it best, whoever
provides best value for money and value comes increasingly from knowledge . . . Citizens are
to be able to create, absorb, adapt and use knowledge. To do so, they need the right skills.
Investing in education to give . . . the skills [young people] will need in tomorrows economy is
essential for development and growth. But in a competitive and globalised world, achievement is
relative; success can no longer be measured just by low goals . . . or national
standards . . . Countries are to measure themselves against the best performing education systems
internationally . . . The students are tested not just on what they have been taught but on how
creative they can be in nding solutions to unexpected problems. PISA tests the readiness for an
active role in todays high-tech society; it tests how they think and how they work . . . PISA shows
what achievements are possible in education.
The phrase the students are tested is an objectication of human beings. If your philoso-
phy is to test people, we all know what your position towards people can be. This phil-
osophy is even more signicant if the statement is not contextualised. If you say, for
example, I am testing people for this work or I am testing people regarding this task,
the intention is quite dierent; you are testing people about something. This is not the case
with PISA, which tests people on life, with instruments which can tell if you are well pre-
pared to assume a position in society and the world; in this sense PISA seems to be a life
brand. What are the consequences of this attitude for a 15-year-old? What attitudes does
PISA promote beyond success and competition? With PISA, there is no trace of other
values. Of course, Gurra mentions equity, but it is always the same: countries must
pursue equity only according to PISA. According to PISA, everyone can perform, including
disadvantaged people. A comparison between the results of PISA 2012 and the table indi-
cating countries Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita of the IMF 20112012 shows a
disturbing connection between prosperity and PISA scores. However, this connection is not
dAgnese 63

the central point. The central point is that you can perform only on the condition that you
adjust to PISAs philosophy. Everyone can play, but only by PISAs rules.
Gurras statement that PISA should show [h]ow [students] think and how they work
also demonstrates inconsistency. Signicantly, these dimensions are completely beyond
PISA. In what way can I understand how students work and how students think with
PISA? The meta-cognitive dimension and qualitative appreciation are beyond the bound-
aries of PISA (Bonderup Dohn, 2007).
Another example of PISAs stance is in a 2011 OECD publication, where the following
passage can be found:

Globalisation and modernisation are rapidly posing new and demanding challenges to individ-
uals and societies alike. Increasingly diverse and interconnected populations, rapid technological
change in the workplace and in everyday life, and the instantaneous availability of vast amounts
of information are just a few of the factors contributing to these new demands. In this globalised
world, people compete for jobs not just locally but internationally . . . The competition among
countries now revolves around human capital and the comparative advantage in knowledge.
(OECD, 2011: 14)

Once again, we nd the same implicit postulates. For example, the only possible option
is that education follows and adjusts, which is why education is all-consumed by
learning. Existence is framed by success, money, and competition, and there is no
space for alternative values. Thus, knowledge is dened and consumed by its monetary
value, and human beings are conceived and understood as human capital an
approach that is both characteristic of and functional to neoliberalism. Finally, there
is no competition between dierent perspectives; the competition is within the system,
not between dierent systems. The report, moreover, is clearly intended to understand
and explain what, how, and who has a comparative advantage in knowledge (OECD,
2011: 13), in policies and reforms (p. 75), and in economics (p. 162). What, how, and
who can aim for success? How can educational success (pp. 1315) be gained? How
can successful schools and successful education systems (p. 15) be built? How can
[w]hat makes a school successful (p. 20) be understood? Finally, what is the range
of factors that lead to success? (p. 21). In the rst 24 pages of the document, the term
success occurs 25 times, and this number excludes similar terms, such as top or
excellence. The title, too, is conceived in terms of success, and the table of contents
shows that several chapters and sections are framed in terms of success (e.g. A
changing yardstick for educational success, Canadian success in education,
Singapores success in education).
Regarding the relationship between success and money, PISAs approach is explained in a
box titled The approach of industrial benchmarking:
The aim of the American rms was to learn enough from their competitors to beat them at their
own game. To do this, they identied their most successful competitors. But, they also identied
the companies that led the league tables in each of their major business process areas (e.g.,
accounting, sales, and inventory). They collected all the information they could possibly nd
concerning their direct competitors and the companies that led the league tables in the relevant
business processes . . . When this research was complete, they would analyse all the information
and research they had gathered. Their aim was . . . to build a better mousetrap than any they had
seen anywhere by combining the best they had seen in one place with the best they had seen in
another. (OECD, 2011: 22)
64 Power & Education 7(1)

The OECDs opinion regarding education is suciently clear. Considering how to build a
better mousetrap, the idea that education is a matter of exchanging pieces implies that
education is, in the best case, a Harlequin, if not a Frankenstein. Ironically, building a good
mousetrap is a matter of intelligence and creativity, not a matter of simply taking pieces and
deciding where to put and remove them.

Competition, competition, competition

The choice of benchmarking and the politics of whoever provides the best value for money
(OECD, 2014e) clearly value competition and individualism. Competition is a basic fact of
life; through competition, I can improve myself. Everyone in competition is stimulated to
excel. However, in PISA there are two problems: it seems to promote competition as the only
value, and it operates as an archetypal zero-sum game in which I gain if my competitor loses.
PISAs idea of education, ultimately, is exclusive rather than inclusive. PISA clearly fos-
ters competition not only between (Pons, 2011) but also within countries. According to its
philosophy, every region in a country, every district in a region, and every school in a district
intends to overtake the others (Alexander, 2011; Au, 2008; Dorn, 2007). Moreover, the
corresponding and pervasive use of tools, such as PISA covering the entire school system
from primary to high school, and the publication, if not the advertisement, of PISA scores
move the entire educational process towards continuous competition to be the best accord-
ing to the test (Biesta, 2012; Mansell, 2007). This is true at systemic levels (countries, regions,
schools) and at individual levels. No collaboration between students is allowed during the
test, so everyone is urged to do better than everyone else. Of course, not every individual
form of assessment entails collaboration between students, but teachers who are aware of
this fact can adopt dierent strategies to encourage cooperation and dialogue (e.g. coopera-
tive learning, group work)1. However, if the only legitimate assessment is you and the test
and the goal is to consolidate and increase your comparative advantage, the people
involved want to either improve their performance or hope that others do not achieve a
good score. These desires hold true among classrooms in a school, schools in a region,
regions in a country, and countries against countries (Grek, 2007). The structure of PISA
as a zero-sum game is signicant since what matters, just as in a race, is not merely that I
improve my performance. The goal is to improve my position against others regardless of
whether those others are my schoolmates or countries. Of course, to run a race and to train
for a race are not sins; competition is a part of life and a tool for self-improvement. However,
in the educational process, competition should be a component and a tool. In PISA, com-
petition is the framework and the entire goal.
Regarding a new tool, the PISA-based Test for Schools, the webpages state the following:
It is expected that the PISA-Based Test for Schools will provide . . . the opportunity to share
good practices to help identify what works to improve learning and build better skills for better
lives . . . In addition to assessing students ability to apply the knowledge they have acquired, the
PISA-based Test for Schools also benchmarks how students . . . are prepared to become members
of an increasingly global society . . . and the PISA-based Test for Schools is voluntary for schools
that are interested in international benchmarking and improving their student outcomes. It is not
to be used for mandated or accountability purposes. The assessment . . . is a learning experience
for teachers and students that can prompt discussions on the types of knowledge, skills and
competencies that are relevant in a quickly changing world. (OECD, 2014h, emphasis in
original)
dAgnese 65

Once again, the same central concepts are evident. PISAs framework is all encompassing: it
develops better skills for better lives; it tests how well [students] are prepared to become
members of an increasingly global society; and it also benchmarks how students are
prepared to become members of an increasingly global society. Formally, the test is vol-
untary, but often, there is no clear line between what is voluntary and what is compulsory.
For example, a university education is not compulsory, but sometimes students who want to
improve their employment prospects or students who come from families that regard a
university education as unavoidable feel that it is compulsory. Of course, to the simple
question is a university education compulsory?, everyone will answer, no, it is not.
However, reality says something quite dierent.
Very soon, this tool could be a line of demarcation between good schools and bad
schools. Moreover, when PISA states, The PISA-based Test for Schools and its results
are not meant to be interpreted or used as school rankings or for league tables (OECD,
2014h), it contradicts its philosophy. PISAs goal is to show where you stand in relation to
others (OECD, 2014c). Therefore, it is hypocritical to say that:
[s]chools with performance results that place them at the very top in comparison with other
schools in England and in other countries should not see in the tool a means to validate their
excellence for publicity; they should see it as a means to strive for even higher levels of perform-
ance for all students. (OECD, 2014a)

According to pragmatism, one criterion for evaluating an act is its consequences. It is rea-
sonable, then, to wonder whether a tool that assesses who is better and who is worse pro-
vides a means to validate who is better and who is worse. What is the dierence between
[m]easuring student success and validat[ing] . . . excellence for publicity? The same state-
ment appears several lines later: The assessment should be considered a tool for school
improvement, not a tool for developing ranking or league tables (OECD, 2014a). What will
happen in concrete terms through the use of this tool? Although PISA underestimates how
education is framed by ends, the OECD states that its intention that is, how [t]he assess-
ment should be considered is not to develop rankings but to foster improvement.
However, we should not consider the intentions but rather the consequences. In the
OECDs own words, PISA demonstrates several contradictions.

PISAs inconsistency
Reading further on this webpage, we nd three statements that are in contradiction with
some basic rules of research:

In the future, the PISA-based Test for Schools can provide important peer-to-peer learning
opportunities locally, nationally and internationally as well as the opportunity to share
good practices to help identify what works. [The test] is a learning experience for teachers
and students that can prompt discussions on the types of knowledge, skills and competencies
that are relevant in a quickly changing world . . . [and] schools that decide to implement the
assessment will need to work with accredited service providers to make sure that quality stand-
ards and procedures are followed in preparation for administering the test and on the day of
testing.

Regarding this statement, there are two issues at stake. First, sharing and discussions require
a broad space. If you decide who is able to apply your protocol and how the preparation of
66 Power & Education 7(1)

people for it must be conducted, you cannot claim that you are providing the opportunity
to share good practices or prompt discussions; you are only testing the ecacy of your
protocol. This detail might be very important, but it is not related to sharing and discussions.
In addition, if you are testing your protocol, you need a term of comparison that cannot be
the same as your protocol. Therefore, to what extent does what PISA says it does actually
work?
This is one example of PISAs inconsistency. In several documents, we nd various
contradictions. For clarity of explanation, these contradictions can be divided into two
types: contradictions between what PISA claims to produce and what it actually produces,
and contradictions within PISA that is, contradictions between dierent statements, even
in the same document. Because of space limitations, I can only discuss the point regarding
the main reason for the inconsistency: the contradiction between what PISA establishes as
important in learning and what it actually promotes.
The section Do students have the drive to succeed? on PISAs homepage states the
following:

Teachers use of cognitive-activation strategies, such as giving students problems that require
them to think for an extended time, presenting problems for which there is no immediately
obvious way of arriving at a solution, and helping students to learn from their mistakes, is
associated with students drive. (OECD, 2014f)

The problem with this statement is that to think for an extended time is exactly the
opposite of PISAs philosophy. To think through a problem for an extended time is the
best way to fail the PISA test; the approach that is encouraged and rewarded is to optimise
time and to eliminate everything eectively that does not strictly concern the test questions.
With multiple-choice questions, it is counterproductive to waste time thinking autonomously
to arrive at the best possible answer; it is far more eective to look at the pre-set answers and
choose the correct one. In addition, if I must respond in a few lines and in a few minutes, I do
not need to think for an extended time. The goal of PISA, as stated several lines later, is
to become procient in a skill (OECD, 2014f). The OECD should be aware that to
become procient in a skill and to give students problems that require them to think
are often two contradictory goals. Of course, life requires both; thus, schools must simul-
taneously train students to perform both skills. However, this aim can be achieved and
assessed through dierent methods and tools. To confront a problem head-on, to under-
stand how this problem concerns us, to pose the problem correctly, and, nally, to solve the
problem are dierent skills that require dierent approaches to encourage.
It may be useful to read another statement from this document:
Raw potential and talent are only a small part of what it takes to become procient in a skill.
Students success depends on the material and intangible resources that are invested by families,
schools and education systems to develop each and every students potential. (OECD, 2014f)

This statement, speaking in favour of intangible resources that are invested by families, is
wise. It is important to recognise the intangibleness not only of resources but also of the
major part of the educational process. Here, PISA touches on a serious and substantial
argument, which is the crux of educational research: the problem of how and what matters
to education and the resulting problem of how and what concerns educators evaluation. The
analysis of arguments such as these is both fundamental and continuous, and these issues
cannot be solved quickly or denitively. Moreover, it is dicult to understand how PISA can
dAgnese 67

help students to learn from their mistakes when students do not receive individual feed-
back on the test.
Furthermore, PISA seems to be unaware of the fact that students make sense of their own
learning and the gap between what is taught and what is learned that is, at the same time,
the limits and the possibilities of education (Biesta, 2005, 2012). The problem of this situ-
ation lies in the fact that PISA claims to pursue what 15-year-olds can do with what they
know. In fostering skills for life, PISA aims to prepare students for life. Granting this
and there are several good reasons to state the opposite (Bonderup Dohn, 2007; Hopman
and Brinek, 2007) the problem is that life is not a univocal concept. What is this life to
which the OECD refers? Is life, according to PISA, something in which everyone is able to
contribute equally to the development of democracy and society and have a voice? The
answer, most likely, is no. Society, in PISAs words, is framed not by citizens but rather
by who has the right skills (OECD, 2014e). Is it allowed or simply convenient to share
knowledge in PISAs conception of life? I do not think so. If you are studying with your
classmate and he is on the wrong track, it is better not to make him aware, because your
absolute value is not important, according to PISAs logic; the only thing that is important is
your position in the rankings.
With PISA, we can nd other examples of this lack of awareness:
To attract the best graduates to the teaching profession, these systems need to transform the
work organisation in their schools to an environment in which professional norms of control
replace bureaucratic and administrative forms of control. Equally important, more professional
discretion accorded to teachers allows them greater latitude in developing student creativity and
critical thinking skills that are important to knowledge based economies; such skills are harder to
develop in highly prescriptive learning environments. (OECD, 2014f)

The question is simple: does PISA treat teachers as autonomous persons who foster autono-
mous thinking or as stupid and ancient soldiers who educate parrots, as in one of its
popular videos (OECD, 2014c)? Of course, the objection would be that this is only a cari-
cature that shows one wrong way to teach. Unfortunately, the opposite appears to the case.
Regarding the relevance and the concepts expressed, the video is a meaningful document
that explains PISAs aims, opinions, and methods. Notwithstanding our opinion on PISA,
this rough division appears to be dangerous and unfair. It is faith in a unique tool and in a
unique society that reveals a colonialist mind-set.
This is not the place and I am not the scholar to discuss the relationship between
the real nature of todays economy and the fairy tale version of it, but the opportunity to
create new processes in the globalised world is intentionally overstated. That globalisation
has led to a wider space for creativity in work is all too apparent. The weight of inter-
national associations, such as the OECD, with their strong inuence on countries (Bracey,
2008; Grek et al., 2009), and also increasing economic inequality, point in the opposite
direction. The real decisions about education are most likely made by fewer people than in
the recent past. The OECD, for example, hardly creates a space for sharing knowledge and
experience about education because such a space starts with teachers, educators, and key
local actors in the eld of schooling and education. Rather, the OECD aims to govern the
educational process through pervasive penetration into schools, educational departments,
government agencies dedicated to education, and families2. This totalitarian stance is a
mistake, and not merely from a humanistic and old-fashioned perspective. PISA and the
OECD should be aware that complexity, long-term ideas, and apparent stalemates are
68 Power & Education 7(1)

essential, not only to scientic progress but also to the preservation of life, which depends
on variety.

Final thoughts
Throughout this article, I have argued that PISAs nature has roots in colonialism. Through
PISA, the OECD intends to expropriate subjects of their culture and knowledge, denying the
subjects legitimacy and imposing the OECDs own univocal logic. This colonialism should
not be understood either as an expropriation of resources or as only an economic and
ideological penetration of countries. To understand PISAs colonialism, the Foucauldian
category of governmentality may be useful. This idea concerns the way in which the
behavior of a set of individuals became involved, more and more markedly, in the exercise of
sovereign power (Foucault, 1997a [19541984]: 78). In a Foucauldian understanding, gov-
ernmentality is exercised through rational forms and technical procedures, instrumenta-
tions [. . .] and strategic games (Foucault, 1997b [19541984]: 202). To grasp the meaning of
this issue, we must bear in mind how Foucault, throughout his life, challenged the idea that
power and knowledge are separate entities. For him, power and knowledge came into the
world together, and, in a sense, they make the world. The subject is always situated in a
power/knowledge domain (Foucault, 1995 [1975]). This, of course, does not imply that our
relationship with knowledge and power is blocked. On the contrary, we can challenge a given
relationship and a given domain by another understanding and another acting of the
power/knowledge domain.
Thus, we cannot see the prominence of one entity over the other. Power exists and
expresses itself in a knowledge domain, and knowledge exists and establishes itself in a
power domain. At the same time, these embedded domains need and produce institutions
and concepts, objects, and languages. In a sense, they also produce the kind of subjects we
are (Foucault, 1973 [1969]). The person who aims to exercise power must establish know-
ledge strictly functional to his or her powers position and a eld of existence of the
phenomena at stake. According to Foucault, by establishing this knowledge, the person
who exercises power then establishes what is visible, what is relevant, and what is not.
PISA corresponds fully to the Foucauldian criterion of governmentality: it is a rational
form, a technical procedure and an instrumentation through which the OECD pene-
trates countries, schools, and families. PISAs well-dened idea of education exposes its
goals to the actors involved in education students, teachers, policy makers, and head-
teachers. Furthermore, through this process, the OECD aims to establish what a society,
education, and students should be.
Considering this, PISA can be seen as a tool of the narrative of neo-liberal globalisa-
tion. This narrative does not imply a pre-eminence of one country over another; the decline
of the major shareholder of neoliberalism, the United States, is signicant regarding this
issue. Rather, this narrative implies the elimination of any other way of conceiving the world
and a way of life that is not coherent with its logic. In Gurras words, this narrative is the
logic of whoever provides best value for money (OECD, 2014e). PISAs birth and success
and that of the national assessment tools based on PISAs model are clearly linked to the
neo-liberal globalisation narrative (Alexander, 2011; Au, 2011; Bourdieu, 2003; Nichols
and Berliner, 2007; Rizvi and Lingard, 2010). Further, it may be considered that the OECD,
under the aegis of evidence and objectivity, is turning education not only into a tool
that is strictly functional for the goals of the new Taylorism but into a Weltanschauung
dAgnese 69

whose founding values, in the OECD myth, are knowledge, equity, quality, and
education. After all, who would speak against these ideas?
Education is eclipsed by PISA. Education is the place where our life and the life of society
take form (Biesta, 2007; Dewey, 1930, 1938; Gramsci, 1992 [19481951]; Torres, 1998). When
we conceive of education from a pre-established stance, we conceive of living before living can
show its own possibilities. Society is the same. In fostering only one concept of education, we
freeze, so to speak, the current form of society and the current power relationship. Thus,
education, to the extent that it is concerned with freedom and justice, must be also concerned
with otherness and possibilities, namely, with the space that is not-yet-thought.
Being in education requires thinking and acting in existential frames, and this engagement
with human destiny entails responsibility for our direction. In education, we are called to act
on something and by someone. Being in education in research and in practice requires us
to take a position and to choose a way to act. Thus, we are faced with a paradox: on one
hand, we should be able to remain in the presence of otherness without the constraints of a
previous denition, and to respect the otherness of others (Biesta, 2007; Gur-Zeev, 2003); on
the other hand, we must decide in which direction we are called for a concrete process, or
which direction to show to the subjects we are educating. This paradox is anything but new;
it is one of the cruxes of educational research, from Dewey to Gramsci to Gur-Zeev. The
paradox has its roots in the diculty or perhaps, the impossibility of dening the ques-
tion of otherness in satisfying terms. Insofar as otherness is radically outside oneself, one can
never grasp it without betraying it. Further, this paradox is of more than philosophical
signicance. As Foucault has shown, this paradox involves a choice regarding who has
the right and who has the power to speak and to act, which is the founding concern of
democracy. However, to the extent that the meaning of education lies in transformation, and
education is concerned with justice, then education must be concerned with the ungraspable
openness of our thought. Education must demand the work to go beyond what we and
society currently are. As educators, we must continually ask whether our stance towards
education is large enough and good enough to match and manage this challenge. Without
this engagement, without challenging given forms of life, education is at risk of becoming
the means to facilitate the progressive impoverishment of the living, and the perpetuation of
injustice and inequality into the future.

Notes
1. In the PISA 2015 Draft Framework, however, there is a reference to a collaborative problem
solving framework. Insofar as this text is based on competition between groups instead of com-
petition between individuals, and under the mask of collaboration and solutions stimulated by
ideas of other group members, we always find the same central idea: competition above all.
Moreover, in the Introduction to this framework, we find, as its first intention, an effective division
of labour (OECD, 2014g: 3). See, also, OECD 2010b and OECD 2014d.
2. PISAs questionnaire concerning family is a clear warning about its penetration.

References
Alexander R (2011) Evidence, rhetoric and collateral damage: The problematic pursuit of world class
standards. Cambridge Journal of Education 41(3): 265286.
Au W (2008) Devising inequality: A Bernsteinian analysis of high-stakes testing and social reproduc-
tion in Education. British Journal of Sociology of Education 29(6): 639651.
70 Power & Education 7(1)

Au W (2011) Teaching under the new Taylorism: High-stakes testing and the standardization of the
21st century curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies 43(1): 2545.
Biesta GJJ (2005) Against learning. Reclaiming a language for education in an age of learning. Nordisk
Pedagogik 25: 5466.
Biesta GJJ (2007) Education and the democratic person: Towards a political understanding of demo-
cratic education. Teachers College Record 109(3): 740769.
Biesta GJJ (2012) Good education in an age of measurement: On the need to reconnect with the
question of purpose in education. Educational Philosophy and Theory 44(6): 581593.
Bonderup Dohn N (2007) Knowledge and skills for PISAAssessing the assessment. Journal of
Philosophy of Education 41(1): 116.
Bourdieu P (2003) Firing Back Against the Tyranny of the Market. London: Verso.
Bracey GW (2008) The leaning (toppling?) tower of PISA? Principal Leadership 9(2): 4951.
Carroll P and Kellow A (2011) The OECD: A Study of Organisational Adaptation. Cheltenham:
Edward Elgar.
Dewey J (1929a) Experience and Nature. London: George Allen & Unwin.
Dewey J (1929b) The Quest for Certainty: A Study of the Relation between Knowledge and Action.
New York: Minton, Balch & Company.
Dewey J (1930) Democracy and Education. An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education. New York:
The MacMillan Company.
Dewey J (1938) Experience and Education. In: Boydston JA (ed.) The Later Works, 19251953,
Vol. 13. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, pp. 162.
Dorn S (2007) Accountability Frankenstein: Understanding and Taming the Monster. Charlotte, NC:
Information Age Publishing.
Eccleston R (2011) The OECD and global economic governance. Australian Journal of International
Aairs 65(2): 243255.
Foucault M (1973) [1969] The Order of Things. An Archaeology of Human Sciences. New York:
Vintage/Random House.
Foucault M (1995) [1975]) Discipline and Punish. New York: Vintage.
Foucault M (1997a) [19541984]) Security, territory and population. In: Rabinow P (ed.) Ethics
Subjectivity and Truth. The Essential Works of Michel Foucault, 19541984 Volume I. New York:
The New Press, pp. 223252.
Foucault M (1997b) [19541984]) Preface to the history of sexuality, Volume II. In: Rabinow P (ed.)
Ethics Subjectivity and Truth. The Essential Works of Michel Foucault 19541984 Volume I.
New York: The New Press, pp. 199206.
Foucault M (2002) [1969]) Archaeology of Knowledge. London: Routledge.
Giroux HA (1981) Ideology Culture and the Process of Schooling. Philadelphia: Temple University
Press.
Giroux HA (1989) Schooling for Democracy. Critical Pedagogy in the Modern Age. London:
Routledge.
Gorur R (2011) ANT on the PISA trail: Following the statistical pursuit of certainty. Educational
Philosophy and Theory 43(s1): 7693.
Gramsci A (1992) [19481951]) Prison Notebooks. New York: Columbia University Press.
Grek S (2007) And the Winner is . . . : PISA and the construction of the European education space.
Paper presented at the Advancing the European Education Agenda, European Education Policy
Network Conference.
Grek S, Lawn M and Ozga J (2009) Production of OECDs Programme for International
Student Assessment (PISA). Edinburgh: Centre for Educational Sociology, University of
Edinburgh.
Gur-Zeev I (2003) Destroying the Others Collective Memory. New York: Peter Lang.
Henry M, Lingard B, Rizvi F, et al. (2001) The OECD Globalisation and Education Policy. Amsterdam:
Pergamon.
dAgnese 71

Hopman S and Brinek TG (2007) PISA according to PISA Does PISA keep what it promises? In:
Hopman S, Brinek TG and Retzl M (eds) PISA According to PISA Does PISA Keep What It
Promises? Berlin: Lit Verlag Dr.W. Hopf.
Horkheimer M and Adorno TW (2002) [1944]) Dialectic of Enlightenment. Philosophical Fragments.
Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Jakobi AP and Martens K (2010) Introduction: The OECD as an actor in international politics.
In: Martens K and Jakobi AP (eds) Mechanisms of OECD Governance: International Incentives
for National Policy-making? Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 125.
Lawn M and Lingard B (2002) Constructing a European policy space in educational governance: The
role of transnational policy actors. European Educational Research Journal 1(2): 290307.
Levinson M (2011) Democracy, accountability and education. Theory and Research in Education 9(2):
125144.
Mansell W (2007) Education by Numbers: The Tyranny of Testing. London: Politicos Publishing.
Nichols SL and Berliner DC (2007) Collateral Damage: How High-stakes Testing Corrupts Americas
Schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
OECD (2004) Learning for Tomorrows World. First Results from PISA 2003. Paris: OECD
Publications.
OECD (2010a) PISA 2009 Results: What Students Know and Can Do Student Performance in Reading
Mathematics and Science (Volume I). Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264091450-en.
OECD (2010b) The OECD Innovation Strategy: Getting a Head Start on Tomorrow. Paris: OECD
Publishing.
OECD (2011) Lessons from PISA for the United States Strong Performers and Successful Reformers in
Education. Paris: OECD Publishing. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264096660-en.
http://www.oecd.org/pisa/46623978.pdf.
OECD (2014a) About PISA. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/pisa/aboutpisa.
OECD (2014b) Home-page. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/pisa/home.
OECD (2014c) OECDs video PISA Measuring student success around the world. Available at:
http://www.oecd.org/pisa/aboutpisa.
OECD (2014d) OECD test for schools. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/pisa/aboutpisa/
oecdtestforschoolsintheus.htm.
OECD (2014e) OECDs video Strong performers and successful reformers in education. A video series
proling policies and practices of education systems that demonstrate high or improving perform-
ance in the PISA tests. A message from Angel Gurra. Available at: http://www.pearsonfoundation.
org/oecd.
OECD (2014f) PISA 2012 Results in Focus. What 15-year-olds know and what they can do with what
they know. Available at: know. http://www.oecd.org/pisa/keyndings/pisa-2012-results-
overview.pdf.
OECD (2014g) PISA 2015 Draft Framework. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/
pisa2015draftframeworks.htm.
OECD (2014h) Test for Schools (based on PISA): Frequently Asked Questions (and answers).
Available at: http://www.oecd.org/pisa/aboutpisa/pisa-basedtestforschools.htm.
Onosko J (2011) Race to the top leaves children and future citizens behind: The devastating eects of
centralization, standardization, and high-stakes accountability. Democracy & Education 19(2): art-
icle 1.
Pearson Foundation and OECD (2014) Strong performers and successful reformers in education.
Available at: http://www.pearsonfoundation.org/oecd.
Peters RS (1966) Ethics and Education. London: Allen & Unwin.
Pereira MA, Kottho HG and Cowen R (eds) (2011) PISA Under Examination. Changing Knowledge
Changing Texts and Changing Schools. Rotterdam, Boston, Taipei: Senser Publisher.
Pons X (2011) What do we really learn from PISA? The sociology of its reception in three European
countries (20012008). European Journal of Education 46(4): 540548.
72 Power & Education 7(1)

Prenzel M (2013) Introduction: Research on PISA, with PISA, and for PISA. In: Prenzel M, Kobarg
M, Schops K and Ronnebeck S (eds) Research on PISA. Research Outcomes of the PISA Research
Conference 2009. Dordrecht, Heidelberg, New York, London: Springer, pp. XIIXXI.
Ranciere J (2003 [1983]) The Philosopher and His Poor. Durham, North Carolina: Duke University
Press.
Rizvi F and Lingard B (2010) Globalizing Education Policy. London, Routledge.
Sellar S and Lingard B (2013) The OECD and the expansion of PISA: New global modes of govern-
ance in education. British Educational Research Journal. Epub ahead of print. DOI: 10.1002/
berj.3120.
Shohamy E (2004) Assessment in multicultural societies: Applying democratic principles and practices
to language testing. In: Norton B (ed.) Critical Pedagogies and Language Learning. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, pp. 7293.
Torres CA (1998) Democracy Education and Multiculturalism. Dilemmas of Citizenship in a Global
World. Boston: Rowman and Littleeld.
Wolf A (2002) Does Education Matter? Myths about Education and Economic Growth. London:
Penguin.
Woodward R (2009) The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).
Abingdon: Routledge.