top of page
Search
The Wilberforce Society Cambridge

Navigating Neoliberalism, AI, and SDG 4: Toward Equitable Global Education

Updated: Sep 18

Aanchal Kapur

Edited by Ansh Barot

 

Introduction

In the discourse surrounding education, neoliberalism emerges as a complex and multifaceted phenomenon that deeply influences global educational policies. It is underpinned by ideological principles that include Western economic strategies such as trade liberalisation, market deregulation, individual empowerment, self-interest, competitiveness, decentralisation, minimal state intervention, and extensive privatisation of state-owned enterprises (Barnawi, 2018; Raco, 2005; Rodrigues, 2003). These neoliberal principles have significantly shaped the landscape of education, leading to a shift from state-led provision to market-driven models.


However, the implementation of neoliberal policies has sparked considerable debate, concerning their impact on social equity, democratic values, and environmental sustainability. While proponents argue that these policies enhance efficiency and competitiveness, critics highlight the resulting increase in social inequality and the erosion of public welfare services, including education (Harvey, 2007). This tension is particularly relevant in the context of Sustainable Development Goal 4 (SDG 4), which aims to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education for all by 2030.


This article explores the intricate balance between the neoliberal drive towards market efficiency and the global commitment to achieving SDG 4. It also examines the potential role of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in reconciling these seemingly conflicting agendas. While AI offers transformative possibilities for customising learning experiences and expanding educational access, its integration into education systems raises critical ethical concerns, particularly in terms of data privacy, algorithmic bias, and the perpetuation of existing inequalities. By critically assessing the intersection of neoliberalism, AI, and SDG 4, this article provides insight into how educational policies can navigate these complex challenges to achieve more equitable and inclusive outcomes.


Historical Contexts and Shifting Educational Paradigms

The evolution of educational policies from the 1960s through the 1980s reflects a significant shift from a focus on equity to  embracing market-driven principles, which underscores the deep-seated influence of neoliberalism on the educational landscape. In the 1960s and 1970s, educational policies were largely centred on promoting equity and access, driven by broader social movements advocating for civil rights and social justice. However, by the 1980s, there was a marked shift towards neoliberal ideologies, which prioritised efficiency, accountability, and competition within the education sector (Klees, 2008a, 2008b, 2016a; Verger, Fontdevila, & Zancajo, 2016).


This transformative period saw the implementation of accountability measures such as standardised testing and the proliferation of private and charter schools. The globalisation of education further reinforced this shift, as education systems worldwide increasingly operated within a global marketplace, where competitiveness and standardisation were key priorities (Hursh, 2011).


Understanding this historical context is crucial for grasping the contemporary implications of neoliberalism, particularly in relation to SDG 4. Scholars such as Lingard (2011emphasises the need to explore these historical shifts in detail to understand their significant impact on current global education agendas. Examining the historical roots of neoliberal ideology in education helps clarify the challenges it poses to achieving the goals of SDG 4.


The Role of the State and Challenges of Accountability

Neoliberalism advocates for limited state intervention in economic spheres, including education, aligning with principles that foster free-market dynamics and operational efficiency (Friedman, 1962; Kumi et al., 2013). Proponents argue that by reducing government control and introducing market mechanisms, education systems can become more efficient and accountable. This approach often involves implementing standardized testing and other accountability measures designed to gauge educational performance and ensure that schools operate efficiently (Gore et al., 2023).


However, the privatization of education, a key aspect of neoliberal policy, can exacerbate existing educational disparities. Private institutions, driven by profit motives, may prioritize financial gains over equitable educational outcomes, leading to significant inequalities. For instance, lower-income families may find it difficult to afford private education, leaving their children with limited access to quality education. Additionally, state-funded schools often have fewer resources and lower-quality facilities compared to their private counterparts, further widening the gap in educational outcomes (Klees, 2008b; Bhanji, 2016).


The overemphasis on standardized testing as a primary accountability measure under neoliberal frameworks can also narrow the educational focus, prioritizing test results over a more holistic approach to learning. This focus on measurable outcomes can marginalize diverse learning modalities and overlook the broader educational needs of students, ultimately undermining the goals of SDG 4 to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education for all.


Striking a delicate balance between the efficiency-driven aspects of neoliberalism and the inclusive aspirations of SDG 4 is crucial. Therefore, while market forces can drive improvements in certain areas, ensuring that education remains accessible and socially equitable requires careful regulation and state intervention.

 

Commodification of Education

Neoliberalism's pervasive influence extends beyond economic spheres to the realm of education, where it frames learning as a tradable commodity subject to market dynamics (Ferreira et al., 2020). This commodification of education leads to a troubling reality: educational inequalities are perpetuated as access becomes increasingly limited to those who can afford it.


Moreover, the instrumentalization of education under neoliberal ideologies often shifts its focus from broader societal values to mere economic returns. This shift dilutes the transformative potential of education, which traditionally encompasses not only economic growth and development but also social mobility, personal empowerment, and the cultivation of critical thinking and civic engagement which strengthens democratic societies (Apple, 2001; Ball, 2003).


As we navigate the challenges posed by the commodification of education, it becomes imperative to reassert the fundamental importance of education as a cornerstone of societal progress and a universal right deserving of equitable access.

 

Unlocking the Potential: How AI Can Accelerate SDG 4 - Quality Education

 Artificial Intelligence (AI) is increasingly recognised for its transformative potential in various sectors, and education is no exception. As AI continues to evolve, it offers promising solutions to some of the most pressing challenges in education, particularly in the context of achieving SDG 4. By harnessing AI, education systems can be tailored to meet the diverse needs of learners, thereby bridging gaps in skills and access, and enhancing overall educational outcomes.


One of the most significant benefits of AI in education is its ability to personalise learning experiences. AI-driven platforms like DreamBox and Century Tech analyse individual learning patterns, strengths, and weaknesses, subsequently delivering customised content that suits the specific needs of each student. This level of personalisation helps address the varying learning paces and styles among students, ensuring that everyone has opportunities to succeed. By identifying where students are struggling, AI can also provide targeted interventions, effectively bridging skills gaps and promoting educational equity.


Furthermore, AI holds the potential to enhance transparency and accountability within educational institutions. For example, AI systems like those used in Estonia’s education system can analyse financial data and monitor resource allocation, identifying instances of corruption or inefficiency. This capability is crucial in ensuring that educational resources are used effectively and equitably, thereby fostering trust in the education system. In this way, AI not only supports the operational efficiency of educational institutions but also reinforces their accountability to the public.


However, the integration of AI into education is not without its challenges. One of the most pressing concerns is the risk of algorithmic bias. AI systems are trained on vast datasets, and if these datasets contain biases—whether cultural, racial, or gender-based—those biases can be perpetuated and even amplified by the AI. For example, if an AI system is primarily trained on data from Western contexts, it might not adequately serve students from non-Western backgrounds, potentially reinforcing existing inequalities. Several AI language models have already been shown to exhibit biases against non-standard English dialects. To address this issue, it is imperative that AI systems in education are designed with inclusivity in mind, using diverse and representative datasets.


Another significant challenge is the potential conflict between AI integration and the decolonisation of education. AI technologies are often developed within Western frameworks, which can inadvertently impose Western cultural norms and values in non-Western educational contexts. This risk highlights the importance of involving indigenous and marginalised communities in the development and governance of AI systems. For instance, New Zealand’s government has begun involving Māori communities in the development of AI policies to ensure that these technologies respect and incorporate indigenous knowledge and cultural practices. By ensuring that AI systems are culturally responsive and inclusive, we can avoid perpetuating colonial legacies in education and promote a more equitable global learning environment.


Effective governance frameworks are essential to managing the ethical and practical implications of AI in education. While neoliberal policies may advocate for deregulation and minimal state intervention, the complexities of AI integration demand robust oversight. This could involve establishing AI regulatory bodies, such as the proposed AI Governance Agency in the UK, tasked with ensuring that AI systems used in education are transparent, accountable, and aligned with ethical standards. Additionally, it is crucial that governance mechanisms include marginalised voices in decision-making, whether through advisory councils or direct representation in AI governance bodies. Such measures would ensure that AI is used in a way that benefits all learners, not just those in the most privileged positions.


While AI presents a powerful tool for enhancing educational equity and quality, its integration into education systems must be approached with caution and care. By addressing the challenges of data bias, privacy, and cultural inclusivity, and by adopting strong governance frameworks, we can harness AI’s potential to accelerate progress towards SDG 4. However, if the right policies are not implemented, AI could exacerbate existing inequalities and reinforce biases, leading to further marginalisation of already disadvantaged groups.  In future, it is imperative that to ensure AI serves as a force for good in education, promoting an inclusive, equitable, and high-quality learning environment for all.


References

  • Apple, M. W. (2001). Educating the "right" way: Markets, standards, God, and inequality. Routledge.

  • Ball, S. J. (2003). The teacher's soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Policy, 18(2), 215-228.

  • Barnawi, O. Z. (2018). Neoliberalism and English language education policies in the Arabian Gulf. Routledge.

  • Bhanji, Z. (2016). Education, neoliberalism, and the rise of the new right. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 14(2), 147-160.

  • Binat Sarwar, M. (2022, April 21). Reading Audrey Watters: A reflection on personalised learning via education technology through a decolonial lens. EdTech Hub.

  • Crouch, C. (2011). The strange non-death of neoliberalism. Polity Press.

  • Engberg-Pedersen, L. (2021). Is the influence of neoliberalism on development norms waning? Evidence from the Addis Ababa Action Agenda and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Development Policy Review, 39, 682–700. https://doi.org/10.1111/dpr.12521

  • Ferreira, J., Tavares, A., & Salgueiro, M. F. (2020). The impact of neoliberalism on education: An analysis of the commodification of higher education. Education Sciences, 10(6), 168.

  • Giroux, H. A. (2007). Democracy, education, and the politics of critical pedagogy. In P. McLaren & J. L. Kincheloe (Eds.), Critical pedagogy: Where are we now? (pp. 1-5). Peter Lang.

  • Gore, J., Rickards, B., & Fray, L. (2023). From performative to professional accountability: Re-imagining 'the field of judgment' through teacher professional development. Journal of Education Policy, 38(3), 452-473. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2022.2080274

  • Handayani, E. T., & Aminatun, D. (2020). Students’ point of view on the use of WhatsApp group to elevate writing ability. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 1(2), 31-37.

  • Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford University Press.

  • Harvey, D. (2007). The new imperialism. Oxford University Press.

  • Hill, D., & Rosskam, E. (2009). Global neoliberalism and education and its consequences.

  • Hodson, J. (Year). Can artificial intelligence help us achieve universal quality education? Blue Dot, 9, 44-46.

  • Holstein, K., & McLaren, B. M. (2019). AI in education: Achievements and challenges from AI Magazine.

  • Hursh, D. (2011). The end of public schools: The corporate reform agenda in American education.

  • Klees, S. J. (2008b). Reflections on neoliberalism in education. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 6(4), 315-332.

  • Klees, S. J., Stromquist, N., Samoff, J., & Vally, S. (2019). The world development report on education: A critical analysis. Development and Change, 50(2), 1–18.

  • Roshid, M. M., & Le Ha, P. (2023). Higher education as public good, sustainable development goals, and crisis response in neoliberal political economy. Research in Comparative & International Education, 18(2), 317–347. https://doi.org/10.1177/17454999231174137

  • Rodrigues, S. B. (2003). Education policy and the politics of the third way: Lessons from Portugal.

  • Selwyn, N. (2019). Should robots replace teachers? AI and the future of education.

  • UNESCO. (n.d.). Unpacking Sustainable Development Goal 4 - Education 2030.

  • UNESCO. (2019a). Understanding AI and education: Emerging practices and benefit-risk assessment – AI and education: Guidance for policy-makers.

  • UNESCO. (2019). Understanding the impact of AI on education. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000368961

  • Venugopal, R. (2015). Neoliberalism as concept. Economy and Society, 44(2), 165–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/03085147.2015.1013356

  • Verger, A., Fontdevila, C., & Zancajo, A. (2016). Education privatization as a state reform: The ideological road to privatization in Chile and the United Kingdom.

Comments


bottom of page