My experiences in the British school system, teaching at a Montessori preschool in China, and now working in higher education marketing for a U.S. college have given me a multifaceted perspective on Gert Biesta’s framework for understanding the purpose of education: qualification, socialization, and subjectification.
In England, where I spent my formative years, the emphasis on qualification was evident in the structured National Curriculum and the high-stakes SATs, 11+, GCSE and A-level/IB exams. This system arguably excelled at providing students with a broad knowledge base and measurable skills. My experience also highlighted the strong undercurrent of socialization in English schools. The hidden curriculum—manifested in school uniforms and prefect structures—played a significant role in shaping my understanding of social norms and expectations.
My experience teaching in a Montessori preschool in Shanghai offered a contrasting perspective. The focus on self-directed learning and individual development aligned closely with Biesta’s concept of subjectification. The Montessori method seemed to prioritize the child’s agency and personal growth, while still imparting knowledge and social understanding. I might have said back then that the purpose of education there was primarily subjectification, with qualification and socialization as supporting elements; compared to a strong emphasis on qualification in the UK, closely followed by socialization.
Now, working in the online division of a Vermont-based college, I’m witnessing another interpretation of educational purpose. From a marketing perspective, I see how the American higher education system, particularly in its online form, is often promoted with a focus on qualification in a very direct, career-oriented manner; we frequently emphasize equipping students with specific skills and knowledge for the job market. Yet, adult learners are clearly engaging in a process of subjectification when pursuing education with specific career goals in mind. The very act of choosing to further one’s education, researching options, and committing to a learning journey demonstrates critical engagement with one’s life trajectory.
The hidden curriculum takes on new dimensions in digital spaces. As a marketer, I’m somewhat aware of how the design of learning management systems, the choice of communication tools, and the patterns of online interaction all convey implicit messages about what knowledge is valued and how learners should behave. Our marketing materials and strategies inevitably contribute to this hidden curriculum, shaping students’ expectations and perceptions of the educational experience.
The influence of past educational initiatives on current and future practices in digital education is an important consideration, especially when examining the hidden curriculum in online spaces. Gallagher, Nicol, and Breines (2023) apply the concept of hauntology to digital education, arguing that past initiatives continue to ‘haunt’ present and future trajectories. They note: “Hauntology provides a means of evading being locked into ‘atemporal and ahistorical analyses’ (Dale and Robertson 2012: 27). Again, in the digital, we see the projections of the future appearing from the past, as ‘what haunts the digital cul-de-sacs of the twenty-first century is not so much the past as all the lost futures that the twentieth century taught us to anticipate’ (Fisher 2012: 16).” This suggests that the goals and methods of past educational initiatives continue to shape our current approaches in the digital space, often in subtle or unexpected ways.
The interconnectedness of qualification, socialization, and subjectification is undeniable. They intertwine and reinforce each other in complex ways across different educational settings. But are these outcomes the same as purpose? Just because we observe these effects, does it necessarily follow that they represent education’s fundamental aims? This leads us to consider the intentionality behind educational systems. Are these outcomes the result of deliberate design, or are they emergent properties of the educational process? It’s possible that the purpose of education, as envisioned by policymakers, educators, or society at large, might be quite different from its actual effects.
A critical theory perspective prompts us to examine whether the apparent purposes of education perpetuate existing social structures and power relations. The hidden curriculum, manifesting in both traditional and digital learning environments, plays a crucial role in conveying implicit messages about knowledge, behavior, and social norms.
In my current role, these considerations take on practical significance. We must critically examine the narratives we promote, questioning whether we’re reinforcing existing assumptions about education’s purpose or challenging them to present a more nuanced vision. This reflection extends to the design of digital learning platforms and online interactions, which carry their own implicit lessons about the nature and value of education.
This critical stance invites a broader questioning of whether education requires a singular, defined purpose at all. Perhaps its value lies in its capacity to serve multiple, evolving purposes responsive to individual and societal needs. The tension between predetermined outcomes and open-ended exploration may itself be a fundamental aspect of education’s nature.
Ultimately, my journey across various educational contexts has led me not to a definitive conclusion about education’s purpose, but to a more sophisticated understanding of its complexity. As I craft narratives about online education, I’m increasingly aware of the responsibility inherent in shaping perceptions of educational purpose and the need for a more nuanced, culturally sensitive approach that acknowledges the multifaceted nature of education.
(Pictures from Alice's Adventures in Wonderland - Alice-in-Wonderland.net)
