Eduction has long been viewed with great optimism, celebrated for its power to influence the well-being of individuals and nations alike [1, 2]. Historically, this faith was founded on the belief that formal education provided social justice (equality of opportunity) and supported national efficiency (supplying necessary skills) [3]. Educational systems developed closely linked to nation building and national progress, fostering dispositions such as rationality, tolerance, and empathy required for democracy, with benefits seen as mutually accruing to both the individual and the country [4, 5].

However, major economic, political, and social transformations over the last thirty years have fundamentally challenged this traditional framework, altering the nature and prospects for education [6]. While policymakers still reference broader aims, the economic role of education has assumed primacy [7]. This shift is tied to the elevation of knowledge as central to economic competitiveness and the intensification of global economic competition [8, 9]. This renewed focus often overshadows the fact that education remains a consistent source of political and social conflict, rooted in differing views on the “qualities of the desirable human being” the system should produce [10, 11].

The Three Fundamental Challenges

National education systems are currently struggling to resolve three interconnected challenges stemming from late modernity and global change [12, 13]:

1. Individualisation and Social Fragmentation: This trend forces individuals to construct their own biographies and identities, leading to a “disintegration of certainties” [14]. While people gain freedom from rigid expectations (like fixed gender roles or career paths), they become more dependent on social institutions, such as education, to meet their needs [15, 16]. It is crucial, however, to distinguish this secular trend from market individualism, which reduces education solely to employability and citizens to consumers, focusing on self-worth as market worth [17].
2. Globalisation: This complex process threatens to separate education from the nation state, which traditionally bound together education’s economic and moral purposes [18]. Driven by technology, multinational corporations (MNCs), and neo-liberal policies [19, 20], globalization challenges national autonomy [21]. Held et al. define it as a transformation in the spatial organization of social relations, generating transcontinental flows and interconnected networks [22].
3. The Death of Certainty: This refers to the erosion of faith in the idea of a “one best way” revealed through the “science” of society [12]. Science and technology, though dominant, are now paradoxically associated with greater uncertainty and contestation (e.g., fears about nuclear issues and global warming) [23, 24].

The Conflict Between Economic Primacy and Global Problems

The dominant economic focus, often termed the “education gospel,” posits that national prosperity rests on a highly skilled workforce that can attract high-skilled, high-waged employment [25]. Yet, this individualistic and nationalistic competitive response conflicts with far more fundamental global problems requiring collective rather than individual action [26]:

1. Controlling Catastrophic Forces: Technological and economic forces threaten global catastrophe, such as environmental sustainability, genetics advances, or nuclear issues [27, 28]. Education’s role should be to critically examine these forces and seek ways to bring them to democratic account [29].
2. The Paradox of Prosperity: Global wealth is at an all-time high, yet inequalities are widening both within and between nations [30]. Critically, child poverty remains a major handicap to educational achievement globally [31, 32]. Educationists must analyze how the system contributes to or potentially reforms these inequalities [31].
3. The Opportunity Trap: This tension between capitalism and democracy regarding the distribution of rewards is exacerbated by credential inflation [33, 34]. The rapid increase in university graduates means the supply of knowledge workers has outpaced demand, leading to labor market congestion [33]. This intensified competition allows wealthier parents to leverage their financial privilege for their children’s advantage [35].

Theoretical Lenses: Understanding Inequality

To understand the relationship between education and society, the source contrasts three major theoretical approaches:

• Consensus Approaches: Based on an evolutionary model of society, they view education as serving dual functions: socialisation (equipping students with a “common high culture”) [36] and selection (choosing the most able for demanding jobs) [37]. This perspective champions meritocracy: Intelligence + Effort = Achievement [38].
• Conflict Approaches: These emphasize continuing inequalities based on social class [39].
  • Neo-Marxists argue that education reproduces privilege and dominant ideology, serving the capitalist ruling class [40, 41]. They reject meritocracy as a myth [42].
  • Weberians focus on social exclusion and competition for positional advantage [43, 44]. They argue that professional groups use exclusionary powers (like requiring certification) to control access, fueling credential inflation which makes qualifications less distinctive [34, 44, 45].
• Post-Structuralism/The Cultural Turn: This critique shifts focus away from meta-narratives and class structures toward identity, difference, gender, and ethnicity [46, 47]. Drawing on Foucault, it conceptualizes power operating through discourse and systems of surveillance (such as examinations) [48]. A key limitation noted is that this focus has often diverted attention from issues of class structures and educational stratification [49].

The Neo-Liberal State and the State Theory of Learning

Neo-liberal states have made education central to economic competitiveness, shifting the state’s responsibility from guaranteeing employment to ensuring individuals have the opportunity to become employable [50, 51].

This State Theory of Learning involves a set of policies including parental choice, accountability, and the new managerialism [52, 53]. High-stakes testing regimes (like those in the UK and the US No Child Left Behind Act) are used to drive up standards, but critics argue they primarily serve as a system of surveillance and control over teachers, potentially moving education into a “post-professional” age [54-56]. This system links educational accountability to political fortunes and can produce unintended consequences, such as educational triage, where resources are focused only on students judged near the pass threshold (e.g., moving ‘D’ level students to ‘C’) [57, 58].

The “new managerialism” imposes private enterprise management techniques, measuring performance often numerically, thereby sidelining educational values in favor of technical improvements toward targets [53, 59, 60].

The Nation State’s Role in a Globalized World

The relationship between globalization and state autonomy is best described by the “transformationalist” view: the state is neither powerless nor fully autonomous but reinvents itself within a new global framework [61, 62]. States employ “exit” strategies (ceding power globally to overcome domestic constraints, e.g., using foreign students to fund universities) and “adaptive” strategies (seeking global agreements, like intellectual property rights via the WTO, to reinforce domestic interests) [63-65].

Multilateral agencies—such as the World Trade Organization (WTO), the World Bank (WB), and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)—exert significant influence, largely promoting the neo-liberal policies of the Washington Consensus [66]. The WTO, through agreements on trade in services (GATS) and intellectual property rights (IPRs), impacts how higher education is commercialized [67, 68]. The World Bank, through Structural Adjustment Programmes, conditions aid on privatization and decentralization, though negotiations can lead to compromises [69, 70].

Crucially, globalization challenges national meritocracy. While the vast majority of students remain locked in national assessment systems [71], global competition means the rising professional middle classes may seek international qualifications, like the International Baccalaureate (IB), which offer “blue chip entry” to top universities worldwide [72, 73]. This process risks increasing polarization and social exclusion within societies, even as it creates greater parity between international elites [74].

Conclusion: Rethinking Education’s Purpose

Today, formal education faces profound questions regarding its viability and purpose [75]. The narrow focus on the “education gospel” and economic imperatives risks blinding us to the fundamental problems of our age [76]. If education is to act as a force for social progress, it must move beyond simply preparing “clever calculating pleasure machines” [77].

Achieving an effective education for citizenship—one that encourages students to critically reflect on the global consequences of their actions and understand issues like environmental sustainability, inequality, and poverty—requires not just curriculum changes, but also far greater equality and recognition of differences between social groups [78, 79]. Without addressing the fundamental structuring of the labor market and the welfare state (as exemplified by the Nordic model), social justice and democracy will remain unsettled [79, 80]. Ultimately, the possibility for progress lies in sparking the curiosity and passion that extends far beyond the calculation of economic benefit [81].