ABSTRACT
I propose that we move away from understanding education in terms of calculable and manageable risks (Ulrich Beck’s risk society), to what Jessica Mesman has characterised as the shifting vulnerabilities in sociotechnical systems. While risk is something we can manage, or perhaps even embrace as ‘beautiful’ (Gert Biesta), vulnerability cannot be eliminated or avoided, only redistributed among actors. Thus, the two predominant and polar opposite movements that aim to reduce risk in education—the cognitive science of the What Works movement and personalisation of Silicon Valley—are better understood by examining how vulnerability is redistributed among teachers, students, parents, and the broader community. As we open up this conversation about vulnerability, we have a new opportunity to examine not only the means of education but the ends. Following David Graeber’s analysis of late capitalism, I argue that education suffers from what he calls technological disappointment: we have essentially piled on more bureaucratic technologies (learning management systems, apps to teach math facts) to the exclusion of exploring poetic technologies that would allow us to imagine radically different—and better—futures.
