We live in a future-focused present. The predicted, yet unknown, crises that our world is set to face to the coming decade are undoubtedly salient. In response, governments are increasingly turning to anticipatory governance – a proactive approach to navigate these ambiguous futures (Muiderman et al., 2020). This approach extends beyond general modes of governance, in that it reveals a palpable intent to shape an unpredictable future (Rose & Abi-Rached, 2013).

To aid in this anticipatory mode of governance, policymakers often employ rhetorical strategies, including referencing the past to help defend arguments to shape the future. This tactic is also evident in education policies, where 'educational futures' are emphasised by “projecting the past and present into planning of the future” (Popkewitz, 1997, p. 401). In doing so, these policies instrumentalise the past to govern the future.  

Scholars stress that such ‘instrumental uses of the past’ differ from drawing on historical perspectives to analyse contemporary issues (Dougherty, 2009), which remains highly valuable in educational research (Westberg, 2021). Instead, instrumentalising the past, as many future-oriented education policies do, involves “creating different pasts so they match (or not) the futures that we deem preferable” (Galviz, 2022, p. 31). Consequently, the past is used in service of certain ideologies, which not only prompts a biased and incomplete interpretation of history (Hess, 2010), but also risks producing ‘instrumental futures’ (Michael, 2000).

Therefore, this paper will investigate the use of historical narratives in two contemporary and future-oriented policies. Specifically, this study delves into the concept of 'politics of temporality', exploring how the past is instrumentalised to govern and shape future education reform, especially in response to global uncertainties. In doing so, it emphasises the power of supranational organisations in guiding this education reform, particularity within the current knowledge economy.

Utilising recent scholarship of ‘applied history of education’ (cf. Westberg, 2021; Westberg & Primus, 2023) and drawing inspiration from the work of, amongst others, Seixas (2005), who emphasises the need for historical thinkers – policymakers included – to think more historically, this research employs Jörn Rüsen’s staged scheme of development in historical consciousness. This framework identifies four ‘types’ of historical thinking – traditional, exemplary/progressive, critical, and genetic – ranging from basic to more advanced. Thus, the analysis aims to pinpoint the mode of historical consciousness employed in the selected policies, intending to prompt a ‘window of opportunity’ for the development of more sophisticated historical thinking in education policies.

As such, this research has a dual objective: firstly, to unveil instrumental readings of history within contemporary education policies, and secondly, to analyse how these readings may both hinder our understanding of history and serve as rhetorical devices for advocating disruptive futures. In other words, this study aims to uncover both what education policy discourse says and what the discourse does. It argues that instrumentalising the past not only distorts histories of education, but also serves as a powerful tool for policymakers to advance specific agendas in education. Accordingly, this research advocates for a critical reflection on the uses of the past in education policy-making and calls for the development of critical and genetic modes of historical consciousness, arguing that this may facilitate a dialogue among policymakers and historians (of education) in reflecting on educational futures.

This study analyses two policies from differing governing levels – i.e., supra/international and national. These policies were selected based on their future-oriented emphasis, as well as on the skills required to cope with this future, or ‘knowledge imaginary’ (Fairclough, 2003). In doing so, both policies present a “powerful narrative about social change that is driven by economic process” (Seddon, 2009, p. 260). The first policy selected for this paper, the 'Future of Education and Skills 2030' by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), represents an international discourse. This OECD project encompasses a variety of “scripts’ for reordering society” (Simons & Voß, 2018, p. 31), with one particular policy ‘script’ being selected due to its comprehensive overview of the project. The second policy, 'Ending the Big Squeeze of Skills: How to Futureproof Education in Britain' by the Tony Blair Institute (TBI), provides a national perspective within the European context. This report, part of the ‘Future of Britain’ project, provides recommendations for education reform, emphasising accountability measures and critiquing past shortcomings. The OECD’s global influence, described as “catalysts for confluence of interests and agendas” (Ydesen, 2021, p. 120), warrants a close examination of its rhetoric and advocating reform. On the other hand, the TBI’s national focus allows for a nuanced exploration of how the past is leveraged to advocate for future reform, aligning with the notion of history being “simplified and telescoped, used mainly to explain problems and failure” (McCulloch, 2011, p. 57). Moreover, with the UK being an OECD member, its policies are likely to reveal rhetorical strategies that align with global, knowledge economy ideals. To unravel the use of the past within these policies, the analysis was inspired by the work of Fairclough (1989, 2003), particularly his method of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA). Discourse analysis, as Taylor (1997) highlights, helps to illuminate how policy ‘problems’ (e.g., ‘future skills’) are being presented within policy agendas (e.g., through uses of the past). Fairclough (1989) demonstrates that CDA can expose power mechanisms within discourse, and particularly how language aids in this governance. As such, Fairclough’s CDA-framework was used to guide the analysis, particularly due to its ability in making visible the uses of the past within policy (‘what the discourse says’), as well as in furthering our understanding of its discursive and governing effects (‘what the discourse does’).

The analysis reveals that the selected future-oriented education policies predominantly operate from an ‘exemplary/progressive’ mode of historical reasoning – leveraging the past to advocate for future changes. This insight emerged from a thorough examination of each policy, leading to the identification of distinctive themes in their 'use' of the past. For OECD’s policy, four themes were identified: ‘The past is information for the future’; ‘The past was painful, and education (reform) is the cure’; ‘We have changed, and so should education’; and ‘We will show you where to go’. Notably, the policy uses historical facts and figures, often without adequate historical sources, to justify educational reform and advocate for continual evolution to address current and future challenges. For Britain’s Futureproof Education policy, three themes were identified: ‘Defaming the past, and those who created it’; ‘The past is too old for new economy’; and ‘If we don’t change, we will lose’. This policy document portrays past educational systems negatively, using terms like 'narrow' and 'misguided', to contrast it to the proposed modern, sophisticated reforms. It highlights the imperative for educational change to keep pace with economic and societal developments, stressing the risk of ‘falling behind’ without reform. Based on this, three overall strategies are recognised and discussed: 'We do not want to repeat history,' 'We are different from our past,' and 'We must change to win.' Through an exploration of these strategies and existing (histories of education) scholarship, this study raises questions about the instrumental use of history in policy, as it potentially oversimplifies and distorts complex historical realities to serve contemporary educational agendas. The study suggests a ‘window of opportunity’ for policymakers to embrace higher levels of historical thinking (Seixas, 2005), allowing for a more nuanced understanding of histories of education, in the collective ‘shaping’ of educational futures.

Dougherty, J. (2009). Conflicting questions: Why historians and policymakers miscommunicate on urban education. In K.K Wong & R. Rothman (Eds.), CLIO at the table: Using history to inform and improve education policy (pp. 251–262). Peter Lang. Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. Routledge. Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. Longman Group. Galviz, C. L. (2022). The Paris boulevard autrement. In K. Facer, J. Siebers, & B. Smith (Eds.), Working with time in qualitative research: Case studies, theory, and practice (pp. 1–233). Routledge. McCulloch, G. (2011). The struggle for the history of education (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203828854 Michael, M. (2000). Futures of the present: From performativity to prehension. In N. Brown, B. Rappert, & A. Webster (Eds.). Contested futures: A sociology of prospective techno-science (pp. 21–39). Ashgate. Popkewitz, T. S. (1997). Educational sciences and the normalization of the teacher and child: Some historical notes on current USA pedagogical reforms. Paedagogica Historica, 33(2), 386–412. https://doi.org/10.1080/0030923970330201 Seddon, T. (2009). Knowledge economy: Policy discourse and cultural resource. In M. Simons, M. Olssen, & M. A. Peters (Eds.), Re-reading education policies: A handbook studying the policy agenda of the 21st century (pp. 257–276). Sense. Seixas, P. (2005). Historical consciousness: The progress of knowledge in a postprogressive age. In J. Straub (Ed.), Narration, identity, and historical consciousness (pp. 141–159). Berghahn Books. Westberg, J. (2021). What we can learn from studying the past: The wonderful usefulness of history in educational research. Encounters in Theory and History of Education, 22, 227–248. https://doi.org/10.24908/encounters.v22i0.14999 Westberg, J., & Primus, F. (2023). Rethinking the history of education: Considerations for a new social history of education. Paedagogica Historica, 59(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/00309230.2022.2161321 Ydesen, C. (2021). Extrapolated imperial nationalisms in global education policy formation: An historical inquiry into American and Scandinavian agendas in OECD policy. In D. Tröhler, N. Piattoeva, & W.F. Pinar (Eds.), World yearbook of education 2022: Education, schooling and the global universalization of nationalism (pp. 119–135). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003137801-10 Primary Sources (The selected policies) Coulter, S., Iosad, A., & Scales, J. (2022). Ending the big squeeze on skills: How to futureproof education in England. Tony Blair Institute for Global Change. Organisation of Economic and Cooperative Development. (2019). OECD future of education and skills 2030: project background