This paper constructs an initial theorization of contractualism in education policy based on the basic premise that contracts acts as mechanisms to effect change on practice, on relations between people within the field of education and between the field of education and other fields. In this account contractualism refers to a form of governance in which the state's steering capacity is mediated through contracts (Yeatman, 1996). Contracts provide the state with a mechanism for producing within field effects and cross-field effects (Rawolle, 2013).

The argument explored in this theoretical paper is that there is a need to take seriously the role, impact and outcomes of contracts in education institutions, on people named within such contracts and on educational practices. There are direct political and policy claims that signal the growing emphasis placed in the potential of contracts to pursue a variety of policy and political goals and reform efforts (OECD, 1996). These claims range from the broad social contracts that education is expected to pursue in nation-states and globally (Dale and Robertson 2008), but also as specific policy texts that name specific entities and hold them accountable for obligations. Contracts have been viewed as ways to manage expectations of governments in the provision of services by transnational organisations, such as the World Bank (Patrinos, Barrera-Osorio and Guaqueta 2009). Contracts are viewed as providing a kind of mechanism for advocating different models of privatisation in education, and policies based around the use of contracts have travelled rapidly and globally. This interest has seen the Netherlands being taken as a national model for the development of particular kinds of public-private partnerships (Patrinos, 2010). Similar moves have been adopted in the move to Charter Schools in the US, Academies in the UK and Independent Public Schools in Australia.

Despite this normative policy interest from multiple sources, there is a relative lack of research focussed on the spread and impact of contracts in education institutions and across education systems, and their potential for meeting other kinds of policy obligations, such as reducing inequalities within education systems. Taken broadly, contracts and “contract-like mechanisms” (Rawolle, 2013) are spread throughout education institutions, between education institutions and other agencies, and located on the obligations of governments and nations-states. What, then, is the potential of a contractual turn in education? How can we develop a theoretical framework for exploring this contractual turn in education?

 In response to this provocation, this paper develops a theoretical framework and conceptualisation of the role of contracts in education institutions, from classroom practices through to the production of education policy texts and political statements about the role of education in fulfilling social contracts. This framework is presented as a research framework, and builds on the work of Yeatman (1996) in providing a conceptual language for understanding contracts and our own work published elsewhere that connects with Bourdieu’s accounts of fields and practice (Rawolle, 2013; Rawolle, Rowlands and Blackmore, 2013). We see as an initial premise that contracts have become a central medium through which practice is governed in educational settings in Europe, in Australia and throughout the globe. Through contracts, the obligations and accountabilities of people in educational settings -- from leaders, governing board members, teachers and student – may be established and the targets negotiated and set. Where an education service cannot directly meet some of its obligations, other contracts outsource these obligations to outside providers.  Broader contracts establish the obligations of whole educational sectors, supports for meeting these obligations and standards for meeting accountability targets for government funding. The term contractualism is often used to refer to the mediating role that contracts play in the governance of institutions such as education or welfare services. 

Bourdieu, P. (2003). Firing back: Against the tyranny of the market. London: Verso. Dale, R., & Robertson, S. (2009). Capitalism, modernity and the future of education in the new social contract. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 108 (2), 111-- 129. doi:10.1111/j.1744-7984.2009.01164.x Gibbons, M. (1999). Science’s new social contract with society. Nature, 402 (suppl), C81 C84. doi:10.1038/35011576 Hobbes, T. (1668/1994). Leviathan: With selected variants from the Latin edition of 1668. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (1996). The knowledge-based economy. Paris: Author. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2011b). Divided we stand: Why inequality keeps rising . Paris: Author. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264119536-en Pateman, C. (1988). The sexual contract. Oxford: Polity Press. Patrinos, H. A. (2010) Private Education Provision and Public Finance: The Netherlands, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper no. 5185. Patrinos, H.A., F. Barrera-Osorio and J. Guaqueta (.2009) The Role and Impact of Public-Private Partnerships in Education. Washington DC: World Bank. Rawolle, S. (2013) Understanding equity as an asset to national interest : developing a social contract analysis of policy, Discourse : studies in the cultural politics of education, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 231-244, Routledge, London, England. Rawls, J. (1999). A theory of justice (rev. ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press (originally published in 1971). Sen, A. (2009). The idea of justice. London: Penguin Books. Yeatman, A. (1996). Interpreting contemporary contractualism. Australian Journal of Social Issues , 31 (1), 39 -- 54. Yeatman, A. (2000). Mutual obligation: What kind of contract is this? In P. Saunders (Ed.), Reforming the Australian welfare state (pp. 156 176). Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies. Yeatman, A., & Owler, K. (2001). The role of contract in the democratisation of service delivery. Law in Context, 18 (2), 34.