23 SES 11 C, Global Education Policy
Many governments, in Europe and elsewhere, have recently begun to allow public schools to cooperate with others in providing public education (e.g., Ball & Youdell, 2007; Lingard, Sellar, Hogan, & Thompson, 2017). For example, in Greece, an independent nonprofit organisation, the Athens Partnership, mediates the collaboration between the city of Athens and private partners in providing education in public schools (see Tsatsaroni, Sarakinioti, Koutsiouri, & Vogopoulou, 2018). Such private participation in public education has often raised concerns from both educators and scholars, especially in terms of its implications for equity (e.g., Burch 2009; Lingard, Sellar & Savage 2014). However, in Hong Kong, which has long employed public-private partnerships for public schooling provision, the phenomenon has been normalised. This is why, a new initiative which allowed for outsourcing of curriculum delivery - through the institution of about 20 government grants - failed to draw the attention of both researchers and practitioners. It is thus not surprising that studies which examine the implications of outsourcing for equity in public schools in the context of Hong Kong are rare (cf. Choi, 2018). This is particularly the case with regards to research which reflects the perspective of outsourcing service providers, and the situation is not different elsewhere. However, the voice of outsourcing providers deserves to be given listening ears. Despite the problems that may be associated with these "outsiders" – whether it concerns the reduced and discredited professionalism of teachers or lack of concern for social justice – it is a fact that curriculum delivery is now a joint effort between public schools and service providers in many contexts. This article therefore investigates the phenomenon of educational outsourcing and its equity implication, from the perspective of the service provider. It adopts a Foucauldian lens of governmentality (Foucault, 2008), an appropriate tool to critically review de-facto practice with an aim to explore alternatives (Dean, 2010). In an endeavour to understand the practice of educational outsourcing, the rationality behind decisions and technologies adopted to govern the outsourced education will be explored. The study draws on findings from mixed-method research involving document research and case studies, which was funded by the Research Grants Council of Hong Kong. It was guided by the two following research questions:
- How is educational outsourcing constituted under the neoliberal governmentality?
- To what degree does the constituted practice help achieve educational equity?
The study draws particularly on the concept of responsibilisation (e.g., Shamir, 2008; Peters, 2017) to explain what happens with educational outsourcing, to illustrate how the neoliberal governmentality unduly responsibilizes educational outsourcing providers in ensuring the equity of outsourced education while limiting their ability to meet the demand.
The discussion mainly draws on interviews with twelve staff members, both senior managers and front-line teachers, from six educational outsourcing providers which have collaborated with the four case schools. As the needs of students and resources have proved to be different across schools serving communities of different social and economic status (SES) (Choi, 2018), the companies serving schools of different SES background were chosen. In addition, out of the eight service providers which have served the four case schools, six were approached to reflect the diversity in terms of the nature of service providers. That is, two charities, one one-off project organised by a Chamber of Commerce, and four educational businesses of which two were involved in charity work. The interviews were transcribed, and analyzed through both inductive and deductive thematic content analysis. That is, while data was analysed focusing on the three themes of the outsourcing process in education, the experience of outsourcing providers and their effect on equity, the analysis was open to any themes emerging from the typical inductive analysis (e.g., Bogdan and Biklen, 2007; Miles, Huberman & Saldana, 2014).
This research has sought to understand the practice of educational outsourcing and its equity implications from the perspective of outsourcing service providers, adopting the concept of neoliberal governmentality. Neoliberal rationality redefined the equity of education as a commodity to be purchased and managed through monitoring system that prioritises financial transparency and quantifiable educational acts rather than learning itself. In its governance, service providers were irrationally responsibilised to deliver the goods of equitable education when the prerequisites of the delivery, e.g., communication with schools to understand students and necessary professional development opportunities, are often disregarded by the schools and the government. Some outsourcing service providers, despite the constraining environment, made efforts to realise the entrusted responsibility of equitable education, refusing to be simple vendors of educational acts. The equity becoming an individualised task, rather than an ideal to be collaboratively achieved under this neoliberal governmentality, learning of students and their life chances were sometimes side-lined. The outsourced education as narrated by the outsourcing providers captures the invisible problems of neoliberal educational governance and the limitations of overgeneralisation of third parties participating in public education in terms of their disregard for educational quality and equity. The findings in turn ask if researchers of educational privatisation should now be more inclusive of the voices of the ‘outsiders’ to capture our present (Foucault, 1988).
Ball, S. J., & Youdell, D. (2008). Hidden privatisation in public education. Report, Institute of Education, University of London, UK. Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative Research for Education: An Introduction to Theories and Methods (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson, A & B. Burch, P. (2009). Hidden markets: The new education privatisation. New York, NY: Routledge. Choi, T.-H. (2018). English education in partnership with third parties: A case of equity in Hong Kong. In S.-O. Kweon (Ed.), The Asian EFL classroom: Issues, challenges and future expectations (pp. 169-188). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Dean, M. (2010). Governmentality: Power and rule in modern society (2nd ed.). London: SAGE. Foucault, M (1988). Politics, philosophy, culture: Interviews and other writings, 1977-1984. New York: Routledge. Foucault, M. (2008). The birth of biopolitics: Lectures at the Collège de France 1978-1979, trans, G. Burchell. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Lingard, B., Sellar, S., & Savage, G. C. (2014). Re-articulating social justice as equity in schooling policy: The effects of testing and data infrastructures. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 35(5), 710-730. Lingard, B., Sellar, S., Hogan, A., & Thompson, G. (2017). Commercialisation in public schooling. Sydney: New South Wales Teachers Federation. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, Califorinia: SAGE Publications, Inc. Peters, M. A. (2017). From state responsibility for education and welfare to self-responsibilisation in the market. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 38(1), 138-145. Shamir, R. (2008). The age of responsibilization: On market-embedded morality. Economy and Society, 37(1), 1-19. Tsatsaroni, A., Sarakinioti, A., Koutsiouri, S., & Vogopoulou, A. (2018). Global and European education policy reforms and the politics of privatisation. Athens and Hong Kong: The University of the Peloponnese and The Education University of Hong Kong
00. Central Events (Keynotes, EERA-Panel, EERJ Round Table, Invited Sessions)
Network 1. Continuing Professional Development: Learning for Individuals, Leaders, and Organisations
Network 2. Vocational Education and Training (VETNET)
Network 3. Curriculum Innovation
Network 4. Inclusive Education
Network 5. Children and Youth at Risk and Urban Education
Network 6. Open Learning: Media, Environments and Cultures
Network 7. Social Justice and Intercultural Education
Network 8. Research on Health Education
Network 9. Assessment, Evaluation, Testing and Measurement
Network 10. Teacher Education Research
Network 11. Educational Effectiveness and Quality Assurance
Network 12. LISnet - Library and Information Science Network
Network 13. Philosophy of Education
Network 14. Communities, Families and Schooling in Educational Research
Network 15. Research Partnerships in Education
Network 16. ICT in Education and Training
Network 17. Histories of Education
Network 18. Research in Sport Pedagogy
Network 19. Ethnography
Network 20. Research in Innovative Intercultural Learning Environments
Network 22. Research in Higher Education
Network 23. Policy Studies and Politics of Education
Network 24. Mathematics Education Research
Network 25. Research on Children's Rights in Education
Network 26. Educational Leadership
Network 27. Didactics – Learning and Teaching
The programme is updated regularly (each day in the morning)
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.