This presentation explores the structural conditions which enable privatisation within government schooling in Queensland Australia, with a focus on English language services for the various student groups who are speakers of languages other than English. For many decades, the provision of English language education through government schools has been paramount in settlement services for migrant and refugee-background students and for those Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students who are speakers of traditional and creole languages (Oliver, Rochecouste & Nguyen 2017; Lo Bianco 2008; Creagh 2014). We investigate the intersection of the language needs of this complex, heterogenous student group with modern neoliberal-influenced school governance structures, where government schools have been granted autonomy to meet the local needs of their unique school communities and to manage one-line budgets (Verger, Fontdevila & Zancajo 2016). There has been a recent evacuation of centralised management of English services across the education system, at the same time as the department is reporting higher enrolments of EAL learners. Moreover, federal government migration policy demanding greater regional settlement of refugees and migrants and changed enrolment policies has resulted in dispersal of EAL students across the school system. Previously, targeted services in a select number of schools were designed for a critical mass of newly-arrived students. Furthermore, the recently implemented Inclusive Education policy does not specifically acknowledge the needs of EAL learners. However, despite this shift from a centralised, targeted approach, schools now have autonomy to implement EAL programs based on individual student needs. Significant funds for EAL students, ostensibly to recognise cost associated with providing language service, have been directly allocated to schools, supported by EAL curriculum guidance directed at the provision of language support. However, there is a lack of specific accountability for schools about the use of this allocated funding. This focus on specific programmes also potentially sits in contest with the Inclusive Education policy. Drawing on key EAL policies and 8 interviews with education policymakers, we consider the affordances and challenges that structural changes bring for schools (Hogan, Thompson, Sellar & Lingard 2018), particularly in the provision of language services for EAL students. Through this analysis we express caution that the structural conditions (policies and targeted funding) enabling schools to deliver EAL programs autonomously, may not necessarily work in the best interests of EAL students. We also demonstrate how the new mode of governance opens up opportunities for privatisation in schooling.

Creagh S. (2014). National standardised testing and the diluting of English as a second language (ESL) in Australia. English Teaching: Practice and Critique. 13 (1). 24-38. Hogan, A., Thompson, G., Sellar, S., & Lingard, B. (2018). Teachers’ and school leaders’ perceptions of commercialisation in Australian public schools. Australian Educational Researcher. 45. 141-160. Lo Bianco, J. (2008). Language policy and education in Australia. In S. May & N.H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopaedia of Language and Education, Volume 1: Language and Policy and Political Issues in Education, (2nd ed., pp. 343-353). LLC: SpringerScience+Business media LLC. Oliver, R., Rochecouste, J. & Nguyen, B. (2017). ESL in Australia- A chequered history. TESOL in Context. 26 (1). 7-26. Verger, A., Fontdevila, C., & Zancajo, A. (2016). The Privatisation of Education: A Political Economy of Global Education Reform. New York: Teachers College Press.