The transnational movement of ideas and practices in education is well documented (Junemann, Ball and Santori, 2018). Policy scholarship has addressed the influence of supranational agencies, non-state advocacy networks, edu-businesses and social venture philanthropy on global education policy and practice (Savage et al., 2021). Attention has focused on corporate school reform (charter schools, free schools and academy chains), teacher education and the school curriculum (Ball, 2012; Olmedo, 2013; Hogan 2016; Rowe, 2023). In contrast, the mediation of transnational professional learning networks is under-researched.

This presentation uses the tools of network ethnography to follow a professional learning network that markets the ‘laboratory school’ (Dewey, 1907) as a traded support service for schools. The aim of the study is to trace, position and better understand how the lab school concept is disembedded, ‘re-contextualised’ (Schweisfurth and Elliot, 2019) and re-embedded in diverse settings in an emerging global market for school improvement services. The research extends earlier work on cross-national attraction (Clapham and Vickers, 2018), outsourcing (Sperka, 2020) and the commercialisation of education services (Hogan and Thompson, 2017, Lingard et al., 2017).

The research is guided by the following questions: What motivates network entry, maintenance and departure (intentions)? How are knowledge and practices mobilised within the network? And relatedly, what knowledge and practices are displaced or extended by lab school networking activity?

The study draws on the theoretical resources of relational sociology and policy ethnography to consider ‘mobilities’, ‘moorings’ and knowledge flows in a loosely coupled dynamic network (Ball, 2016). The methodological approach combines the reach of social network analysis and depth of ethnography to follow network activity over time (temporal), and between settings (institutional) and contexts (national/regional). The analysis attends to the spaces, exchanges and artefacts that provide opportunities for translation and ‘mutations’ (Junemann, Ball and Santori, 2018, p.607).

Qualitative network ethnography was employed to examine the translation and travel of the lab school concept in the twenty-first century. A University-coordinated laboratory school network initiated in the North of England was selected as the central node of analysis. The growth of this network (encompassing ninety affiliated primary, secondary and special schools and six Multi-Academy Trusts in England, and ten international associate schools in Sweden, USA, India and China) was mapped over a thirty-month period from its launch in July 2020 through to January 2023. The main methods of data production include network mapping and network visualisation, document analysis, and six months virtual and place-based fieldwork including attendance at network events and follow-up interviews with key nodal actors (boundary spanners, brokers and gatekeepers). Data sources include online institutional profiles, shared protocols/materials used to support authorised lab school activity (e.g. collaborative peer review, instructional rounds and action research), participant observation records from attendance at (online, and in-person) network events and interview transcripts. In-person events were restricted to England (North and South) following the resumption of face-to-face meetings after the Covid pandemic. A digital archive of sources was created and managed within an NVivo project. Network members (actors and organisations) and associations between members were identified and recorded initially in Excel. Network tracing was used to identify affiliations including the international schools’ network Kunskapsskolan India, Shanghai United International Schools (SUIS), and International Baccalaureate (IB) World Schools; UK online training and coaching providers including Creative Education and Mindspan Global Ltd; and the US professional learning provider, 2Revolutions. Network visualisation was conducted using Gephi software. The analysis moves beyond ‘descriptivism’ (Hogan 2016, p.382) to consider the role of agency and reflexivity in network participation.

The analysis records cross-cutting commitments in a fluid elective network. The visual portrayal of the network explicates the interaction of public-private interests in the commercialisation of the ‘lab school’ brand. The outsourcing, appropriation and adaptation of experimental education proceeds alongside market-based school choice (Ford, 2020; Wrigley, 2022). Network members and affiliates leverage a lab school orientation to gain internal and external legitimacy for decontextualized ‘school improvement’ strategies. Network activity interacts with and, at times, displaces local knowledge and practices. Network goals interact with regional/national systems of educational evaluation and accountability. Schools/Trusts work with a wide range of consultant advisers and commission services from a burgeoning pool of providers across multiple platforms. Further research is needed on how schools choose between alternative providers, how externally commissioned school improvement services are evaluated, and their impact on professional practice and outcomes for children.

Ball, S. J. (2012). Global Education Inc. New policy networks and the neo-liberal social imaginary. Oxon: Routledge. Ball, S. J., & Junemann, C. (2012). Networks, New Governance and Education. Bristol: The Policy Press. Ball, S. J. (2016). Following policy: networks, network ethnography and education policy mobilities. Journal of Education Policy, 31(5), 549-566. Clapham, A. & Vickers, R. (2018) Neither a borrower nor a lender be: exploring ‘teaching for mastery’ policy borrowing, Oxford Review of Education, 44(6), 787-805 Dewey, J. (1907) The School and Society: Being three lectures by John Dewey Supplemented by a Statement of the University Elementary School (Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press). Ford, B. (2020). The odd malaise of democratic education: Horace Mann, Amy Gutmann and the inordinate influence of business. Policy Futures in Education, 18(8), 1075-1116 Hogan, A. (2016). Network ethnography and the cyberflâneur: Evolving policy sociology in education. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 29(3), 381-398. Hogan, A., & Thompson, G. (2017). Commercialization in education. In G. Noblit (Ed.), Oxford Research Encyclopaedia of Education. New York: Oxford University Press. Junemann, C., Ball, S. J., & Santori, D. (2018). On network(ed) ethnography in the global education policyscape. In D. Beach, C. Bagley & S. M. Silva (Eds.), The Wiley Handbook of Ethnography of Education (pp. 455-477). John Wiley and Sons. Lingard, B., Sellar, S., Hogan, A., & Thompson, G. (2017). Commercialisation in public schooling. Sydney: New South Wales Teachers Federation. Olmedo, A. (2013). From England with love … ARK, heterarchies and global ‘philanthropic governance’. Journal of Education Policy, 1–23. Rowe, E. (2023) Policy networks and venture philanthropy: A network ethnography of 'teach for Australia'. Journal of Education Policy, ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2022.2158373 Savage, G., Gerrard, J., Gale T., & Molla, T. (2021). The politics of critical policy sociology: mobilities, moorings and elite networks. Critical Studies in Education, 62(3), 306-321. Schweisfurth, M. & Elliott, J. (2019). When ‘best practice’ meets the pedagogical nexus: recontextualisation, reframing and resilience. Comparative Education, 55(1), 1–8. Sperka, L. (2020) (Re)defining outsourcing in education, Discourse, 41(2), 268-280. Wrigley, T. (2022). Learning in a time of cholera: Imagining a future for public education. European Educational Research Journal, 21(1), 105-123.