Educational privatization typically has been viewed as pitting business interests and market values against public authorities. However, contemporary forms of privatization rarely fit this model. The end result may be the private accumulation of capital. But that accumulation often happens by means of public, state-run enterprises. Public funds and public policies incentivize privatization and help monetize and commercialize public functions. Drawing on a longitudinal mixed methods study, I examine important cases of privatization’s contemporary undercurrents in compulsory education such as (1) contracts for digital instructors to teach students in school and (2) contracts to manage public “prison schools” for students that have been incarcerated. I will share research and an early-stage theoretical argument aimed at contributing better explanations of contemporary contracting dynamics – explanations and policy actions that help minimize harms and maximize benefits for low-income students and students of color, for their families and the educators, including support staff that work with them. My thesis is that contracting for non-teaching and teaching functions is a highly consequential form of privatization in education in both regular schools and in alternative settings. I contend that this contracting is best understood from what I call a relational perspective which is defined and developed through two cases. I further argue that these “softer” (Cone & Brogger, 2020) forms of privatization can have immediate consequences for historically disadvantaged and marginalized youth and over the long term, further erode the “public space” within government subsidized education. I identify significant policy issues that follow from the evidence and consider the pitfalls and promise of past efforts to “reform” privatization.

Cone, L. & Brøgger, K., (2020). Soft privatisation: mapping an emerging field of European education governance. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 18(4), 374-390.