Abstract:
In Canada, the process of privatization is subtle, referred to as creeping privatization. Christopher Lubienski (2006) explains that the analytical value of subtle forms of privatization is that it does not focus solely on the criteria of ownership and funding, but also how the process of privatization can reorient the purpose of education into a commodity. It is a distinctly Canadian approach that flies under the radar of public consciousness (Fallon & Poole, 2014, p. 318) In this presentation, I describe how education technology exemplifies creeping privatization in Ontario, the most populated jurisdiction in Canada. My analysis takes place at three interdependent scales: locally, through 1-to-1 device programs, and third-party licensing agreements for software and applications; provincially, through a mandatory online learning requirement delivered through a centralized learning management provider; and globally, through internationalization strategies in which the province commodifies course content abroad. More recently, so-called investments in safety and security by districts has expanded the disciplinary mechanisms of education technology throughout the school through code of conduct policies that target cell phones and vaping.
Privatization is not only about ownership, but also modes of control. This presentation attends to discourses that enable this control - choice, access, and equity, as well as safety and security - by drawing on respective policy texts that show how education technology in policy blurs distinctions between private and public and rearranges the practice of schooling, including the category of “student,” “teacher,” and “school.” Further, I highlight the ways in which these discourses align with the marketing narrative of EdTech, whose promises are what sell online learning to vulnerable families and cash strapped public districts. Policies that enable creeping privatization are asymmetrical, in that they favour dominant interests; however, asymmetry produces “unsettling effects or crisis,” which renders them temporary, subject to contestation and change (Gale, 1999, p. 401). As such, this presentation highlights opportunities for collective resistance to market-driven neoliberal reforms.
References
Fallon, G., & Poole, W. (2013). The emergence of market-driven funding mechanisms in BC public schools. Journal of Education Policy, 29, 302−322.
Gale, T. (1999). Policy trajectories: Treading the discursive path of policy analysis. Discourse: studies in the cultural politics of education, 20(3), 393-407.
Lubienski, C. (2006). School choice and privatization in education: An alternative analytical framework. Journal for critical education policy studies, 4(1), 1-26.
Privatization is not only about ownership, but also modes of control. This presentation attends to discourses that enable this control - choice, access, and equity, as well as safety and security - by drawing on respective policy texts that show how education technology in policy blurs distinctions between private and public and rearranges the practice of schooling, including the category of “student,” “teacher,” and “school.” Further, I highlight the ways in which these discourses align with the marketing narrative of EdTech, whose promises are what sell online learning to vulnerable families and cash strapped public districts. Policies that enable creeping privatization are asymmetrical, in that they favour dominant interests; however, asymmetry produces “unsettling effects or crisis,” which renders them temporary, subject to contestation and change (Gale, 1999, p. 401). As such, this presentation highlights opportunities for collective resistance to market-driven neoliberal reforms.
References
Fallon, G., & Poole, W. (2013). The emergence of market-driven funding mechanisms in BC public schools. Journal of Education Policy, 29, 302−322.
Gale, T. (1999). Policy trajectories: Treading the discursive path of policy analysis. Discourse: studies in the cultural politics of education, 20(3), 393-407.
Lubienski, C. (2006). School choice and privatization in education: An alternative analytical framework. Journal for critical education policy studies, 4(1), 1-26.