The Australian Educational Researcher

, Volume 43, Issue 1, pp 93–110 | Cite as

NAPLAN and the role of edu-business: New governance, new privatisations and new partnerships in Australian education policy

Article

Abstract

This paper provides a critical analysis of the edu-businesses currently working in partnership with the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority to deliver the Commonwealth government policy initiative of the National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN). These emerging public–private partnerships (PPPs) exemplify new heterarchical governance structures in Australia, where a network of public and private agents now contribute to education policy processes. In analysing the NAPLAN policy network, this account seeks to proffer a critical analysis on the evolving PPPs in Australia and ascertains in whose interests and with what outcomes these PPPs operate. The NAPLAN policy network is analysed in relation to the contemporary state and its changing modus operandi, in which I draw on the notions of heterarchies, networks and new governance structures in education to understand these developments. Network ethnography is employed to document the network of PPPs that are associated with NAPLAN and other government initiatives in Australia, and in particular, I reflect on the activities of Pearson and the Australian Council for Educational Research to problematise what these policy networks mean.

Keywords

NAPLAN Edu-business Governance Privatisations Public/private partnerships 

References

  1. ACARA. (2011). NAPLAN. Retrieved from: http://www.nap.edu.au/naplan/naplan.html.
  2. Amin, A., & Thrift, N. (1995). Institutional issues for the European regions: from markets and plans to socioeconomics and powers of association. Economy and Society, 24(1), 41–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ball, S. J. (2007). Education plc: Understanding private sector participation in public sector education. Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Ball, S. J. (2012). Global education Inc. New policy networks and the neo-liberal social imaginary. Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Ball, S. J., & Junemann, C. (2012). Networks, new governance and education. Bristol: The Policy Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barabasi, A. (2003). Linked: How everything is connected to everything else and what it means. New York: Plume.Google Scholar
  7. Beaulieu, A. (2004). Mediating ethnography: Objectivity and the making of ethnographies of the internet. Social Epistemology, 18(2–3), 139–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Besussi, E. (2006). Mapping European research networks. Retrieved from http://www.bartlett.ucl.ac.uk/casa/pdf/paper103.pdf.
  9. Bishop, M., & Green, M. (2008). Philanthrocapitalism: How giving can save the world. London: Black Publishers Ltd.Google Scholar
  10. Burch, P. (2009). Hidden markets : The new education privatization. Hoboken: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Christensen, T., & Laegreid, P. (2007). The whole-of-government approach to public sector reform. Public Administration Review, 67(6), 1059–1066.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cutler, C. (2008). Transnational law and privatized governance. In M. Pauly & S. Coleman (Eds.), Global orderings. Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
  13. Davis, G., Yeatman, A., & Sullivan, B. (1997). The new contractualism?. Melbourne: Macmillan Education Australia.Google Scholar
  14. Eggers, W. (2008). The changing nature of government: Network governance. In J. O’Flynn & J. Wanna (Eds.), Collaborative governance: A new era of public policy in Australia? (pp. 80–102). Canberra: ANU Press.Google Scholar
  15. Hogan, A. (2014). Network ethnography and the cyberflâneur: evolving policy sociology in education. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  16. Hogan, A., Sellar, S., & Lingard, B. (2014). Commercialising comparison: Pearson, edu-business and new policy spaces in education. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  17. Howard, P. N. (2002). Network ethnography and the hypermedia organization: New media, new organizationsn new methods. New Media & Society, 4(4), 550–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jessop, B. (1998). The rise of governance and the risks of failure. International Social Science Journal, 155(1), 29–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kenway, J., & Bullen, E. (2001). Consuming children: Entertainment, advertising and education. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Koppenjan, J., & Klijn, E. (2004). Managing uncertainties in networks. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Leitner, H., & Sheppard, E. (2002). “The city is dead, long live the net”: Harnessing European interurban networks for a neoliberal agenda. Antipode, 34(3), 495–518.Google Scholar
  22. Lingard, B. (2011). Policy as numbers: ac/counting for educational researcher. The Australian Educational Researcher, 38(4), 255–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lingard, B., & Sellar, S. (2012). Catalyst data: perverse systemic effects of audit and accountability in Australian schooling. Journal of Education Policy, 28(5), 634–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Martin, B., & Mayntz, R. (Eds.). (1991). Policy networks: Emperocal evidence and theoretical considerations. Frankfurt: Westview.Google Scholar
  25. Newman, J. (2001). Modernising governance: New labour, policy and society. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  26. Olmedo, A. (2013). From England with love… ARK, heterarchies and global ‘philanthropic governance’. Journal of Education Policy. doi 10.1080/02680939.2013.859302.
  27. Osborne, D. & Gaebler, T. (1992). Re-inventing government. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  28. Patrinos, H. A., Barrera-Osorio, F., & Guáqueta, J. (2009). The role and impact of public-private partnerships in education. Washington DC: The World Bank.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pearson. (2012). Annual report and accounts 2012. Retrieved from http://www.pearson.com/content/dam/pearsoncorporate/files/cosec/2013/15939_PearsonAR12.pdf.
  30. Picciano, A., & Spring, J. (2013). The great American education-industrial complex: Ideology, technology and profit. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the twenty-first century. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ravitch, D. (2012). The United States of Pearson? Retrieved from: http://dianeravitch.net/2012/05/07/the-united-states-of-pearson-2/.
  33. Reckhow, S. (2013). Follow the money: How foundation dollars change public school politics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Rizvi, F., & Lingard, B. (2010). Globalizing education policy. Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  35. Robertson, S., & Dale, R. (2013). The social justice implications of privatization in education governance frameworks: a relational account. Oxford Review of Education, 39(4), 426–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Robertson, S., Mundy, K., Verger, A., & Menashy, F. (Eds.). (2012). Public private partnerships in education: New actors and new modes of governance. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  37. Robertson, S. L., & Verger, A. (2012). Governing Education Through Public Private Partnerships. In S. Robertson, K. Mundy, A. Verger, & F. Menashy (Eds.), Public private partnerships in education: New Actors and modes of governance in a globalizing world (pp. 21–42). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rogers, R. (2013). Digital methods. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  39. Rose, N. (1999). Powers of freedom: Reframing political thought. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Savage, G. (2012). Being different and the same? The paradoxes of ‘tailoring’ in education quasi-markets. Journal of Pedagogy, 3(2), 279–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Shiroma, E. (2013). Networks in action: New actors and practices in education policy in Brazil. Journal of Education policy. doi: 10.1080/02680939.2013.831949.Google Scholar
  42. Stroper, M. (1997). The regional world: Territorial development in a global economy. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  43. Thompson, G., & Harbaugh, A. (2013). A preliminary analysis of teacher perceptions of the effects of NAPLAN on pedagogy and curriculum. The Australian Educational Researcher, 40(3), 299–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Verger, A. (2012). Framing and selling global education policy: the promotion of public–private partnerships for education in low-income contexts. The Journal of Education Policy, 27(1), 109–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wanna, J. (2009). Political chronicles, Commonwealth of Australia July to December 2008. Australian Journal of Politics and History, 55(2), 261–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Williams, P. (2002). The competent boundary spanner. Public Administration, 80(1), 103–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Williams, B. (2012). Centrifugal schooling: third sector policy networks and the reassembling of curriculum policy in England. Journal of Education Policy, 27(6), 775–794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Australian Association for Research in Education, Inc. 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EducationThe University of QueenslandBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations