Skip to main content

Teachers’ and school leaders’ perceptions of commercialisation in Australian public schools


This paper explores teachers’ and school leaders’ perceptions of commercialisation in Australian public schools, reporting on findings from an open-ended survey question from an exploratory study that sought to investigate teacher and school leader perceptions and experiences of commercialisation. Commercialisation, for the purposes of this paper, is understood as the creation, marketing and sale of education goods and services to schools by for-profit providers and often includes (but is not limited to) the provision of curriculum content, assessment services, data infrastructures, digital learning, remedial instruction, professional development and school administration support. Our account highlights that commercialisation is prevalent in the day-to-day practice of Australian public schools. The perceptions of teachers and leaders suggest that commercialisation is complex, with both affordances and challenges. Respondents acknowledged that aspects of commercialisation are necessary for successfully running schools and classrooms in the 21st century, but also noted that there is a fine line beyond which these seemingly innocuous services become perilous. Concerns focused on how particular services are leading to the deprofessionalisation of teachers as they have less autonomy over what to teach and how to teach it. Moreover, teachers and school leaders reported being perturbed by the idea that commercial providers and services might work to replace teachers in the future. Drawing on these data we argue that growing commercialisation in Australian public schools clearly requires an ethical debate that schools, education professionals, policy makers and interested publics are yet to have.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.


  1. 1.

    The AEU-affiliated State unions include, Queensland Teachers Union, New South Wales Teachers Federation, State School Teachers Union of Western Australia as well as the AEU Australia Capital Territory Branch, South Australian Branch, Tasmanian Branch and Northern Territory Branch.

  2. 2.

    There were 29 responses that answered ‘No’ or ‘N/A’. These were not included in the analysis.

  3. 3.

    PAT-R refers to the ‘Progressive Achievement Tests in Reading’ sold by the Australian Council for Education Research (ACER). ACER offers Progressive Achievement Tests for Mathematics, Reading, Spelling, Punctuation and Grammar and Science. ACER states that these ‘series of tests are designed to provide objective, norm-referenced information to teachers about their students’ skills and understandings in a range of key areas’ and that ‘more than 2.5 million Progressive Achievement Tests are delivered online every year’. (

  4. 4.

    This excludes the comments that did not discuss any aspect of commercialisation in schools, but rather focused on issues regarding the survey itself.


  1. Abrams, S. (2016). Education and the commercial mindset. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  2. Au, W., & Ferrare, J. (2014). Sponsors of policy: A network analysis of wealthy elites, their affiliated philanthropies, and charter school reform in Washington State. Teachers College Record, 116(11), 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ball, S. (1994). Education reform: A critical and post-structural approach. Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Ball, S. (2009). Privatising education, privatising education policy, privatising educational research: Network governance and the ‘competition state’. Journal of Education Policy, 24(1), 83–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Ball, S. (2012). Global Education Inc.: New policy networks and the neo-liberal imaginary. New York: Routledge.

  6. Ball, S., & Youdell, D. (2008). Hidden privatisation in public education. Brussels: Education International.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Burch, P. (2009). Hidden markets: The new education privatisation. New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  8. Callahan, R. E. (1964). Education and the cult of efficiency. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Cranston, N., Mulford, B., Keating, J., & Reid, A. (2010). Primary school principals and the purposes of education in Australia: Results of a national survey. Journal of Educational Administration, 48(4), 517–539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. DeBray, E., Scott, J., Lubienski, C., & Jabbar, H. (2014). Intermediary organizations in charter school policy coalitions: Evidence from New Orleans. Educational Policy, 28(2), 175–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Goldring, E., & Schuermann, P. (2009). The changing context of K-12 education administration: Consequences for Ed.D. program design and delivery. Peabody Journal of Education, 84(1), 9–43.

  12. Hogan, A. (2016). NAPLAN and the role of edu-business: New governance, new privatisations and new partnerships in Australian education policy. The Australian Educational Researcher, 43(1), 93–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hogan, A., Sellar, S., & Lingard, B. (2016). Commercialising comparison: Pearson puts the TLC in soft capitalism. Journal of Education Policy, 31(3), 243–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hogan, A., & Thompson, G. (2017). Commercialization in education. In G. Noblit (Ed.), Oxford research encyclopedia of education. New York: Oxford University Press.

  15. Kenway, J., Bigum, C., & Fitzclarence, L. (1993). Marketing education in the postmodern age. Journal of Education Policy, 8(2), 105–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kenway, J., & Bullen, E. (2001). Consuming children: Education-entertainment-advertising. Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  17. LeCompte, M. D., & Preissle, J. (1993). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research (2nd ed.). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Lingard, B., & Sellar, S. (2013). Catalyst data’: Perverse systemic effects of audit and accountability in Australian schooling. Journal of Education Policy, 28(5), 634–656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Lingard, B., Sellar, S., Hogan, A., & Thompson, G. (2017). Commercialisation in Public Schooling (CIPS). Sydney: News South Wales Teachers Federation.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Lipman, L. (2015). Capitalizing on crisis: Venture philanthropy’s colonial project to remake urban education. Critical Studies in Education, 56(2), 241–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Marginson, S. (1997). Markets in education. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Meadmore, P. (2001). ‘Free, compulsory and secular’? The re-invention of Australian public education. Journal of Education Policy, 16(2), 113–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Molnar, A. (2007). The commercial transformation of public schools. Journal of Education Policy, 21(5), 621–640.

  24. Powell, D. (2014). Assembling the privatisation of physical education and the ‘inexpert’ teacher. Sport, Education and Society, 20(1), 73–88

  25. Reckhow, S. (2013). Follow the money: How foundation dollars change public school politics. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Reid, A. (2017). Public education in South Australia. Retrieved from

  27. Riep, C. (2015). Corporatised education in the Philippines: Pearson, Ayala Corporation and the emergence of Affordable Private Education Centres (APEC). Retrieved from

  28. Ronnberg, L. (2016). From national policy-making to global edu-business: Swedish edu-preneurs on the move. Journal of Education Policy. Online first.

  29. Rousmaniere, K. (2013). The principal’s office: A social history of the American school principal. Albany: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Saltman, K. (2010). The gift of education: Public education and venture philanthropy. Boulder: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  31. Thompson, G. (2014). NAPLAN, MySchool and accountability: Teacher perceptions of the effects of testing. International education journal: comparative perspectives, 12(2), 62–84.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Thompson, G., & Mockler, N. (2016). Principals of audit: Testing, data and ‘implicated advocacy’. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 48(1), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Verger, T., Lubienski, C., & Steiner-Khamsi, G. (Eds.). (2016). World yearbook in education 2016: The global education industry. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Pusey, M. (1991). Economic rationalism in Australia: A nation building state changes its mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Download references


The authors would like to acknowledge the support of the New South Wales Teachers Federation who funded the project and the Australian Education Union who assisted with participant recruitment.

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anna Hogan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hogan, A., Thompson, G., Sellar, S. et al. Teachers’ and school leaders’ perceptions of commercialisation in Australian public schools. Aust. Educ. Res. 45, 141–160 (2018).

Download citation


  • Commercialisation
  • Public schooling
  • Australia
  • Policy
  • Teachers
  • Principals