Beyond neoliberalism: Reflections on capitalism and education

Klees, Steven J.

doi:10.1177/1478210317715814

Cited by 57 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Namely, while both India and the United States have constitutional commitments to free, open access, and quality public education for all students as an inclusion of their purported freedoms in their respective democracies, both nations have also increasingly promoted market-driven initiatives to provide this so-called educational equity-initiatives that, in reality, establish structural educational inequity. The result is the diverting of much needed funding from quality public education to public-private educational schemes, and this leaves low income students-those who typically cannot access school choice-with the very real prospect of limited life outcomes as a result (Klees, 2017;Srivastava & Noronha, 2016).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Democracy, neoliberalism, and school choice: A comparative analysis of India and the United States

Boucher

2020

JGER

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

India and the United States are the largest democracies in the world, and since the 1990s, both countries have implemented neoliberal economic reforms into most of their social institutions—including their education systems. Even though both countries have long-established commitments to public education as a means for socio-economic equitability for all citizens, in the wake of neoliberal reforms both countries have made significant moves to privatize education. The justification for school privatization was based on policies that redefined democracy in economic terms, and the result is a very undemocratic marginalization for the majority of students who do not have the means to participate in school choice. This article explored these issues by analyzing governmental student enrollment data, funding schemes, and media reporting on school-choice initiatives.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Democracy, neoliberalism, and school choice: A comparative analysis of India and the United States

Boucher

2020

JGER

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The consequences of this kind of globalization suggest to us the need to explore alternative globalization(s). There doesn't need to be only one 'globalization', but it seems to us that it (they) would do well to be based, first, on a different economic model, and one that is more environmentally sustainable; second, on a different notion of the divide between what is public, what is private, how to organize ourselves democratically, and how to engage with or transform the state (e.g., Edwards, 2019;Edwards & Klees, 2015;Griffiths & Millei, 2013;Klees, 2017;Muhr, 2013;Tarlau, 2019); and third, on different onto-epistemological perspectives that get away from Enlightenment thinking, the four forms of discrimination that enabled it (racisim, sexism, Christian supremacy, and epistemicide), and its associated methodological tools (Maldonado-Torres, 2007Grosfoguel, 2013;Edwards, forthcoming). It is not that Enlightenment thinking and methods cannot be used for good, only that they are but one way of approaching the world, one that has been co-opted in the service of capitalist globalization and the merchants of privatization.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Globalization, privatization, marginalization: Mapping and assessing connections and consequences in/through education

Edwards

Means

2019

EPAA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This special issue brings together scholars who are working on new aspects of the intersection and implications of globalization, privatization, and marginalization. While globalization’s relationship to education has been of great interest to scholars (e.g., Dale, 1999; Green, 1997; Rizvi Lingard, 2009; Steiner-Khamsi, 2004; Verger, Novelli, Kosar-Altinyelken, 2018). While the relationship between globalization and various forms of privatization has received significant attention (e.g., Adamson, Astrand, Darling-Hammond, 2016; Ball, 2009, 2012; Carnoy, 1999; Mohamed Morris, 2019; Robertson, Mundy, Verger, Menashy, 2012; Verger, Lubienski, Steiner-Khamsi, 2016), we seek to extend scholarship in these areas by examining the current connections and continuing consequences of both globalization and privatization for marginalization in/through education, as well as the ways in which the latter (marginalization) creates opportunities for the former (globalization and privatization). Exploring the relationships among globalization, privatization, and marginalization is vitally important for scholars not only because they are related in multiple yet, we argue, insufficiently understood ways, but also because their relations have real consequences for education policy and practice and for the exacerbation of marginalization itself in and through education. As the introductory essay for the special issue, this article (a) presents a framework for understanding the connections among globalization, privatization, and marginalization in relation to education; (b) distills, visually presents, and expands upon the dialectical connections evident “in” and “through” the cases that make up the special issue; and (c) emphasizes a number of lessons for the globalization-privatization-marginalization nexus.

show abstract

“…The proposed frame does not acknowledge global failure that requires an analysis of education's role in reproducing inequality. Much less does it reorient schooling both to empower learners and to enable it to play a dynamizing role in societal transformation or to do things differently (Klees, ). In the course of more than 200 pages, the world is exhorted to do more of the same, a bit better grounded, organized and implemented, managed with unthreatening incrementalism.…”

Section: How Are the Arguments Of The Report Framed?mentioning

confidence: 99%