The Changing Nature of Private Engagement in Public Education: For-Profit and Nonprofit Organizations and Educational Reform

Abstract

Recent years have seen a shifting landscape around private engagement in K-12 public education, one that involves a reorientation of education policy and practice around the principles of the marketplace. In this article, we examine the roles of both not-for-profit and for-profit agencies, as distinct from government agencies, in this movement. Past research has generally focused on subsets of these private actors (i.e., for-profit firms, charter management organizations, or alternative preparers of educators for public schools). We try to look more broadly in order to examine how private actors and the roles of those players in K-12 education are changing, both in terms of the scope of their engagement and the extent to which their role increasingly involves areas at the core of educational practice. In doing so, we consider some of the reasons for these changes, including the influence of federal policy, markets as drivers, and the broader political context. We conclude by raising questions for future research and examining how these developments intersect with values such as democratic voice, equitable distribution of resources, and the public purposes of schooling.The landscape of private engagement in K-12 public education is shifting. Both in the United States and abroad, there exists a movement to reorient education policy and practice around the principles of the marketplace. The ideas behind this movement, frequently referred to as neoliberalism, are based on the premise that the marketplace can provide more efficient solutions than the public sector to pressing social problems (Burch, 2009). The changes under way cut across different levels of schools (e.g., from preschool to higher education), different sectors (e.g., health care, prisons, transportation) and continents (e.g.,

Public-private partnerships, accountability, and competition: Theory versus reality in the charter schools of Bogotá, Colombia

“…But as studies have recently noted, internationally and in the United States (e.g., in Louisiana, New Jersey, Washington), networks of think tanks, philanthropists, chambers of commerce, CMOs, education corporations, and policy entrepreneurs, among others, have combined to advance charter school policy in ways that circumvent public accountability, at least in the short term (Au & Ferrare, 2014Ball, 2007Ball, , 2012DeBray, Scott, Lubienski, & Jabbar, 2014;Russakoff, 2015). Consequently, grave concerns must be raised about the "disproportionate power of super wealthy individuals and their related philanthropic organizations relative to public education policy and the democratic decision-making process of individual voters" (Au & Ferrare, 2014, p. 17; see also Bulkley & Burch, 2011). While there are no easy answers, this situation, together with evidence that pro-charter actors are inhabiting key administrative positions at each level from the local to the state to the federal (Bracey, 2005;Lytle, 2013;Persson, 2015), raises the question of what to do about accountability.…”

“…That is, while PPPs in education have gained traction since the 1990s in the United States (Bulkley & Burch, 2011), they are also a global phenomenon with relevance for how education is delivered, managed, and evaluated (Patrinos, Barrera-Osorio, & Guáqueta, 2009;Robertson, Mundy, Verger, & Menashy, 2012). There are many indications of their increased relevance and influence.…”

Popular Media Portrayals of Inequity and School Reform inThe WireandWaiting for “Superman”

“…NCLB signaled a shift in emphasis toward federal accountability discourse focused on addressing racial and socioeconomic disparities in educational achievement (Carey, 2013, Gregory, Skiba, & Noguera, 2010Koyama & Kania, 2014;Sunderman, 2010 the five seasons of The Wire, up to the premiere of Waiting for "Superman," for-profit enterprises, charter schools, alternative educator preparation programs, and outside funding streams were having a growing influence on public education (Bulkley & Burch, 2011;Burch, 2006). While scholars were increasingly concerned that NCLB accountability measure were failing (Koyama & Kania, 2014), teachers, teacher unions, and teacher preparation programs were also increasingly being vilified in the press and in policy decisions (Goldstein, 2010).…”

Policy advocacy, inequity, and school fees and fundraising in Ontario, Canada

“…They note the rise of new policy actors, including philanthropic organizations and foundations (e.g., Ferris, Hentschke, & Harmssen, 2008), think tanks (e.g., Lubienski, Brewer, & La Londe, 2016), forprofit companies, and new non-profit organizations (e.g., Bulkley & Burch, 2011); how these new actors interact in policy networks (e.g., Ball & Exley, 2010); and the waning influence and engagement of traditional policy actors in education policy making (DiMartino & Scott, 2013).…”

“…Exogenous privatization in education refers to policies and practices that engage the private sector in the design, management, or delivery of public education and/or that enable the private sector to participate in and profit from public education (Ball & Youdell, 2008). These policies and practices include contracting out services to private providers (e.g., cleaning and food services), contracting out the delivery of education or other core education services (e.g., professional development training, curriculum design, student assessment), allowing for-profit companies to manage public schools, marketing and selling products in schools, public-private partnerships, and philanthropy, subsidies, and other forms of aid (Ball, 2009;Ball & Youdell, 2008;Bulkley & Burch, 2011;Molnar, 2006).…”