Overlooked Structures in Education Participation
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
2021-4105-AJE – 03 FEB 2021
1 Overlooked Structures in Education Participation
2 Patterns; A Consideration for Redesigning
3
4 Participation in education, both theoretically and practically, suffers from
5 some dogmatic views and negligence about genuine human concepts, which
6 necessitates innovation in conceptualization for education participation to be
7 evolved in practice. Intending to identify the overlooked concepts in
8 education participation models, the present research has made a critical study
9 on global approaches in education participation. Identification of overlooked
10 concepts in participation seems necessary for creating some insights and
11 developing some helpful and genuine concepts in reviewing the patterns of
12 social participation in education. In the present research, two kinds of the
13 typology of participation in education are identified and criticized: the
14 sociological theory-based typology with three approaches called neoliberal,
15 liberal, and progressive; and the economic development pattern-based
16 typology with three approaches called public education, education
17 privatization, and public-private participation. What has been overlooked in
18 all these approaches is the attention to the concepts of national autonomy,
19 justice, and educational interests. Alternative patterns for participation in
20 education will not succeed in developing solutions for the problems of
21 current participation models, and "injustice", "political dependence" in the
22 form of ultramodern colonization, and "lack of training values in education"
23 will expend even more.
24
25 Keywords: participation approaches, education, national autonomy, justice,
26 educational interests
27
28
29 Introduction
30
31 After World War II, with the domination of the human capitalistic view on
32 the educational economy (Mundi and Verger, 2014) and the emphasis on the
33 expansion of public education, the role of government appeared more dominant
34 and determinant than other factors in the structure of education system as far as
35 the education was recognized for governments as a mediator for economic and
36 social development, hence prompting states to allocate huge financial resources
37 on education. Despite such factors that strengthened the governments'
38 domination over education, today the unrivaled position of the government has
39 been weakened by several factors, especially with the dimming of boundaries
40 of organizations in societies and the contribution of families and non-state
41 institutions in educational affairs alongside the government. Various factors
42 including the spread of critical approaches to ideological training by the
43 government (Bourdieu, 1977), frustration with the aspiration to expand the
44 public and free education by governments (Helk, 1990), and the financial
45 pertinence and government budget deficiencies were some factors that led
46 governments to incline more to the market and underscore its role in
47 determining the needs and fulfilling the mass demands.
12021-4105-AJE – 03 FEB 2021
1 The change in the dominant role of government in education led to
2 reviewing and reorganizing the components involved in education, and
3 gradually a variety of concepts, projects, and programs were introduced into
4 educational policies. The introduction of the concepts like "parental choice"
5 (Resnik, 2020) in the literature of educational sciences and programs such as
6 "school-based management", "marketization of education", "privatization of
7 education" (Castree, 2010), and "public-private partnership in education"
8 (Kyagulanyi, & Tumwebaze, 2019) in educational policies was the result of
9 this review in the formal education components. While all these projects focus
10 rather on the participation concept, they prescribe different educational reforms
11 to improve formal education (Vitti, 1997) with different approaches, and
12 propose differing perceptions of the concept of participation in education.
13 In recent years, with the arising of the economic crisis in 2008 and the
14 appearance of inefficiencies in the structural adjustment plan, and with
15 intensified public protests against market domination on society such as the
16 anti-capitalist movements (Stiglitz, 2012), many economists concluded that it
17 is not possible to rely on the market order with academic optimism and yet talk
18 about the government nonintervention; because the market has proved itself not
19 to be self-regulatory and there is a need to serious government involvement in
20 regulating the economy (Akerlof et al. 2014; Mundi & Verger, 2014). These
21 novel insights in the economy will naturally affect the economic issues of
22 education, and also will influence the recommended educational policies. After
23 all, the critical study of approaches of participation in education can identify
24 the overlooked concepts in the field of educational policies and yield new
25 insights for developing alternative patterns through critique on these
26 approaches. The purpose of this article is to identify the overlooked Structures
27 in different approaches to education participation. In this paper, two typologies
28 of approaches to participation in education are reviewed and explained, and
29 then the challenges of participation in education are extracted. These
30 challenges, which include National Autonomy, justice, and educational
31 interests, have been identified and explained as overlooked structures.
32
33 Different Typologies of Education Participation Approaches
34
35 Different education participation approaches can be studied from various
36 aspects. In this paper, two classifications of participation approaches have been
37 discussed: the first type that can classify the participation in different
38 approaches according to sociological theories; and the second type that views
39 education participation as an auxiliary project of prescribed development
40 patterns and that according to the pattern orientations has retained participation
41 approaches.
42
43 A) Education Participation from Sociological Paradigms Perspective
44 From the perspective of the sociological paradigm, participation can be
45 classified into three neoliberal, liberal, and progressive approaches. The
22021-4105-AJE – 03 FEB 2021
1 neoliberal method approaches the participation with the approval of
2 marketization, commoditization, and competition, and the liberal approach
3 focuses on the franchise and elections with a political prospect. The
4 progressive approach takes a critical stand against the two former approaches
5 and seeks a new way towards participation in education (Edwards & Klees,
6 2012).
7 The neoliberal perspective assumes two main forms of participation:
8 individual participation in the market and community participation in school
9 councils. Respecting the right of "freedom of choice" for parents by the school
10 is the most important consideration of this approach (Chubb et al. 1990; World
11 Bank 2003). In this approach, the government tries to keep itself away from
12 direct management of schools and leaves the responsibility of schools to
13 individuals, communities, and markets. Participation is made through people
14 who are active in the market, or through communities that act as management
15 and accountability mechanisms (Edwards & Klees, 2012).
16 Education privatization puts stress on partnerships between the private and
17 the public sectors and the participation programs of civil society organizations,
18 including the neoliberal approach programs, which are proposed in the
19 education participation domain. The core of the concept of participation is
20 based on economic perspectives and market values, and education is viewed as
21 a commodity and the school as an enterprise in which shareholders can
22 participate. In this perspective, the privatization of education has been
23 described as an educational policy rather than a policy to develop capitalism
24 and make it more prominent in educational institutions (Miron, 2008).
25 The liberal perspective believes in the market just as the neoliberal does,
26 but it holds that government intervention is often necessary for having an
27 efficient market. Liberal forms of participation often occur in the political and
28 economic fields that take place with democracy and regulated markets. Unlike
29 the neoliberal approaches where participation takes place primarily through
30 market-based reforms, in the liberal approach, societies and civil society
31 organizations retain the most involvement with the participation development
32 programs (Edwards & Klees, 2012). In this approach, any participation stresses
33 on the presence of people or their representatives in the public organizations
34 but this kind of participation remains as preliminary and negotiation-based
35 participation with no interference in policymaking, planning, and implementing
36 since it is the laymen participation; some public institutions or charitable
37 institutions, however, may have a contribution in drafting educational policies
38 or maybe formally recognized in provision and allocation of funds (Robb,
39 2001; Reimers, & McGinn, 1997).
40 In the liberal approach, based on a conservative theoretical foundation, this
41 participation should not be turned into a challenge for the current situation, and
42 maintaining the existing situation is the main principle that is observed in the
43 participation (Kapur, 2004).
44 In this approach, although, the political participation of civil society
45 organizations is emphasized but it is economic values again that govern social
46 and political values; Kuhnl (1971) in the description of the liberal view to man
32021-4105-AJE – 03 FEB 2021
1 maintains that a person who is politically and economically independent is
2 considered an owner. Those who did not have economic independence were
3 deprived of their civil rights; because only the owners pay taxes that should be
4 decided how to use, and thus they have the right to participate in public
5 decisions. In the liberal approach, as in the neoliberal approach, the dominant
6 economic view over human understanding and policy-making for human
7 society is quite evident, and before initiating the concept of equality in
8 participation, the principle of participation right proportionate to the amount of
9 capital should be proven.
10 Critique of current structures of development and governance is the start of
11 the discussion on a progressive approach (Fung, and Wright, 2001; Helen,
12 2005). The main critique of the progressive approach is to the liberal and
13 neoliberal approaches, that maintains both approaches have reduced the
14 participation to marketization and participating in the elections, resulting in the
15 reproduction of existing social order as they turn into ideological suppressing
16 systems; for example, the approach views capitalism dominance, patriarchy,
17 racism, sexism, and heterosexuality as a result of social order reproduction by
18 the liberal and neoliberal approaches (Andersen and Collins, 2007; Hahnel,
19 2005). The market liberation, privatization, and conservative financial policies,
20 keeping wages low, reducing social programs, promoting export economy, and
21 heightening inequality are the major critiques of the progressive approach on
22 the two previous approaches (Korzeniewicz and Smith, 2000). The progressive
23 approach holds that participation should be taken out of restrictions over
24 market activities and involvement in the institutional and political processes so
25 that it might create and reflect more equitable and democratic relationships
26 among people (Hickey and Mohan, 2005).
27 Emphasis on empowerment for participation is one of the most important
28 focuses of this approach, with a higher focus on structural empowerment over
29 psychological empowerment. Structural empowerment, contrary to psychological
30 empowerment that is relied on the individual acquisition of knowledge and
31 skill, emphasizes recognition and independent identity sense for small
32 communities concerning the administration (Maynard, Gilson & Mathieu, 2012).
33 The personal and inner transformation has been also considered in this
34 approach and the development of individual critical awareness against the
35 current outrageous order is highlighted inspired by the fundamental humanism
36 discourse (Morgan and Burrell, 1979). Since the progressive models form
37 through development and governance of education in response to the existing
38 situation looking for alternative options, the strategies that are adopted and the
39 alternative structures that are created may look different with a focus on one or
40 more levels of conflict from local to global scale; however, the development of
41 critical awareness, individual and collective action against existing oppression
42 and revolution in the ruling system are primarily shared in all proposals of the
43 approach.
44
45
42021-4105-AJE – 03 FEB 2021
1 Table 1. Three perspectives on participation in education development and
2 governance
Characteristics Neoliberal Liberal Progressive
Primary principles -Efficiency The instrumental -Agency
-Accountability value of -Personal
-Competition participation empowerment
-Group action
-Transformation
of political,
economic, social,
and cultural
systems
Individual -As part of invisible -Via civil society -Via personal
participation in hand (vote with organization empowerment
governance money, through representation – As a member
school choice) -Voting (in of the social
-Through school representative movement
councils (in democracy) collective, or
decentralization) activist group
- Via social pressure – As a
(in decentralization) participant in
decision making
rooted in
deliberative
democracy
- Via civil
society
organization
representation
Nature of Citizen Rational, utilitySocially Political being
maximizing responsible citizen - Social-justice
consumer – Member of oriented activist
society with - Member of
responsibility to collective
participate in
available
processes
Primary Catalysts International International Critical
Bringing About financial institutions financial pedagogues
Participatory – Multi–and bilateral institutions – Social
Strategies development – Governmental movements,
organizations institutions activist groups
– Conservative think – Multi- and – Civil society
tanks bilateral organizations
development
organizations
– Civil society
organizations
The portrayal of The state assumed to Not anti-market; Critical of both
State and Market be inefficient and liberal state and market
52021-4105-AJE – 03 FEB 2021
ineffective, but participation
perspective relies on layered upon/ co-
the strong state to exists with the
implement policies market-based
approach
1 Source: Edwards and Klees, 2012
2
3 B) Classification of Education Participation from Development Patterns
4 Perspective
5 The diversity in participation programs can be explained by referring to
6 the history of political philosophy and literature formed around the concept of
7 development and its patterns. It should be noted, nevertheless, that the
8 development patterns are highly influenced by the discourses created by the
9 international organizations and participatory approaches can be retained by
10 observing and pursuing the approaches of these organizations.
11 In the development literature, three theoretical patterns are identifiable in
12 three periods that as macro ideological umbrellas have influenced many
13 concepts in social sciences and social and economic policies: a) period of big
14 or welfare state (b) period of minimal state c) period of good state and
15 governance (Toye, 2003).
16 The first period that begins from the end of World War II and lasts until
17 late 1980 is the period of reconstruction of war devastation when the
18 experiences of the Great Depression of 1929 had dominated the Keynes'
19 thoughts on economists and policymaking assemblies (Mundi and Verger,
20 2014). Keynes viewed the solution for unemployment and recession in the
21 government's intervention in the economy, which gave a pivotal and
22 widespread role to the government as his thoughts predominated. In this
23 period, the developmental scholars with different theoretical frameworks were
24 unanimous in the conclusion that the government is permitted to intervene
25 practically in all markets from the goods market to the exchange market, the
26 capital market, and business domains. (Midori, 1385).
27 In late 1970 some approaches in the development goal setting and
28 policymaking were proposed that were based on the basic needs because it was
29 recognized that economic growth is often associated with increased inequalities
30 and possibly poverty. Unemployment, inequalities, and poverty were three
31 problems that made the realization of development doubtful (Hunt, 1989). In
32 these conditions in the mid-70s, the basic needs approach was released by the
33 International Labor Organization and subsequently by the World Bank. This
34 approach supposes that development projects should take priority to the boost
35 of the poor's well-being through food, education, housing, and health
36 promotion (Morgan, 1996). Basic needs as a universal fundamental right was
37 considered a prerequisite for a decent living (Hunt, 1989).
38 Moving towards the Keynes economy and expansion of the basic needs
39 pattern in development caused the first period of governance to be known as
40 the big state.
41 overlooking the lower classes and the quality of welfare distribution in the
42 society are the most important features of liberal economic approaches; And
62021-4105-AJE – 03 FEB 2021
1 even during the big state, which is influenced by Keynesian economics, the
2 welfare of the lower classes raised, not because of the inherent importance of
3 the fight against poverty, but as a consequence of stressing the persistence of
4 the welfare of the upper class. Preventing the insurgency of the poor and the
5 fear of the loss of capitalists' interests, and thus decrease of the mass
6 enjoyment, is the cause of the struggle against poverty in the capitalist system,
7 which has manifested itself in Keynesian economics. In this period the conflict
8 between economic prosperity and moral teachings is also recognized, as
9 Keynes believes that freedom, usury, zeal, and caution should still be sacred to
10 us because only these can take us out of the tunnel of economic necessity to
11 happiness (McPherson, 1992). Due to the priority of economic development
12 over any other social issue in this approach, the conflict between economics
13 and ethics will cause the content of education to be devoid of human concepts
14 and educational interests even if the education is broadly accessible; and
15 education will be confined to teachings that train the skilled workforce for
16 industrial and economic development.
17 In the mid-1980s, the emphasis on equality of rights was questioned and
18 changed to the growth-based strategy (Morgan, 1996). The most important
19 critique of the previous pattern is associated with its political instability in most
20 developing countries. These critiques led to the development of the structural
21 adjustment pattern and the minimal state (Hunt, 1989).
22 With the passing of the danger of communism, the big state model was
23 abandoned more rapidly. Although the shift from big state to small state was
24 justified by economic and political arguments, it can be said that with the
25 establishment of increasing demand for education by society in the previous
26 period, education can now be offered as a popular commodity in businesses.
27 However, it is better to submit its management to the market.
28 As a result of the influence of neoliberal ideological flow, the role of the
29 government was reversed from a development intervener to a noninterfering
30 facilitator of the market initiatives, and since the economic problem of the
31 developing countries was apparently derived from the internal structure of
32 these countries, it emphasized on the government's downsized role in the
33 production and economic activities and moving towards the free and liberated
34 market through the structural adjustment policy (Easterly, 2005). In the new
35 pattern, the diminished government's intervention in the economy and the
36 submission of affairs to the price mechanism and the market was considered as
37 solutions to the development. This time, the "minimal government", "dominion
38 of prices and liberation" and "privatization" were regarded as the ways to
39 salvation. Concurrent with such policies, the international economic assemblies
40 such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund also cried the
41 slogan for the stop of the government period and the initiation of the market
42 period. With the collapse of the East Block, executors of this pattern grew
43 quickly. These countries wanted to compensate for more than half a century of
44 their historical mistake by privatization and rapid elimination of government
45 interventions. Basic foundations of this theoretical pattern were also identified;
46 the neoclassic ideological tradition theorized the problem of the government's
72021-4105-AJE – 03 FEB 2021
1 interference with the economy and proposed different arguments in support of
2 the market system (Stiglitz, quoted by Midori 1385).
3 The structural adjustment program is a set of economic guidelines for the
4 developing countries that were fostered by the World Bank and the
5 International Monetary Fund since the early 80s through conditioned loans
6 provided that they should conform to some guidelines. Structural adjustment
7 loans were provided by the World Bank (Abugre, 2000). The simultaneous
8 election of Ronald Reagan in the United States and Margaret Thatcher in the
9 UK shifted the guideline to the right-wing, which ensured the collapse of the
10 Keynes school and the agreement of neoliberalism and monetarism as the main
11 international economic flow. In his opening ceremony speech in 1981, Reagan
12 claimed that "in the current crisis, the government is not a solution to our
13 problems; it is the problem itself". The cutback in the government services and
14 the public expenditure as well as the reduction in social costs was a part of the
15 structural adjustment guidelines and the state's downsizing plan (Natson,
16 2009). The indifference of governments to the weaker classes of society, which
17 were ignored in the education domain, and the concern of maximizing the
18 benefits for society as a whole, regardless of how these profits were distributed,
19 led education to redistribute inequalities in society. The commodification of
20 education in this period led the student to be viewed as the customer and the
21 interaction between the school and the student as the seller-buyer interaction.
22 Customer orientation as the basic market value also led to the dominance of
23 economic interests over educational interests.
24 Since the mid-90s, the dissatisfaction with the minimal state approach
25 aroused and from the end of that decade, the good governance approach was
26 largely accepted. The same international assemblies that once promoted the
27 minimal state came to formulate and promote the good governance theory and
28 the institutional economists expounded its theoretical basics. Good governance
29 according to the definition of the UN civil program is the public administration
30 based on the rule of law, the efficient and fair judicial system, and the
31 widespread participation of people in the governance process (UNDP quoted
32 from Johnson, 1997). In good governance, there is a partnership in activities
33 among three main foundations: the government, the civil society, and the
34 private sector. This partnership causes public affairs and public issues to be
35 administered more properly and efficiently (Streeten, 1993).
36 In both the good governance and the minimal state, the market economy is
37 superior to the state economy, and the price freedom and competition, services
38 privatization, and government downsizing rest in the agenda of both periods,
39 but in the good governance period, the market superiority is subject to
40 government presiding hand. Also in the big state and the minimal state, the
41 market and the state are regarded as competitors and alternatives for each other
42 while in the third period a supplementary role is more predominant. (Midori,
43 2006).
44 After World War II, when the big state pattern is the dominant development
45 pattern, in the democratic states that are elected by people's votes, it can be said
46 that people's participation through official political behaviors and electoral
82021-4105-AJE – 03 FEB 2021
1 activities, political protest, supervision by official political channels and in
2 other words the political participation in the administration of society (Ekman
3 and Amna, 2012) is carried out through their elected representatives in the
4 government and parliament.
5 In the minimal state pattern, economic enterprises are the areas where
6 people attend; it should be noted however that participation and intervention in
7 the economic aspect will be exclusive to those who can maintain themselves in
8 the economic and business realm and stay steady in the economic competition
9 environment.
10 Concerning the historical and theoretical course of this pattern and its
11 paradigmatic changes, the proportion of public and private sectors in education
12 and different education participation policies can be looked more closely from
13 this perspective. The education institution as a social institution is under the
14 influence of development theoretical patterns, and changes in development
15 patterns, change in the role of education, and also change in the concept of
16 participation in these patterns, accordingly has changed the role of government
17 and people in education.
18
19 Table 2. Comparison of different models of participation in education from
20 development patterns perspective
Public education Education Public-private
privatization partnership in
education
Development Big state (welfare) Minimal state and Good governance
pattern and its and state's structural
policies maximal authority adjustment
Principal theorists John Rawls Robert Nozick Thorstein Veblen
in speculative
ground
Responsibility of Providing public Facilitation of Partnership with
state in education education private sector in the private sector
education
Participation place Minimal Maximal from an Maximal
in education economic contingently
perspective
Bases of movement Provision of public Better education Equal access to
toward program education by the quality in the education
government as a private sector especially for
basic need marginal groups
21 Source: Summary of issues in Classification from the perspective of development patterns
22
23 State Education
24 With the development of pragmatic theories in the education economy
25 across industrialized countries, and many years later, the independence of most
26 colonized countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, the decision for the
27 nationalization of education and establishing the public education system,
28 resulted in the dominant intervention of states in education. The significant role
29 of education in the legitimization of government, socialization, and creation of
92021-4105-AJE – 03 FEB 2021
1 national identity, modernization, and economic development of the young
2 nation were the main reasons for the maximum presence of the big state in the
3 education scene (Williams, 1997). In the dominant educational policymaking
4 discourse of this period, the presence of the private sector in education was
5 considered an impediment to public education and there was no incentive to
6 facilitate the private sector participation (Verger, 2012). The educational
7 development in this period, influenced by the big state pattern, emphasizes
8 public education. Education in this period is at the discretion of the government
9 and participation in education takes place through their political representatives
10 in the government.
11
12 Education Privatization
13 At the same time that the big state pattern changed to the minimal state,
14 the idea of privatization of schools and participation of the private sector in
15 education was heightened. In this period, the idea that the government is the
16 best system that can provide efficient educational and treatment services for all
17 people was challenged. Interestingly, the movement as new economic policies
18 in the education domain was largely propagated by the politicians themselves
19 through emphasizing the right of parental choice, establishing a variety of non-
20 state schools, and creating competition among them. This reformative
21 movement is often referred to as the market orientation and privatization of the
22 educational system (Molesworth, Scullion, and Nixon, 2010). Belfield and
23 Levin (2000) believe that the private sector participation in education roots in
24 three main factors: A) demand pressure, b) supply pressure and C) public
25 pressures.
26 Where the government is not capable of meeting the educational needs, the
27 "excess demand" and the demand pressure lead to the emergence of non-state
28 schools. The parents of students may have various demands for their children's
29 education. State education in many countries propagates a particular religion,
30 ideology, or morality, and in some countries the state education system is
31 secular. Some parents are looking for parallel alternatives for these exclusive
32 options. "Differentiated demand" also provokes the expansion of non-state
33 schools. Another factor in the expansion of non-governmental schools is the
34 low quality of government education, government budget deficiency and in
35 other words, the "supply pressure". Crowded classrooms and multi-shift
36 schools are the consequences of the state budget deficiency in education.
37 Governments may cut down the amount of budget allocation to education at
38 times under the pressure of the inability to supply public education services. In
39 addition to the supply and demand pressures for education, the "public
40 pressures" also contributed to privatization expansion. With the spread of
41 concepts like market liberalization, globalization both pushed and encouraged
42 states to develop efficiency, flexibility, and development-oriented education.
43 Privatization is a response of governments to this push or encouragement
44 (Belfield and Levin, 2000). Education privatization pervaded even in low-
45 income countries, and since it was a prerequisite for many international
46 financial grants, privatization grew rapidly in these countries (Verger, 2012).
102021-4105-AJE – 03 FEB 2021
1 Public-Private Partnership in Education
2 The expansion of education privatization and experience of this policy
3 showed that privatization in some sectors, such as education and health, does
4 not resemble privatization of industrial and commercial companies, and
5 privatization may affect negatively the services quality, educational equality,
6 educational efficiency (Tilak, 2016 and Colclough, 1996), and some human
7 development goals in other educational aspects. Thus it was proposed that
8 instead of direct procurement by the private sector, a partnership between
9 private and public sectors may be taken different from privatization as an
10 acceptable strategy to minimize the undesirable effects of the private sector and
11 intensify the desirable effects of the public sector in education. The public-
12 private partnership has been amply repeated over the past two decades, but its
13 evidence-based outcomes and consequences have been rarely addressed. This
14 partnership can be a contractual relationship between the government (federal,
15 state, or local) and the private sector (companies, foundations, non-state
16 organizations, academic institutions, or citizens) where the simultaneous
17 involvement of these two bodies and the roles each takes on a specific
18 educational project, the costs, and benefits and the risks and rewards are
19 divided between them to a specific partnership and sharing (Tilak, 2016). The
20 partnership was initially developed in the civil, the energy, and the water
21 resources areas and recently has been also popular in the education realm
22 (Verger, 2008).
23 advocates of public-private partnership maintain that besides the potential
24 benefits of the private sector's involvement in education (Gopalan, 2013), such
25 as competition, quality, compensation for the lack of financial resources, and
26 educational quality of governments, some advantages of engagement and
27 supervision of the public sector also will accrue; the advantages such as
28 allocation of limited public resources to the poor alongside observing the rights
29 of the wealthy through the private sector and protection of the public nature of
30 education in society and assurance about the fulfillment of the education right
31 in the community. It is notable that the international communities and
32 organizations also do not support the extreme privatization any more, and the
33 public-private partnership has become a novel planning idea and a discourse in
34 the development programs, and the idea has been advocated mainly by the
35 international organizations led by the World Bank. In this perspective, the
36 government views the private sector not a threatening rival but a partner.
37 It seems that the public-private partnership in education has been rather
38 under the influence of the good governance discourse, since its explanations
39 about the partnership and its proposal after the privatization period, is
40 completely in conformity with the development patterns that by following the
41 minimal government pattern and the structural adjustment notion has
42 developed to the good governance pattern; of course, in its theoretical layer,
43 this pattern is on progress also based on an economic theory that considers the
44 quality as a product of competition (Verger, 2008).
45 From the World Bank's point of view, the government and the private
46 sector partnership is an idea between privatization and government monopoly;
112021-4105-AJE – 03 FEB 2021
1 hence it will be less challenging in societies that harshly oppose privatization,
2 although the World Bank claims that the main logic of the public-private
3 partnership development in education is optimizing the capacity for expanded
4 equal access to education and improved academic results, especially for
5 marginal groups (Patronus et al. 2009).
6 As perceived in the historical course of the government's position in
7 educational development, the idea that is now prevailing across the education
8 development flow and is supported by international organizations such as the
9 World Bank is the public-private partnership notion. It can be said that the
10 partnership idea is governing the participation programs in education and that
11 this idea has swallowed its prior notions. Even some believe that the public-
12 private partnership is a prerequisite for privatization (Verger et al. 2016) and
13 partnership idea cannot be investigated irrespective of other ideas such as
14 education privatization.
15 The lack of attention from society and even critics to the nature of the idea
16 of partnership and the equalization of the value system that supports
17 privatization and partnership in international thinking rooms has made the
18 private and public partnership to be accepted simply as a mediocre idea.
19 Klein has presented a pattern of education privatization that refers to
20 financial and educational services presentation that was mentioned above and
21 correspondingly he refers to four forms of school financing by the state or the
22 private sector (Vitti and Power, 2002). In these forms, the partnership idea
23 alongside the other techniques depicts some steps of full privatization. The
24 World Bank also mentions the four forms of partnership with these two
25 dimensions (Patronus et al. 2009).
26
27 Figure 1. Presentation of educational services
Presentation of educational services
private public
-Private schools User's payment
-Private universities Student loan
Private -Education at home
-Private training
Education
finance -Educational permit Public schools
-Contractual schools Public Universities
Public -Conventional schools
-Purchase of educational
services
28 Source: Patronus et al. 2009
29
30
31 Challenges of Participation in Education
32
33 Three neoliberal, liberal, and progressive types in the first typology and
34 three state education, education privatization, and public-private partnership
35 types in the second typology overlap in some categories. With a good
122021-4105-AJE – 03 FEB 2021
1 approximation, it can be said that the neoliberal type in the Edwards and Klees'
2 thought includes privatization and public-private partnership. Public education
3 also covers the liberal period in terms of time. In the liberal approach, while the
4 market and its order are recognized, the market is not yet widespread enough to
5 cover also the education realm, and the state's dominance is sustainable on
6 education. The progressive approach, though, cannot be considered a temporal
7 period but is open to further investigation in the future as a favorable approach.
8 The participation approaches that govern the educational policies and have
9 been so far proposed in theoretical literature have been explored generally from
10 economic development patterns or sociological paradigms viewpoints, but only
11 partially from education or political philosophy perspectives while the
12 philosophy of education and political philosophy can and should have the most
13 intervention in the theoretical basics of educational policies (Terzi, 2012).
14 The typology (A) clarified by Edwards and Klees (2012) creates a good
15 opportunity for analysis of participatory approaches and even designing of the
16 actions and the alternative participation programs since it is founded on the
17 sociological paradigms, and in these paradigms, humanism and fundamental
18 structuralism critics are also present implicitly without any mention to their
19 names. Participation programs in education, however, never have been
20 addressed from viewpoint of the education philosophy and educational
21 interests. Also, political philosophy and political development theories have
22 been less frequently dealt with in this approach.
23 In the typology (B) expounded mainly by Mundi and Verger (2015), the
24 international dimensions of development programs and an understanding of the
25 position of international organizations in development programs have been
26 noted as a strong point of this typology, while it has been overlooked in the
27 typology (A). Like Edwards and Klees' typology, this typology, however, has
28 completely overlooked the educational dimensions of these programs and has
29 classified participation approaches irrespective of the effectiveness of the
30 education values. Also, since it has made critiques of international participation
31 programs, it has not addressed alternative political philosophies along with the
32 globalization view and has not made any reference to potential participation
33 types outside the international paradigms.
34 The common point of both typologies in overlooking the political
35 philosophy and the education philosophy prompts us to while using the
36 integrated form of both approaches, also take a look at participation approaches
37 from education philosophy and political philosophy perspectives and integrate
38 the achievements of these two perspectives into the literature of education
39 participation.
40 Educational policy is considered completely a technical issue that never is
41 concerned about values. The main concerns of policymakers are practical and
42 not theoretical. Regarding the contribution of education philosophy in
43 educational policies, there are scholars who insist on this point; because any
44 policy proposal as far as it is action-oriented at the level of reform and
45 institutional structuralization, is inherently value-laden (McLaughlin,
46 2000:442; Brighouse, 2001:2; Terzi, 2008:182-183). Therefore, this principled
132021-4105-AJE – 03 FEB 2021
1 dimension of policymaking and education policies not only is often ignored but
2 has been little analyzed and studied explicitly.
3 Terzi holds that "Although I defend the vital value of morality philosophy
4 and political philosophy in the educational policy, I do not degrade the
5 important contribution of other fields of philosophy- such as epistemology or
6 philosophy of science- or other scientific disciplines- such as psychology and
7 sociology- but I believe that the philosophy of morality and political
8 philosophy gives a special insight that may not be created easily by the other
9 sources "(Terzi, 2012).
10 Here, we investigate the challenges of participation and strategic
11 negligence in participation approaches with proposing the idea of intervention
12 of educational philosophy and political philosophy besides the issues of
13 economic development patterns.
14
15 National Autonomy and Participation
16
17 As Dewey reiterates, mass education systems in Europe that emphasized
18 on training loyal citizens to the government developed when nationalism was
19 at its peak (Osler, 2015). Dewey views the training of loyal citizens to
20 government in contrast to the training of loyal educated people to humanity and
21 puts this nationalism as opposed to the cosmopolitanism ideology. However,
22 the concept of "national autonomy" in the analysis and designing of
23 educational policies was mainly raised after the ancient colonial period and
24 after World War II. Post-war reconstruction and nations' liberation of
25 colonization occurred in this era (O‟Connor, 2014) and the human capitalism
26 view overruled the economy and education economy. The politicians, however,
27 turned to education to achieve national progress and independence, and
28 following Keynes's economy made maximal state intervention in education for
29 further expansion of education. This is why the concept of national
30 independence and nationalism was accompanied by governmentalization, the
31 tendency to communist school, and a decrease in participation of non-
32 governmental institutions (Moeti, Khalo, and Mafunisa, 2007).
33 After this period passed and with the flow of the structural adjustment and
34 government downsizing policies, now the international institutions such as the
35 World Bank and the International Monetary Fund emphasize on the economic
36 participation of the market and the private sector. A notable point in this period
37 is that the concept of national independence faded away at the same time the
38 governments shrank in the area of designing and analyzing the educational
39 policies; because before this period, it was the states that tried for national and
40 educational liberation from colonization and now the role of these governments
41 diminished day by day. In the structural adjustment period, it is assumed that
42 we live in the post-colonial era and the concept of independence is practically
43 considered nonsense and governments are planning to improve and prosper
44 nations further; but if we take a closer look at the globalization of structural
45 adjustment policies, we will find out that the independent governance of states
46 has been challenged and the global education policies are being implemented
142021-4105-AJE – 03 FEB 2021
1 through international organizations (Verger, Altinyelken and Novelli, 2018;
2 Verger, Novelli and Altinyelken, 2012).
3 The shrinking of governments and the highlighted role of markets that
4 have bilateral global ties has practically influenced the educational programs,
5 and it is these global dependencies that navigate educational policies; hence,
6 the national policies of education intensely approach the recommendations of
7 international organizations during reforms and revisions in the educational
8 models and policies (Rautalin, Alasuutari, and Vento, 2019).
9 By structural adjustment and the diminished role of government, the
10 market participation in education is underlined and we see that the market
11 participation and the global dependence are deeply linked.
12 The post-colonial period in the global common literature has been
13 described as a colonial-free period, while in the age of widespread contribution
14 of international organizations, it can be said that colonization in a different
15 shape has endangered the independence of governments and nations in
16 policymaking for education development. We call this period the ultramodern
17 colonization age in this sense that although the colonization and occupation do
18 not persist in the traditional and real sense countries have lost their
19 independence and are dependent on the policies of a particular international
20 center.
21 What seeks further investigation is the fact that in global policies that
22 emphasize the widespread involvement of the private sector in development,
23 the national autonomy of countries has been little taken into account, and with
24 a serious attempt to reduce the intervention of governments, there will be more
25 opportunity for practice and participation of the market and international
26 organization. Naturally, the participation of social groups in designing and
27 supervising the policies also will decrease.
28 After all, social participation in all its dimensions will take place better
29 when a great ideal may cause consensus of different institutions in a country,
30 and to achieve that ideal, all institutions of the community need to participate
31 strongly. The inverse relationship between the social participation plan and the
32 independence concept plan seems a paradox in the education development in
33 any approach proposed in educational participation.
34
35 Justice and Participation
36
37 Various participation approaches in education vary depending on the basis
38 they justify. Participation can be considered favorable for one approach and
39 inevitable for another approach. What is often overlooked is the inherent nature
40 of participation in education.
41 The approaches that are promoted by international organizations to
42 promote participation in education stress on the desirability of participation and
43 this desirability is justified from the economic point of view. Nevertheless,
44 when implementing these policies in the target countries, participation mostly
45 seems inevitable that suggests the inability of governments to finance education.
152021-4105-AJE – 03 FEB 2021
1 The objective of participation also is not explicitly explained in different
2 approaches. The question is whether the principle of realization of participation
3 of various factors in education is desirable in itself? Or the realization of
4 participation should lead to an ultimate objective to be able to assess the
5 success of participation? The establishment of social justice as one of the main
6 objectives of participation is generally neglected in the participation
7 approaches, and participation, itself, besides justice has occasionally turned
8 into one of the ultimate objectives. Participation and justice also may be
9 proposed as two contrasting concepts, and when the participation arises, justice
10 slips away (Power and Taylor, 2013). It should be noted that the relationship
11 between justice and participation in the political philosophy of any approach
12 can be a good criterion for assessment and criticism, and while participation
13 itself can be an exalted goal, it is the realization of justice that can make this
14 participation worthwhile. On the other hand, the realization of justice, without
15 the participation of various social factors, will not guarantee that it does not
16 overpass other educational values thus ending to despotism with the name of
17 justice. Merry (2020) believes that diversification policies in schools carried
18 out with the aim of educational justice, sometimes, may allow for more sharing
19 for those who had already more shares before the implementation of the policy.
20 Therefore, in political philosophy, if solely the realization of participation is
21 stressed while no equitable participation ground is provided, the real
22 participation will not take place and will lead to the sovereignty of the
23 powerful class. As we have seen, although the structural adjustment period
24 allowed for prosperity in the economic participation in education, ultimately
25 has brought about the dissatisfaction of active social groups due to its social
26 consequences that mainly have increased the social class gap. This
27 dissatisfaction also has naturally reduced the social capital of governments and
28 social participation. The emphasis on the market in this period also has
29 influenced some parts of the civil society that operates in a non-profit way and
30 reduces the social responsibility and entrepreneurship of active groups of the
31 civil society (Eikenberry & Kluver, 2004).
32 Unfortunately, it seems that different participation approaches in education
33 have neglected to explain these issues and influenced by the dominant views of
34 the pragmatic economy have explained and promoted themselves, while justice
35 as a human and social value has been overlooked, either neglected or regarded
36 as a competitor of participation. To develop alternative patterns in education
37 participation, one of the most important issues is an explanation of
38 participation that can include both the justice and the participation concepts at
39 the same time and can analyze and clarify their close and mutual relationship in
40 its political philosophy.
41
42 Educational Interests and Participations
43
44 Participation in education with any approach should set its final goal as
45 improving education. Selecting the policy options is certainly affected by the
46 education values, and observance of educational interests will surpass
162021-4105-AJE – 03 FEB 2021
1 observance of economic interests; in this regard, Down, Smyth, and Robinson
2 (2019) argue that in the policy of vocational training development, it is not
3 possible to decide only by economic rationality of neoliberal ideology, and
4 ethical and political instructions are also required for training democratic
5 citizens.
6 While in education privatization approaches, the cause and effect chain of
7 "privatization, competition, and quality of education" has been mentioned
8 repeatedly, Martin and Dunlop (2019) suggest that this neoliberal argument
9 that the performance of profit schools is better than non-profit schools has been
10 weakened in the UK schools based on empirical and statistical evidence. Also,
11 Maynard (2012) reiterates that the realization of this chain looks more like an
12 ideology that should be believed rather than an evidence-based entity.
13 Privatization ideology is also criticized by Streeten (1993), while Williamson
14 (2004) who was a Washington consensus developer, affirms that privatization
15 and structural adjustment were a prescription for Latin American conditions
16 and should not be generalized to all countries.
17 In many situations generated by the economic, cultural, media, and social
18 conditions, privatization has not been necessarily competitive, and economic
19 competition will not necessarily result in quality. Economic competition, on the
20 other hand, may be able to bring about more economic quality in terms of
21 economic efficiency and productivity, but it cannot guarantee the quality of
22 education.
23 Also, it should be said that we need an educational competition to achieve
24 educational quality where educational competition has derived from a source
25 other than privatization.
26 In an economic structure that submits that the most qualified will remain in
27 the competition and the week will be eliminated, a covert curriculum has been
28 designed for the student that suggests he should remain at any cost, and in this
29 structure, while the violence is declared counter-value, violence will be the
30 most important value that is promoted and committed.
31 The Anxiety for survival and success in the competition, the economic
32 valuation scheme as the peaks the student should achieve and student's talent
33 orientation toward whatever the economic system deems desirable, and
34 abandon of talents that are not recognized by the economy are other imperative
35 anti-values of the approaches to participation in education that is implemented
36 by the covert school curriculum. The weak points recounted for the approaches
37 to education participation exclude the content that can be instructed and
38 monitored at school.
39 An essential point in the issue of participation in education is that we
40 should be able to derive the favorable participation and educational
41 requirements of this participation so that healthy participation could take place
42 in the educational system. In other words, participation in education would not
43 be realized until participation is instructed. Also, the educational outcomes of
44 each participation model should be anticipated initially; since the participation
45 pattern can be evaluated only based on the ultimate educational outcome. In
46 this respect, Lackéus (2017) has investigated the entrepreneurship training
172021-4105-AJE – 03 FEB 2021
1 policy from the self-attention or other-attention perspective that is a moral and
2 educational value.
3
4
5 Discussion and Conclusion
6
7 After the beginning of the economic crisis in 2008 and the protests against
8 the capitalism system, the educational development policies, that were
9 influenced by the overall policies of capitalism, became enfeebled and
10 objections to the privatization of education and the educational gap in social
11 classes intensified; Some of its traces can be seen in Latin American countries
12 referred to as post-Washington consensus. Furthermore, the raise in the
13 beneficiaries and public-based organizations' expectations has been added to
14 objections to the current participation pattern. Slater (2020) presumes that
15 opponents of neoliberal policies in education now have found each other and
16 will be tied and then they will not tolerate the dominance of the neoliberal
17 policies on society and education anymore.
18 In addition to the economic crises that induce us to revise the participation
19 policies in education, the outbreak of COVID 19 since 2019 and the rise of
20 crisis in the health system of different countries also give us a good lesson
21 about participation in education. Andrew Cuomo, New York governor,
22 introduces an economic disease after the hospital crisis and believes that the
23 daily curve of the patients with Corona cannot be straightened because
24
25 "our health system is essentially a private health system and does not construct
26 facilities that do not require. They do not provide an extra bed for ICU in this
27 case as providing extra beds costs a lot. And my friends! These will lead to an
28 overwhelming disaster. We need the federal government to play its role" (NBC
29 News Channel, news conference on Monday 16 March 2020).
30
31 These arguments indicate that the definition of participation in the
32 restricted area of the market and private sector cannot save the health and
33 safety of society, and human values will not necessarily win over the economic
34 values. Education cannot be viewed exceptional, and we should be aware that
35 constraining the privatization to the private sector and dominating an economic
36 look on education, cannot guarantee the provision of educational values and
37 justice, and this disability- like the inability of the private health system in the
38 course of corona crisis- will show up in crises. On the other hand, the maximal
39 intervention of the states also may not solve the problem thoroughly. The
40 presence of public organizations and their active participation is also crucial.
41 We call this multidimensional participation phenomenon the social participation. It
42 seems that the key to saving education from economic crises is fostering social
43 participation in education and avoiding a pure economic look to participation.
44 This way, educational policies can attract the participation of various social
45 factors and contribute to the realization of multidimensional and social
46 participation to the extent they pay attention to national autonomy, justice, and
47 educational values.
18You can also read
