Private interest Vs public good: shifting expectations in the policy and politics of education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores the conference theme by questioning what the public interest is in the refinancing of education by the private sector, and by demonstrating how definitions of ‘public’, ‘private’ and ‘the state’ are shifting and intermingling in this context. We argue that a new language of description is emerging that is largely unquestioned, couched as it is in a rhetoric of community improvement and benefit. We see this discourse generating a new construct of ‘the common good’ and the ‘common wealth’ that is shrewd and expedient, but potentially breaking the high levels of trust between state and citizens that has been a hallmark of education in Australia, the USA and England. This redefinition of public interest is one in which the state is extending its intervention under the umbrella of an inclusive rhetoric. What we see emerging is a new (though essentially Deweyan) epistemology of policy and politics in which there is dysfunction between falsely competing expectations driving new community, professional and sectoral alignments. The result is new loci of power emerging from experience and knowledge about policy-making and educational practice, but not necessarily greater public interest.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".