EdTech

'When public policy ‘fails’ and venture capital ‘saves’ education: Edtech investors as economic and political actors' Janja Komljenovic, Ben Williams, Rebecca Eynon and Huw C Davies in (2023) Globalization, Societies and Education comments 

Educational technology (Edtech) investors have become increasingly influential in education; however, they remain under-researched. We address this deficit and introduce the grammar and landscape of Edtech investment into education research. We empirically examine venture capital Edtech investors and argue that they are economic and political actors. Investors construct the Edtech industry through their investment and advancing particular imaginaries. They legitimate their authority in education through narratives of expertise and measures of social impact. They consolidate the Edtech industry by constructing social networks to perform the political work of futuring. The analysis provides original insights into the power of Edtech investors in education and proposes a research agenda examining new relations between the education, technology, and finance industries. 

Educational technology (Edtech) increasingly structures teaching and learning processes, determines how education is governed, and reframes educational purposes and aims (Decuypere, Grimaldi, and Landri  2021). Since Edtech is so impactful for education, it matters what kind of Edtech is incubated, innovated, and rolled out into the sector. The nature of Edtech is determined by socio-techno-financial processes resulting from power struggles between various actors (Komljenovic  2021). We argue it is investors who increasingly influence the nature of Edtech. They can realise future visions by structuring the direction of entire industries through their funding priorities (Cooiman  2022). However, they do more than only invest financial resources; they conduct studies, issue reports, educate entrepreneurs and other actors, organise networking, work with policymakers, and more (Williamson and Komljenovic  2023). Hence, investment and consequent actions are as much political decisions about the future as they are financial decisions about funding startup companies. What can and cannot exist is determined by an investment decision (Feher  2018), and investors seek to materialise particular visions of futures through very laborious actions that accompany the investment itself (Muniesa et al.  2017). 

Historically, investors were hesitant to invest in the education sector due to low returns, long investment cycles, fragmented markets, heavy regulation, and public hesitancy towards privatisation. This has changed with the emergence and growth of Edtech, akin to other sectors in the digital economy, accelerated by the pandemic (Teräs et al.  2020). Education via Edtech is seen to have an enormous opportunity for growth among investors as one of the last sectors that have not yet been digitalised. In other words, Edtech made education investable. 

The Edtech industry is relatively young. While we can trace the use of the first computers for academic research back to the mid-1940s and their first use in university and school classrooms to the 1960s (Molnar  1997), the Edtech industry as we know it today developed in the early 2010s. Since 2010, the number of newly established Edtech companies has sharply increased (Komljenovic, Sellar, and Birch  2021). Venture capital (VC) investment in Edtech rose from $500 million in 2010 to more than $20 billion in 2021 (As of November 24, 2022, HolonIQ listed on its website https://www.holoniq.com/notes/global-Edtech-venture-capital-report-full-year-2021). And the COVID-19 pandemic accelerated investment in Edtech and its use in education (Williamson and Hogan  2020). The Edtech industry is now consolidating, as indicated by the rising value of individual investments into particular companies (Brighteye Ventures  2022) and an increasing number of acquisitions (Brighteye Ventures  2022), indicating the emergence of ‘Big Edtech’ (Williamson  2022). The number of Edtech ‘unicorns’, companies valued at more than $1 billion, increased from 0 in 2014 to 62 in 2021 (Brighteye Ventures  2022). An important reason that the Edtech industry has grown and consolidated is capital investment. 

Surprisingly, Edtech investors, particularly VC investors, remain under-researched in education research. In this article, we ask who Edtech investors are, how they operate, and what are the consequences. We argue that Edtech investors became economic and political actors in the education ensemble of multisector influences on policy and practice (Robertson and Dale  2015) who need to be brought into research focus. We address the research gap by discussing Edtech investors’ operations, exploring the political and economic actions of two Edtech VC investors through an original empirical study, and proposing a research programme to investigate these key actors further. 

We proceed as follows. First, we provide a brief overview of the practices of Edtech investors to illuminate the investment landscape and its grammar. We then explain our approach to the empirical study. We proceed by discussing three forms of VC investors’ economic and political labouring of making the Edtech industry, legitimating their role, and consolidating the industry. We conclude by reflecting on the implications for education.

Prayer

'Our Father who art in Town Hall: Do local councils have power to pray?' by Luke Beck in (2021) 46(2) Alternative Law Journal comments 

Many local councils in Australia commence their meetings with prayer. Case law in the United Kingdom holds that English local councils do not have power to commence their meetings with prayer. This article argues that the reasoning of the UK case law applies with equal force in Australia with the result that the practice of many Australian local councils of incorporating prayers into their formal meetings is unlawful. If you were to attend your local council’s next formal meeting you might find that the council opens its meeting with an official prayer read by the mayor. This article avoids the policy question of whether it is right that in a secular, multi-faith and multicultural society a government should engage in religious rituals as part of its official business. Instead, this article asks another question: is it legal? 

Many local councils in Australia commence their meetings with prayer. This can be controversial. One example of controversy, discussed in this article as a mini case study, is a decision by a New South Wales (NSW) council to invite local Hindu leaders to say a prayer before a council meeting on the proviso that the Hindu leaders recite a Christian prayer. Council prayers, and associated controversies, take place in the context of the accelerating trend of Australians reporting having no religious affiliation (approximately 30 per cent of Australians at the 2016 census), a long term decline in the proportion of Australians reporting being Christian (88 per cent at the 1966 census and 52 per cent at the 2016 census), and Australians aged 18 to 34 being ‘more likely to be affiliated with religions other than Christianity (12 per cent) and to report not having a religion (39 per cent) than other adult age groups.’ 

Case law in the United Kingdom (UK) holds that English local councils do not have power to commence their meetings with prayer. The reasoning in that case law applies with equal force in Australia. xx The first part of this article examines the English High Court’s decision in R (National Secular Society) v Bideford Town Council (Bideford) holding that the legislation under which English councils operate does not give councils power to engage in prayers as part of their official business. The first part of the article also examines the legislative response to that decision to specifically empower English councils to engage in religious observances. 

The second part of this article explains how the reasoning in Bideford is equally applicable to the case of local councils in all Australian states and how other features of Australian statutory regimes reinforce the conclusion that no legal power exists that would permit councils to incorporate prayers into their official meetings. xx The third part of this article extends the analysis by moving away from questions about the existence of power generally to focus on particular decisions to have council prayers. Using a number of examples to illuminate the analysis, this article argues that any decision by a council to incorporate prayers into its official proceedings is likely to be void for legal unreasonableness. The conclusion is that Australia’s local councils do not have power to pray.

Nature

'The Recognition of the Rights of Nature in Latin America – The Lost Linkage with the Rights of Future Generations' by Luis A. López Zamora in Hélène Ruiz Fabri, Valérie Rosoux and Alessandra Donati (eds) Representing the Absent (Studies of the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for International, European and Regulatory Procedural Law, 2023) comments 

This Chapter involves a study on the Rights of Nature (RoN). RoN comprehends the establishment of a set of specific rights, as well as the recognition of a new legal subject (nature) at the national and at the international levels. For example, on the international level, various international forums slowly envision nature as a potential right holder. Even though this has yet to transpire in formulating and adopting an international treaty establishing that, the language of the RoN now commonly appears in different international soft law documents. Latin American jurisdictions have served as inspiration for those documents, since the recognition of RoN in the region has been considered as paradigmatic. However, the regional recognition of nature's rights has not been free of ambiguities, especially when it is considered together with the recognition of another new legal entity: the Future Generations. The interactions between those new right holders in Latin America have been scarcely studied; this contribution seeks to fill that gap. 

Recognising the Rights of Nature (RoN) is part of a global trend, in which Latin America has been considered a success story. Specialised scholarship highlights that in some Latin-American jurisdictions, the recognition of RoN has been enshrined at the constitutional level or, alternatively, pro‐ claimed by constitutional courts or tribunals. According to the scholarship on the subject, such recognition entailed a breakthrough in protecting nature as it extends legal protection to the environment for its intrinsic value. The purpose of this Chapter is to subject that statement to critical analysis. Unlike much of the regional and international scholarship that has studied the rise of the RoN in Latin America, we will not assume that such recognition has occurred innocuously or that – in any case – it has not caused complications in the legal systems where RoN have been incorporated. 

To demonstrate our position, we will take into account two tendencies we have observed during the course of this research: (a) Recognition of the RoN in the region has been executed without a detailed explanation of why this process was necessary. Some of the questions that remain unanswered are: Was the recognition of the RoN vital, bearing in mind that there were already legal frameworks in place in the Region protecting the environment? Was the recognition of the RoN warranted, bearing in mind the cost of implementing a new set of rights? (b) It is a fact that that recognition usually occurs in connection with the implementation of the rights of future generations. It should be borne in mind that in both scholarship and adjudication these two sets of rights have been considered together as if they were part of a similar phenomenon. Indeed, the proclamation in the region of the RoN is usually followed by references to the rights of future generations. Are those two sets of rights connected? Furthermore, if they are connected, how does their normative interplay transpire? 

To find answers to these questions, we will consider the legal reasons behind the recognition of the RoN in Latin America. This issue has scarcely been explored. That exercise will allow us to observe that the primary reasons for recognising the RoN have been procedural-based. For example, the proclamation of the RoN leads to the recognition of nature as an entity capable of holding rights – therefore – as a legal subject. As a result, nature has access to proceedings that are capable of protecting its interests, which were previously non-existent. Some of these proceedings are constitutional remedies which can protect nature directly. Another example of the proce‐ dural reasons behind the recognition of the RoN is that through those rights, the rights of future generations can be made effective. To explain this, it is important to bear in mind that the implementation of the rights of future generations faces theoretical and practical limitations. For example, in a dispute settlement context it is difficult to concretely determine the rights or interests of future generations. Without that determination, these rights and interests are merely rhetorical recognitions with no practical application. 

After reviewing the procedural reasons for the recognition of the RoN mentioned above, we have found that in both cases the RoN have been formulated directly or indirectly in connection with the rights of future generations and -in some cases- with the sole purpose of making the imple‐ mentation of those rights possible. This suggests that the recognition of the RoN in Latin America has not been based on the value nature possesses in and of itself, but for the service it can provide to human interests. We will consider the inconsistency of that outcome, and the theoretical incompatibility between the Latin American practice in the matter and the reasons why the RoN were formulated in scholarship in the 1970s. 

To explore all these points, we will begin (in Section 2 of this Chapter) by describing the emergence of the RoN in law and the particular theoret‐ ical discourse that promoted its recognition. At the same time, we will consider a similar trend that led ultimately to recognising the rights of future generations. In Section 3, we will describe the emergence of the RoN in Latin America and the considerations that scholarship has given to that process. With that in mind, we will revise the antecedents that allowed na‐ ture’s personhood to be recognised in the region, such as the relativisation of humans’ monopoly on the legal subjectivity given the recognition – to a certain extent – of animals’ rights. In Section 4 we will review the recogni‐ tion of the RoN in the jurisdictions of Ecuador, Bolivia and Colombia, and inquire into the reasons that led to that process. This exercise will allow us to see that the recognition of the RoN and its utilisation for procedural reasons is due to the lack of theoretical differentiation between the interests protected through the RoN and those protected through the rights of future generations. We will then explain how that lack of differentiation can have theoretical and practical implications.

The Australian Treasury has meanwhile announced settlement of the proceeding commenced in the Federal Court of Australia by Kathleen O'Donnell against the Commonwealth (Proceeding No VID482/2020). 

This statement is published on the websites of the Department of Treasury and Ms O'Donnell's solicitors (Equity Generation Lawyers). 

In the proceeding in the Federal Court, Ms O'Donnell claimed that the Commonwealth failed to disclose information relating to climate change in connection with the issue of Exchange‑traded Australian Government Bonds (eAGBs). 

The parties have agreed that Ms O'Donnell will discontinue the proceeding with no order as to costs when the Court has approved this settlement. Climate change is a systemic risk that presents significant risks and opportunities for Australia's economy, regions, industries, and communities. Achieving Australia's emissions reduction commitments and realising the opportunities that accompany the transition will require significant investment by governments and the private sector. Uncertainty around the magnitude and timing of the physical impacts of climate change and the global transition to net zero emissions translates to uncertainty about the fiscal impacts of climate change. And, as a consequence, there is uncertainty about whether the fiscal impacts of climate change may affect (if at all) the value of Commonwealth Government Securities (also known as Australian Government Bonds or AGBs) and, in turn, eAGBs.  

x The economic and climatic changes brought about by climate change will have fiscal impacts. For example, the new industries and jobs emerging from the net zero transformation will impact the structure of the economy and, in turn, the tax base. Extreme weather events are also expected to occur with increased severity and frequency, which will increase demand for disaster relief payments and infrastructure repairs. Statement 3 of the 2022–23 October Budget outlined the drivers and nature of these fiscal impacts in detail, as well as the climate-related spending being undertaken by the Australian Government to respond to climate change. 

The 2023–24 Budget continues this practice by transparently reporting $4.6 billion in new climate‑related expenditure. This is further to the historic $24.9 billion in new climate‑related spending announced in the October 2022–23 Budget and is additional to ongoing climate‑related expenditure initiated prior to these budgets. The Government's approach to reporting climate‑related spending is informed by the climate‑reporting practices of international peers and is presented within the context of international best practice, as well as contributing to work underway to strengthen transparency in future budgets. 

The Government is developing a package of sustainable finance reforms, including the establishment of a sovereign green bonds program and regulatory reforms, to increase the transparency and credibility of Australia's growing sustainable finance market. The Government's intention is that these reforms will assist investors to align their investment decisions with net zero emissions targets and increase the flow of capital toward new opportunities that support Australia's net zero pathway. In accordance with the requirements of the Climate Change Act 2022 (Cth), the Commonwealth will continue to publish an Annual Climate Change Statement. Among other things, the Annual Climate Change Statement addresses the risks to Australia from climate change impacts, such as those relating to Australia's economy. .... 

The Commonwealth acknowledges that: 

As part of investors' strategic responses to the risks and opportunities presented by climate change, investors are making commitments to reduce emissions associated with their investment portfolios. 

Credit rating agencies and other stakeholders are increasingly examining the relationship between climate change and sovereign bonds. There is currently no internationally agreed framework for assessing any climate‑related risks and opportunities associated with sovereign debt instruments. 

The Commonwealth will continue to engage with asset owners and relevant stakeholders to ensure that investors are informed as to the Commonwealth's policy settings and actions in relation to the risks and opportunities posed by climate change.