Contemporary reform discourses have been interlaced with a neo-liberal political economic reasoning system globally and locally. Taking the preschool vouchers in Taiwan and Hong Kong as examples, this article seeks to encourage a shift towards a post-structural perspective of theorizing and analyzing as an alternative to problematize how Milton Friedman's voucher model constitutes and shapes our construction of freedom to choose, equality, and social justice in education.
References
1.
AppleM.W. (2001) Educating the ‘Right’ Way: Markets, standards, God, and inequality. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
2.
FoucaultM. ([1978] 1990) The History of Sexuality: An introduction, trans. HurleyR.. New York: Random House.
3.
FriedmanM. (1955) The Role of Government in Education. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
4.
KeeleyB. (2007) Human Capital: How what you know shapes your life. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
5.
LatherP. (2004) This is your Father's Paradigm: Government intrusion and the case of qualitative research in education, Qualitative Inquiry, 10(1), 15–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1077800403256154
6.
LeeI.F. (2006) Illusions of Social Democracy: Early childhood educational voucher policies in Taiwan, in BlochM.KennedyD.LightfootT. & WeyenbergD. (Eds) The Child in the World/The World in the Child: Education and the configuration of a universal, modern, and globalized childhood. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
7.
PopkewitzT.S. (2006) Hopes of Progress and Fears of the Dangerous: Research, cultural theses, and planning different human kinds, in Ladson-BillingsG. & TateW.F. (Ed.) Education Research in the Public Interest: The place for advocacy in the academy. New York: Teachers College Press.
8.
YuenG.W.K. (2007) Vouchers in Hong Kong: A new milestone of early childhood education?Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 8(4), 355–357. http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/ciec.2007.8.4.355
