As the world went suddenly into lockdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic, sending individuals to their homes and shutting businesses and institutions, the closing of schools posed big problems. The majority of the world’s children were out of school, leading to the longest sustained period of school closures in history. We saw educators turning towards responses not aimed at collegial and community-engaged strategies for education in an emergency but at online learning cast as education/business as usual. This study explores the logic driving this global response through analyses of the documents released by three key global education actors: (1) the OECD and its paper A Framework to Guide Education Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic of 2020; (2) UNESCO’s Global Education Coalition #LearningNeverStops; and (3) the World Bank’s Guidance Note on Education Systems’ Response to COVID-19; and Guidance Note: Remote Learning and COVID-19. The authors of this article draw on Carol Bacchi’s approach to poststructural policy analysis to make visible the key concepts and binaries used within policy texts and to understand the “technologies of saving” that were invoked in each policy response, locating the education programmes, activities and actors within knowledge practices in educational reform. This article explores the World Bank, OECD and UNESCO responses using an analysis of knowledge harmonisation and difference among these institutions as well as their location as key norm-setters and governing actors in the field of education. The authors argue that all three responses privilege private-sector providers of digital technology. The consequence of these responses is that technologies of saving have centred on privatised, corporate edu-business and edu-tech aimed at online education delivery, bringing significant risks for the erasure of local knowledges. The authors’ study suggests that local policymakers, including community-based and national actors, must be invited into the discussion to envision other possibilities and to name the potential destructiveness embedded in the international organisations’ actions.

随着世界因 COVID-19 大流行而突然陷入封锁，将个人送回家并关闭企业和机构，关闭学校带来了大问题。世界上大多数儿童失学，导致学校停课持续时间最长。我们看到教育工作者转向的反应不是针对紧急情况下的大学和社区参与的教育策略，而是将在线学习作为教育/照常营业。本研究通过分析三个主要全球教育参与者发布的文件，探索推动全球响应的逻辑：（1）经合组织及其论文《指导教育应对 2020 年 COVID-19 大流行的框架》；(2) 联合国教科文组织全球教育联盟#LearningNeverStops; (3) 世界银行关于教育系统应对 COVID-19 的指导说明；和指导说明：远程学习和 COVID-19. 本文作者借鉴了 Carol Bacchi 的后结构政策分析方法，以使政策文本中使用的关键概念和二进制文件可见，并了解在每个政策响应中调用的“储蓄技术”，定位教育计划、活动和教育改革知识实践中的参与者。本文通过分析这些机构之间的知识协调和差异以及它们作为教育领域关键规范制定者和管理参与者的位置，探讨了世界银行、经合组织和教科文组织的应对措施。作者认为，所有这三种回应都对私营部门的数字技术提供商提供特权。这些反应的结果是储蓄技术集中在私有化、企业 edu-business 和 edu-tech 旨在提供在线教育，这为擦除本地知识带来了重大风险。作者的研究表明，必须邀请包括社区和国家行为者在内的当地政策制定者参与讨论，以设想其他可能性，并指出国际组织行动中潜在的破坏性。