Month: November 2014

Pondering the Term Neoliberalism

Deborah Duncan Owens corporate education reform, free market education reforms, Friedmanomics, neoliberalism ,

Friedmanomics, School Vouchers, School Choice, and the Free Market: If you understand Milton Friedman you are on the road to understanding neoliberalism!

Let me save some folk’s time and state from the outset that if you understand the term neoliberalism and how it impacts current education reform, you need not go on reading. Going on might be a waste of time most of us can ill afford!

Now, I have confession to make. First of all, many years ago when I first encountered the term “neoliberalism” I actually thought it had something to do with what was generally considered liberal in the political sense, something like Progressivism and FDR’s New Deal policies – or fighting for social justice like what I thought all good “liberals” were engaged in doing. Maybe there are some folks out there who also had this experience – and maybe there are still some folks who think neoliberalism is just another way to describe the current tension between “liberals” and “conservatives” – and neoliberalism is just another word to describe liberals! Well – as I learned a bit more – I sure was wrong on that one!

Perhaps there are some who believe – just like I did many years ago – that neoliberalism was nothing more than liberalism with three additional words added! Well – I soon discovered that neoliberalism is conservatism in an economic sense. I wonder if there are a goodly number of Americans who when they hear the word neoliberalism Do Not automatically think conservatism?

I have another confession to make. I think the study of neoliberalism is not only intellectually fascinating, but also an essential activity for anyone who supports America’s public school system and wants to understand the free market corporate ideological forces that want to dismantle that system.

And now I have to make another confession, I think studying the writings of people like Michael Apple, Henry Giroux, Joel Spring, Stanley Aronowitz, Svi Shapiro, Noam Chomsky, and David Harvey – to mention only a very few who have written about neoliberalism – is always a truly enlightening and intellectually invigorating experience! (Good God, am I now a full-fledged NERD???) Nevertheless, I suggest that supporters of public schools read some of the works by individuals such as this.

However, here is the problem. They are not easy reads. That is one reason out of a number of reasons why chapter 3 titled “Friedmanomics, School Vouchers, and Choice” in the The Origins of the Common Core: How the Free Market Became Public Education Policy was written. Its accessible to folks. As chapter 2 of the book explains, the power of the conservatives since the Reagan administration was due in part to the coalescence of different factions of social, political, and economic conservative thinkers. Therefore, the book’s author, Deborah Duncan Owens, chose to use the term “conservatives” to refer to the coalesced group of pundits and policy makers who would drive education policy in the years since Reagan ascended to the presidency.

For me, understanding neoliberalism was an exercise in what the “educationsists” would – I think – call scaffolding. http://edglossary.org/scaffolding/. The term is often applied to children, but in fact as you can see from the definition we all actually learn that way. I know I had to do a good deal of scaffolding before I understood neoliberalism and I could begin to grasp what many of the authors mentioned above were talking about.

I mention all this because when I was teaching both undergraduate teacher education majors and graduate students, most of whom were practicing teachers, a lot of those folks did not really understand neoliberalism and actually were at first thinking the way I was thinking about neoliberalism those many years ago. I think many of them were quite relieved when I told them that that’s what I also originally thought neoliberalism actually meant!

However, if you want to understand the current state of the free market corporate ideological assault on America’s democratic institution of public schools, then you need to understand neoliberalism, and a good place to start is with understanding Milton Friedman and his Friedmanomic ideas.

Sometimes professionals and scholars write in a way that really marginalizes citizens. Of course, sometimes the way they write is essential in analyzing ideas within their professional context. However, sometimes people think that these writers are just being “kinda snooty” but they really are not. On the other hand, Henry Giroux explains, there is a need help citizens understand ideas like “neoliberalism” since citizens in a democracy are generally a pretty savvy group of folks! http:// www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/4349:the-public-intellectual-project

So I think a good way to begin understanding neoliberalism for those folks who find this topic rather new – or rather confusing (always remembering that I freely admit that I was one of those) might be to start here: http://www.globalissues.org/article/39/a-primer-on-neoliberalism

Then you might want to read Harvey, David. A Brief History of Neoliberalism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

For me, after experiences like that, I actually began to understand the writings of the folks mentioned above!

And those are my thoughts about neoliberalism this Sunday morning before Thanksgiving!

The Problem with RTTT’s Big Data Banks: Garbage In Garbage Out — The Data can Simply be Wrong!

Deborah Duncan Owens A Nation at Risk, Carol Burris, corporate education reform, education data systems, Gerald Bracey, new york, NYSED, Race to the Top, Sandia Report, systemic education reform , ,

One of the RTTT mandates for states is the implementation of massive data storage and reporting systems for students that extends from preschool through their college years.  Education reformers’ devotion to the infallibility of data is misguided and troubling.  I remember a quote from my days in a college computer programming class — a long time ago now: “Garbage In Garbage Out” (GIGO).  The concept was quite simple and highly understandable and still applies today.  It is still used to explain the problems inherent when humans make decisions based on faulty or incomplete data.

Valerie Strauss shared an article by New York principal Carol Burris that illustrates just how problematic it is when big brother Orwellian data systems are used to drive education reform decisions.  The New York State Education Department released a report recently that demonstrates the problems associated with GIGO errors.  While the NYSED soon realized their mistake and notified school districts that the data was incorrect, one must wonder how many GIGO – type errors actually occur within data systems and the egregious problems that result when policy makers cite faulty or incomplete data as the rationale for policy decisions.  How many times does the data go unchallenged and, thus, uncorrected?

This most recent example of GIGO error ridden data is NYSED’s report about the number of students leaving high school to attend — and remain — in college.  Carol Burris questioned the low percentage of students graduating from her high school in 2012 that were currently successfully enrolled in college as reported by the NYSED.  She quickly realized that a number of her most successful students were left off the list entirely.  And it was chilling to see the extent of the data reported for students who were on the list: whether or not they received free or reduced lunch, their special education status, their race, the name of the college or university they attended, and sometimes their major.  Why were some students left off the list?  Because, in some cases, they did not receive financial aid or perhaps because they did not require remediation once in college.  And some colleges refuse to share data.

What was the potential fall-out of this GIGO error by the NYSED?  Once again, public schools would be blamed for not adequately preparing students to be college and career ready and, thus, a ready argument for the Common Core State Standards would be on hand.  GIGO errors like this have too often been left to stand and have been used to perpetuate the zeitgeist that all public schools are failing.

As a matter of fact, the data used by the Reagan commission that created A Nation at Risk can be cited as the GIGO error that culminated in the freight train of systemic education reform we’ve been living with since the early 1980s.  The National Commission on Excellence in Education (NCEE) relied heavily on SAT data to draw their conclusion in 1983 that the education system in America was an abject failure. While citing statistical data that SAT scores had been dropping since the early 1960s, they ignored the very real data about the societal changes that led to these drops.  Was that data available to the NCEE?  Absolutely.  In 1977 the College Board, the organization that oversees the SATs,  published their own report explaining that the drop in scores was largely due to changes in the number and type of students who were taking the exam in preparation for attending college.  Far from being a negative phenomenon, this was a positive reflection on a nation that had for too many years excluded students of color, students from low income homes, and women from realizing the dream of higher education.  With larger numbers of diverse students taking the SAT, it was only logical that, at least for a period of time, scores would drop.  The SAT scores could not, therefore, be used as an adequate measure of school or instructional quality.  The NCEE’s lack of acknowledgement of the College Board’s findings about SAT score declines is a clear example of a GIGO data error — and one that had a disastrous impact on education policies in the U.S.  Their use of incomplete data to draw decisions and make policy recommendations in A Nation at Risk has brought public schools in the U.S. to the brink of destruction as their conclusions have gone largely unchallenged by the federal government, policy makers, and corporate education reformers who persist in declaring that our education system is a complete failure.  Even when William Turnbull, Distinguished Scholar in Residence for the Educational Testing Service, elaborated on the College Board’s findings and published his report Student Change, Program Change: Why the SAT Scores Kept Falling in 1985, his report was largely ignored by policy makers.

Federal education reformers had an opportunity again in the early 90’s to clarify their position on education quality in the U.S.  The Sandia Laboratories was commissioned to write a report about the status of the American education system by Secretary of Energy James Watkins.  Far from echoing the findings of the NCEE and A Nation at Risk, Sandia researchers found that there was no need for systemic education reform across the country, citing some of the same data the College Board and Turnbull relied on for their respectives reports.  However, by the early 1990s, the federal Department of Education was well entrenched with systemic education reformers hell-bent on radically reforming the education system and the Sandia Report could simply not be tolerated.  The report was buried.  One can only wonder the outcome for education policy in our country if the DOE had officially published the report with the same accolades as A Nation at Risk.  What a triumph of patriotism!!  The headlines could have read “Guess what, America?  New Report Says Your Education System is a Source of Pride!”

That was not to be, however.  It was best to squelch research that contradicted education reformers in their quest to free-marketize public schools and radically reform the education system.  What was needed was a steady stream of reports that labeled public schools as a total failure.  Stalwart critic of education reformers, Gerald Bracey began publishing annual reports in 1991 on the condition of public education.  His reports were an annual event for 18 years.  Bracey revealed to America the misuse of data by policy makers intent on destroying our education system and he wrote about the Sandia Report debacle.  He passed away in 2009 and his voice is missed.  He angered a lot of education reformers with his truth speaking, but he continued to speak out on behalf of supporters of public education, teachers, parents, and children.  His many books are a good place to start when questioning the GIGO data continually trotted out by education reformers.  And you may want to go to Susan Ohanian’s website to learn more about Gerald Bracey’s life and work.  Her index of tributes to Dr. Bracey is a touching reminder of his legacy.

 

So, Does the United States Really Love its Children?

Deborah Duncan Owens children and poverty, rights of children , , , , ,

In a nation that seems obsessed with comparing our educational achievement with other nations across the globe, I think it is fair to ask if our nation really does love its children.  It’s appalling that the U.S. is one of only three nations refusing to ratify the United Nations’ “Convention on the Rights of the Child” treaty.  The other two nations rejecting the concept of the rights of children are Somalia and South Sudan.  That’s really bad company!

Today is the 25th anniversary of the United Nations General Assembly’s adoption of the children’s rights treaty.  In spite of the fact that the Reagan and H.W. Bush administrations played a role in constructing the treaty and in spite of the fact that the U.S. is active all over the world in nation building and promoting democracy, we have refused to join hands with other nations across the globe in declaring that children have inalienable rights.

While on the campaign trail in 2008, Obama openly declared his support for the ratification of the children’s rights treaty, declaring, “It is embarrassing to find ourselves in the company of Somalia, a lawless land. It is important that the U.S. return to its position as a respected global leader and promoter of human rights. I will review this and other treaties to ensure that the U.S. resumes its global leadership in human rights.”  However, six years later, the rights of children seem to be another one of the dreams deferred.

The rationale generally provided for a failure to ratify the U.N. treaty typically revolve around concerns that it would erode U.S. sovereignty.  Some voices on the far right decry the U.N. treaty as part of a broad conspiracy to control our nation’s children.  Ironically,  in 1993 Phyllis Schlafly asserted that the U.N Convention on the Rights of the Child was designed in part to be a “grab for power over education.”  Schlafly wrote: “Suppose Congress were to consider legislation to set up a procedure for the Federal Government (or the U.S. Department of Education) to define the content of the education of every child. Imagine the howls that would go up as parents and concerned citizens protest that Congress has no business prescribing school curriculum. From all sides, we would hear citizens reassert their dedication to local control of education. Private schools would express fear that they would become an endangered species.”

Well, Phyllis, the federal government did it and the howls weren’t so loud, were they?  As a matter of fact a number of your fellow conservatives have been the most stalwart proponents of the movement to erode local control of public schools, prescribe curriculum through national common core standards, and gift the corporate world with huge profits through efforts to privatize and “charterize” education.

Arguably, if the U.S. were to embrace the U.N. treaty and actually recognize the rights of children, it could impact the money-lenders, hedge fund managers, and corporate education reformers who can only seem to see the dollar bills that are atop every child in America.  Consider, for example, Article 12 of the treaty which states, “When adults are making decisions that affect children, children have the right to say what they think should happen and have their opinions taken into account.”  This is clearly not the case in the United States where children are subjected to hours and hours of standardized tests and are used as data producing machines.

All of America’s closest international allies have ratified the children’s rights treaty.  These are the countries that cause education policy makers so much angst when international education rankings are published.  Or maybe it causes them joy — because they can keep perpetuating the lie that our schools are a dismal failure and in need of continuous reform that translates into ready profit.

How would education policy change if we truly loved our children in the U.S. and formalized our declaration of love by recognizing that they have the same rights as children in countries like Finland, France, Germany, and Sweden?  Maybe this would, in the words of George W. Bush, help create a “kinder and gentler” nation for America’s children.  It would certainly be easier to enact policies that favor families, providing the impetus to fund universal preschool programs and affordable childcare.  It would certainly be easier to enact policies that help to eliminate poverty and result in genuine education progress.

Public Schools as Public Freedom

Deborah Duncan Owens education reform, free market education policies, public freedom , , , , ,

By Thomas J. Fiala

I was just reading a review of Francis Fukuyama’s new book Political Order and Political Decay: From the Industrial Revolution to the Globalization of Democracy” published in 2014. The review appeared in the October 2014 issue of The Atlantic and was written by Michael Ignatieff, the Edward R. Murrow Professor of the Press, Politics, and Public Policy at Harvard’s Kennedy School. Recall it was Fukuyama who became famous in 1989 when he wrote an essay entitled “The End of History.” Ignatieff’s insightful and well written review of Fukuyama’s new book in the Atlantic is the reason I have already ordered my copy. More specifically, however, what did I find interesting in this review that made me “shell out the cash” for this book?

Ignatieff tells us that while Fukuyama believed that “history as we knew it had ended with the victory of liberal-democratic capitalism over Communism … Fukuyama wondered … whether citizens in the newly hegemonic West would lose spiritual and moral purpose now that the all-defining conflict with Communism was over.”

But what Ignatieff then says is what really made me think about capitalism and a free market approach to governance, and in particular how all this related to the current assault on America’s institution of democratic public schools. Again, quoting Ignatieff, “Capitalism did win in 1989– no credible alternative has emerged – but capitalism did not lead to liberal democracy.” (Interestingly enough 1989 was the first year of the governor’s conference on education that many would argue really opened the gates (no pun intended) for free market education reform initiatives.) Now here is where Ignatieff starts to pique my interest a little bit more! He states, “Market systems turned out to be politically promiscuous: they could share a bed with any number of political regimes, from Nordic democracies to Singaporean meritocracies. In Xi Jinping’s China or Vladimir Putin’s Russia, Western liberal democracy now faces a competitor Fukuyama did not anticipate: states that are capitalistic in economics, authoritarian in politics, and nationalist in ideology.” Now here is what really caught my attention and something I’ll have to think a great deal about as I read Fukuyama’s new book!!! Quoting Ignatieff again, “These new authoritarians are conducting an epoch-making historical experiment as to whether regimes that allow private freedoms can endure when they deny their citizens public freedoms.”

Now maybe I am way off when I say this – although I don’t think so – but to me America’s locally controlled public schools are an example of one of those public freedoms. Consider, for example, the last thought in The Origins of the Common Core: How the Free market Became Public Education Policy: “Public schools are not government schools, nor are they corporate free market schools. Public schools belong to the public. Public schools are citizen schools, and it is now up to citizens to re-claim what is theirs!”

Now supposedly Fukuyama still believes, according to Ignatieff that “history still has a democratic destiny … and the prospects for democracy globally remain good.” But now Ignatieff really gets me thinking about education reform in the United States and how we are going to help – or not be able to help – students living in poverty. He explains that “this assessment depends greatly on the global rise of the middle class.” As Harvard theorist Barrington Moore Jr. proclaimed, “No bourgeois, no democracy.”

I along with many who are reading this blog would agree with this statement. And if this is the case, then America is really in trouble considering that America’s middle class has been shrinking at an alarming rate since Reagan became elected president and Democratic presidents after Reagan often acted more like Republicans particularly when it came to adhering to free market ideas regarding education reform. It seems, particularly when it comes to the creation of education policy, this is an example of governmental and corporate mutualism. This way of governing is but an illusion of liberal democracy in action, and instead reflects a free market political authoritarianism that seeks to take decision-making, in the case of public schools, away from democratically elected school boards. I would argue that America’s public schools are an example of citizens’ public freedom. And when the federal government became allied with free market education reformers in a for-profit education government and corporate mutualistic love-fest, many citizens who understand the importance of public schools in America’s pluralistic democracy became irate! As Ignatieff explains, “… people become insulted when authoritarian systems of rule treat them as disobedient children.” Fukuyama observes that “there is a crisis of representation” leaving millions of Americans convinced that their politicians no longer speak for them.

When it comes to the current state of education reform in the United States, and the corporate free market assault on America’s democratic institution of public schools with the support of central government authoritarianism, clearly it is time for America’s citizenry to reclaim what is theirs – their locally controlled democratic public schools!

“Ya know” – come to think of it – I am also going to read Michael Ignatieff’s Fire and Ashes: Success and Failure in Politics.” I think that both of these books seem like a wise purchase for all American citizens to further understand what is going on in America!

England is Trying to Catch up with Massachusetts: England’s Secretary of Education says Massachusetts’ Education System is One of the Best in the World!

Deborah Duncan Owens education reform, England, Great Britain , , , ,

Wow!  Thanks, Michael Gove!  BBC Education News Correspondent Sean Coughlan quoted Gove in 2013 as saying, “No national curriculum can be modernised without paying close attention to what’s been happening in education internationally,” citing Hong Kong, Massachusetts, Singapore and Finland as as “the world’s most successful school systems”.

Reminiscent of the U.S., teachers in England have confronted an ideological sentiment that their schools need reforming in order to address the downward spiral of their students on international measures of academic achievement.  Under the leadership of Prime Minister and leader of the Conservative Party David Cameron, led the initiative to re-write England’s national curriculum to make it more “rigorous, engaging and tough.”  I wonder, however, if the writers of England’s revised curriculum examined Massachusetts’ standards and curriculum as a model.  And, if they did, was it the set of standards and curriculum that created Massachusetts’ excellent education system and made it worthy of such praise?  Or did they examine the one-size-fits all CCSS that was adopted by Massachusetts in order for their state to be aligned with the rest of the U.S.?

I wonder, too, why our country didn’t simply look to the Massachusetts’ education system for a model of excellence instead of embarking on the corporate inspired Achieve model for developing education standards?  Another thought occurs to me as well.  It seems that teacher tenure and teacher unions may very well be a very good thing for educational excellence.  At least that’s the case in Massachusetts.

 

The NAACP’s Proud Tradition of Advocating for all Children — Charter Schools are not the Solution

Deborah Duncan Owens Uncategorized ,

Just a reminder of the NAACP’s position on Charter Schools.  Good charter schools only serve only a small percentage of children, they are proving to be a tool for segregation, and they divert needed funds from public schools.  Today’s charter school movement is far removed from the original notion that they could be a source of innovation.

“The NAACP rejects the emphasis on charter schools as the vanguard approach for the education of children, instead of focusing attention, funding, and policy advocacy on improving existing, low performing public schools and will work through local, state and federal legislative processes to ensure that all public schools are provided the necessary funding, support and autonomy necessary to educate all students.”

http://nepc.colorado.edu/blog/naacp-resolution-charter-schools

The NAACP fully supports public schools.

Coalition of Pastors Call for Halt to Privatization of Education

Deborah Duncan Owens charter schools , ,

“There are two competing visions for public education: one weakens the public portion, and one strengthens it. On one side, there is a drive to defund public education, de-professionalize teaching, misuse test scores to declare schools as failing, and institute paths to privatize schools in the name of school reform. These privatization schemes take the form of private school vouchers, for-profit virtual schools, and corporate chain charter schools that do not serve all students equally.”

We appreciate the insightful words.  Thank you.  We appreciate your support.

http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/latest-columns/20141019-coalition-of-pastors-urges-support-for-public-schools.ece

 

 

What Happened to Ruby Bridges’ Dream for The Ruby Bridges School of Community Service & Social Justice?

Deborah Duncan Owens charter schools, new orleans, ruby bridges , ,

A few years ago Ruby Bridges had a dream for the William Frantz Elementary School, the school she made famous for breaking the color barrier in New Orleans.  Of course, Hurricane Katrina was hailed by free market champion, Milton Friedman, as an opportunity to completely remake the New Orleans Public School system and privateers rushed in to fire all the teachers and turn all the schools into charter schools.  Secretary of Education Arne Duncan repeated Friedman’s assertion in 2010, stating that Hurricane Katrina was “the best thing that happened to the education system in New Orleans.”

The Ruby Bridges Foundation had an excellent idea:  honor the history of her efforts and create a school that would “feature a social justice curriculum” and focus “on history, civil rights, civic engagement, leadership development, and service learning.”  And they also envisioned a Civil Rights Museum as part of the site.  The foundation applied for a charter from the state of Louisiana.  I’m not sure what happened to her application, but I can speculate that the cost of renovating the William Frantz Elementary School was cost prohibitive.  Coming to the rescue was Crescent City Schools, a charter school operator funded by venture capitalists through the Newschools Venture Fund, public tax dollars and through donations they solicit on the website.  Acknowledging that the school site’s history is significant, Kacie Fusilier of Crescent City Schools stated, “We recognize the symbolism of us returning children to that school.”  And she explained that they are “working to cultivate a stronger relationship with Bridges herself.”

Of course, the fact that William Frantz Elementary School has been renovated since Hurricane Katrina is a good thing.  And a few days ago, the school unveiled a a statue of Ruby Bridges to commemorate her historical act of social justice when she was just a child.  It’s a beautiful statue.  However, I can’t help but cringe at the fact that the school has been renamed and now bears the name Aliki Academy.   Why not maintain its original name to honor its place in history?  Or, better yet, if the charter school operators truly wanted to honor the symbolism the school represents, why not rename it the Ruby Bridges School?

You will not find the concept of social justice in Aliki Academy’s mission statement.  Rather, they promote things like grit and excellence.  Their philosophy reflects the no-excuses attitude so prevalent in charter schools:

The educational philosophy of the Akili Academy of New Orleans is driven by our college preparatory mission. Our philosophy is based on four core values:

  1. All students can learn, regardless of background.
  2. Great teachers and great teaching are essential to student academic success.
  3. A highly structured, focused, and accountable school culture drives student achievement.
  4. Data analysis drives effective instruction.

Ruby Bridges’ place in history should be honored.  She did attend the ceremony unveiling her statue at Aliki Academy along with her mother and her former teacher.  It would have been so much more meaningful, however, if the school actually bore her name.  I wonder if a hundred years from now, or even twenty years from now, people will lose the historical memory of what occurred at the William Frantz Elementary School?  Will people ask why the there is a statue of a little girl on the site and why the school has two names on its building?  Where is the social justice in erasing Ruby Bridges’ name from the school?