Author: Deborah Duncan Owens

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?

Why I Wrote “The Origins of the Common Core: How the Free Market Became Public Education Policy”

Deborah Duncan Owens Common Core Book, conservatism, corporate education reform, david berliner, diane ravitch, education reform, free market education policies, high stakes tests

My book will be released next January by Palgrave Macmillan.  It represents a number years of research which began when I was an elementary public school teacher in Mississippi.  What originally began as an inquiry into the voucher movement emerged throughout the implementation of No Child Left Behind and the introduction of the Common Core State Standards and Race to the Top policies.

http://www.palgrave.com/page/detail/the-origins-of-the-common-core-deborah-duncan-owens/?isb=9781137482679

It’s Sunday morning and my husband, Thomas Fiala,  and I are listening again to an interview with David Berliner that was posted on Chalk Face radio last summer.*  Berliner has been a valuable voice in education policy for quite a number of years.  The book he wrote with Bruce Biddle in 1995, The Manufactured Crisis, is an essential read for anyone attempting to understand education policy history.  I read The Manufactured Crisis when it was first released.  It remains on my bookshelf, now highlighted, annotated, and a little worse for wear — an enduring valuable resource.

David Berliner was asked by Shaun Johnson, how do we go about having a conversation with our teacher colleagues about what’s happening in education?  Berliner basically said, by somehow getting enough people to talk about it will get the conversation going.  I found it interesting that the interview began with the notion that we need to get a conversation going, given that the blogosphere seems to be well populated with voices opposing Race to the Top policies and the Common Core.  Grassroots movements, such as the opt-out movement, have indeed been fueled by the blogs.  However, it’s hard to stop a freight train, particularly when it carries a cargo laden with millions of federal RTTT dollars and a slew of free market devotees poised to make huge profits from charter school expansion policies, creating data mining systems, publishing and administered standardized tests, and promoting Teach for America and alternate certification paths for teachers.  Well funded conservative think tanks have dominated education reform discussion for many years and they continue to fuel the education reform freight train, persevering in efforts to free-marketize and privatize public education.

The grassroots movement to address failed education policies certainly lack the financial resources of those who are actually making education policy in the U.S.  To the billionaires who have a seat in policy discussions, the blogosphere represents a swarm of mosquitoes biting at their heels, which they too often seem to easily swat away. Will grassroots efforts have an impact?  YES!!  Certainly, for example, the opt-out movement has the power to impact education policy — and it doesn’t cost a thing to simply refuse to take a standardized test.

One of my motivations in writing the Origins of the Common Core was to do my part in helping to get a meaningful conversation started.  However, I wanted to not only get teachers involved in the conversation, but to get all citizens involved who support their public schools and local control over those public schools, something that Berliner indicated was important.  I realized that what was needed was a coherent story that helped explain how we ended up in this place and time in education policy history.  On March 2, 2014, as I was completing my book, Diane Ravitch spoke at the first Network for Education conference in Texas, echoing my thoughts.  In her speech she explained, “The problem that liberals have is liberals believe that facts will persuade people.  Conservatives understand that stories persuade people, so we must have our story.  We already have the facts. … There is no question that the facts are on our side.  But we have to shape the narrative. … So its very important that we shape our narrative to say we’re defending American democracy, we’re defending the children, we’re fighting for what’s right.  We have the narrative.  We’ve got to think about our rhetoric and get the story to the public …”.**   In writing this book I have tried my best to accomplish this task.

Over the years, as I transitioned from elementary teacher to teacher educator, first at Arkansas State University and now at Elmira College in New York, I continued to try to make sense of what was happening in education policy. Why is America so convinced that our public schools are a failure?  Why were the dominant voices in education policy coming from conservative think tanks, continuously promoting school choice, high stakes standardized testing, VAM teacher accountability models, the erosion of local public school governance, and national standards?  And in spite of the voices of scholars like David Berliner, Susan Ohanian, Alfie Kohn, Patrick Shannon, Joel Spring, and Gerald Bracey, to name just a few, who for many years warned the American public that we were on the wrong track, the freight train of systemic education reform continued at break neck speed.  Nevertheless, the voices of these giants should be heeded as never before!  Seamlessly, however, from one presidential administration to the next, education policies were re-hashed, re-framed, re-named, and foisted on the American public.  I breathed a sigh of relief when Barack Obama spoke along the campaign trail about the problems associated with high stakes testing and promised to address these issues once he became president.  It soon became obvious, however, that President Obama would heed the siren song of free market ideas in the education arena.  His appointment of Arne Duncan solidified his position and, once again, the U.S. would continue its quickstep march toward free market education reform. Race to the Top policies would solidify the Obama administration’s allegiance to free market reform initiatives in education.

While much has been written about the current problems associated with the Common Core and corporate reformers, and certainly Bill Gates is being well and thoroughly blasted on the blogosphere, how is it that the Common Core so readily became the law of the land?  And why are charter schools seen as the panacea for education reform?  I set out in The Origins of the Common Core to lend my small voice in telling that story.  It was an interesting journey, leaving me to realize that our federal education policy makers acquiesced their decision making responsibilities to corporate reformers a long time ago.  Tech companies have led the way.  Bill Gates is walking, albeit with much more money at his disposal, in the footsteps of other technology corporate superstars like David Kerns and Lou Gerstner, who led the charge to revolutionize education policy through systemic free market reform education policies.  Other billionaires would lend their effort to these efforts.  Along the way, the voices of less monied education scholars were systematically silenced.  Federal policies, built on the false notion that America’s public schools were a total failure, continued to thrive in spite of documentation to the contrary.

The titles of the chapters in The Origins of the Common Core demonstrate a road map to my journey in writing the book:

  1. The Nation Was at Risk and the Public Schools Did It
  2. Public Schools: Conservative Coalescence and the Socialist Threat
  3. Friedmanomics, School Vouchers and Choice
  4. Corporate Superstars and an Inconvenient Truth
  5. Public Schools and a Third Way of Governing
  6. NCLB and the Texas Tall Tale
  7. Education Reform and the Deep State: An Alternate Universe
  8. The CCSS: Systemic Education Reform Writ Large
  9. CCSS: The Gorilla in the Room for Free Market Education Reform

*http://www.blogtalkradio.com/chalkface/2014/08/17/david-berliner-the-chalk-face

**http://www.publicschoolshakedown.org/diane-ravitch-speech-network-public-education-conference

http://www.amazon.com/The-Manufactured-Crisis-Americas-Schools/dp/0201441969