Sunday, October 28, 2012

Education: The Shift From Public to Private

As we have learned throughout the semester, our current Public Education System sucks. However, instead of improving our current education system there has been a push towards privatization. Saltman writes venture philanthropy is one of the ways in which privatization is being implemented in our schools (55). "Venture philanthropy has a strategic aim of "leveraging" private money to influence public schooling in ways compatible with the longstanding privatization agendas of the political right"(56). Saltman points out throughout the chapter that philanthropists such as Bill Gates claim their actions to be for the public good. In reality philanthropists are influencing public schools to meet the needs of their respective corporations. The Eli and Edythe Broad Education Foundation is another foundation at the front of the venture philanthropy movement. Saltman makes a key point about this foundation in the middle of the chapter. "Broad's fortune and hence his ability to steer educational reform, debate, and policy through his foundation derive from the two primary industries at the center of the financial crisis and subsequent economic meltdown-namely, real estate and finance" (63). The way Broad accumulated wealth and his education reform contradict itself at its roots. In other words he doesn't practice what he preaches. This should cause us to wave a red flag. 

Philanthropists have influenced the language policy makers now use. Language such as efficiency, accountability, success and failure have been implemented more and more in current education reforms. Last week in class we discussed the differences between public and private. Public and private institutions have different goals in mind. Kovacs and Christie write "When corporate leaders shape government institutions according to their needs, countries move away form democracy and toward corporatism, a relative of, and arguably a precursor to, fascism" (1). As Americans we pride ourselves in having freedom and liberty. Though at the surface privatization seems to give us choice, how "free" is this choice? If schools are heavily influenced by major corporations we will receive subjective forms of education that meet the needs of these corporations. Public institutions are created to include everyone. Public schools are one of the few public institutions left. "In a democratic school system, parents, students, teachers, academics and business leaders would participate in curricular decisions" (1). Education reform needs to happen as a collective group not as individuals who change the system to meet their needs. 

Philanthropist foundations do a great job of influencing and brainwashing our policy makers. "Engaging in political science abuse, these organizations perpetuate discourses and narratives that stand in opposition to democratic school alternatives, ultimately reducing the likelihood that democratic school reform will ever happen" (12). This is an example of neoliberalism working against the people. If the problem seems to big to solve then why not just sit back and do nothing? Figure 1 at the end of the Kovacs and Christie article is disheartening (13). More and more occupations are not requiring a high school education (13). If high school diplomas are not important to our employers maybe we should evaluate how effective our schools are. We should ask who will benefit from the privatization of schools? Follow the money trail and you will find your answer. 

9 comments:

  1. In his discussion Saltman highlights how venture philanthropies, specifically the Eli Broad foundation have had a transformative role within the public education system. The rise of venture philanthropy is solidifying the shift to market paradigm within the public education system, and forcing schools to be in a state of constant competition for resources. One of the most detrimental consequences that results from the extension of the business model into the education is the over all “loss of democratic culture”. This type of economic reductionism does not allow for the fostering of democratic ideals within a school system. The favoring of corporate and military models of management are problematic because the regiments imposed on schools cut out many types of enrichment programs designed to help students conceptualize ideas of democracy and instill in them a sense of “public good” and active citizenry. Unlike some of the other authors, I do not believe that there is something inherently problematic in preparing students for “the workforce” or for a specific vocation. A market-based society is innate within the global economy, and a division of labor is necessary, so unless we were to uproot the current entire structure I believe that vocational preparation is a necessary facet of the educational program. Necessary however, by no means suggests that this should be the primary goal of education; vocational preparation should be complementary part of the curriculum, never the primary focus. If we eliminate the rhetoric of democracy at the base level (through schooling), it is impossible for us to expect that this discourse will resurface later on. The problem I see is not that schools prepare students for the workforce, but rather that discourses about democracy are lost at this expense. The notion that schools have an obligation to democracy, posited in our previous readings (Apple & Beane) is one that gets lost through privatization. “Democratic culture depends on…capacities for criticism debate and deliberation that critical intellectual public schools can develop” (64). However, through this narrow lens of standardized testing and military- modeled curriculums we are creating a very autonomous and anti-intellectual pedagogy. The transfer of power to form the public to the private sector is also inherently flawed because private corporations will always have an underlying biased towards maximizing profits and efficiency, and this bias will always leak into education policy. Thus, management of a public service such as education should never be controlled by anything that does not make the interests of the public the first priority, and it is dangerous to create a situation where the fulfillment of the “public good” might compete with the accumulation of capital.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The articles for today continue with our discussion of the increasing correlation between education, private industry, and money. Democratic ideals out the window, we see today that “effective” education is linked with lots of funding and powerful people. Kovacs and Christie’s article begins with a brief on neoliberalism and provides an overview of four organizations that are on receiving end of money from the Gates Foundation. These organizations get millions of dollars to promote things like academic achievement, closing the achievement gap, promoting high standards, and providing effective teachers. I am perpetually appalled by the consistent notion that money solves everything in the educational realm. Clearly even with this excessive funding, too many problems still exist. This article went along with much of what we have been discussing throughout the semester and attached specific examples to where so much funding from wealthy donors and proponents of improved education actually go.
    Saltman’s chapter truly sheds light on the capitalistic side of education. I was somewhat put off by the term “venture philanthropy” used in the context of promoting charter schools, corporate models for curriculum, voucher schemes, among others (55). This term continues to associate education with markets and wealth. In reading about the Broad Foundation, one of their central goals is to place emphasis on standardized testing and create databases that can be used for long-term tracking in order to help measure the effectiveness of teacher and administrator preparation programs (58). This takes us back to our many conversations of how standardized testing is relied on far more frequently than it should. The militaristic leadership agenda serves as a means of disciplining students. As Eliza mentioned, this causes social conditions to be overlooked.
    In terms of scholarship, Broad splits up $1 million between five urban school districts that it believes has began moving to improving student performance and closing the racial achievement gap (69). The districts are chosen based on state standardized tests, graduation rates, ACT/SAT scores, and other national tests. While I do not necessarily have an alternate system to propose for deciding which five districts are most worthy of this money, it is evident that Broad’s system perpetuates the factor of simply measuring test scores as a means of achievement. As we see so much cash being thrown around in the issue of education in this country, shouldn’t the first step be to determine how to better allot the money? It is evident that standardized tests as a measure for success aren’t going anywhere, but perhaps these wealthy donors can look into alternate ways for allocating their funds. The way things are, democratic ideals are falling behind and corporate, capitalist powerhouses are taking over. We need to find a better way to balance the ever-present ideas of neoliberalism with a just way of providing good public education.

    ReplyDelete
  3. As Austin writes, philanthropic organizations play an important role in the debate on public school reform. While I overwhelmingly agree with Austin and the authors from this week’s readings that it is extremely dangerous when so much power is concentrated in so little hands (especially when policies are constantly pushing for privatization), I cannot help but wonder if public education in our country would be worse off without the involvement of philanthropic families such as the Waltons and the Gates. Of course their extraordinarily large donations allow families like the Gates to have a disproportionate amount of influence in certain conversations and this power-setup undermines democracy at times. Of course this power is not always used to do what is truly best for the public good. Despite these truths, I would still like to believe that some of these “venture philanthropists” are ultimately involved in education policy for the right reasons, and that they do in fact care about the futures of America’s children. While it seems hopeless to imagine that any of these major philanthropic foundations could be swayed so that they no longer push for neoliberal education reform, it is not impossible. Ultimately money and funding are extremely important to any functional education system. Thus, huge donors like the Gates Foundation do have the possibility of being positive actors in education; however, before any of these foundations will change their stance on education reform, we must reform the conversation about education in our country as a whole. Perhaps it is inherently problematic that “venture philanthropists” do in fact gain prestige and power out of giving money to our education system, and perhaps I’m being far too naïve in believing that they actually mean well, but I’m not yet ready to completely lose hope in our education system.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Austin does well in explaining what the philanthropist foundations are doing. The language and rhetoric that they use helps them slip through the cracks that are increasing everyday. Along with Austin’s post, venture philanthropists pay much more attention on how to change the system but not really taking importance on the students. While reading saltman, I once again noted that we were reading about the system, how to change it, how to make it better, and so on. It seems in practical to keep mentioning that our students are failing, and instead of focusing on them, people decide to change things around ands tart from scratch. We cannot fix this countries education system if we do put emphasis on the things that really matter. Saltman’s article showed us how a foundation works to benefit oneself, and not on the outcome of students. The philanthropist foundation focused heavily on various projects that circle the idea of accountability. Students are not becoming learners anymore but instead are becoming commodities chained to the system that is suppose to breed the continuation of this nation. One then wonders why the US is so messed up and it all comes down to how one is educated, which to now show no sings of hope

    ReplyDelete
  5. I want to comment and expand upon what Austin writes towards the end of his post: “This is an example of neoliberalism working against the people. If the problem seems to big to solve then why not just sit back and do nothing?” I have persistently felt this way during our class and often leave feeling overwhelmed and upset. Education’s problems seem insurmountable, and unfortunately, it seems that the people who are most interested in countering neoliberal approaches are people who have the least financial influence— in other words, teachers, bloggers, students, and parents, who are not a unified financial force like big corporations are.

    Despite this feeling, or perhaps in response to it, I found Kovac and Christie’s last several paragraphs to be realistic yet inspiring. It is important for us to remember, as liberal arts students atop the “ivory tower”, that what we learn in Ed 310 is not going to be impactful unless we convey the message outside of Colgate’s bubble. Kovac and Christie write that “while critiquing neoliberal policy is necessary for moving beyond it, we cannot limit our activities to analysis and critique alone, especially when that analysis and critique only reaches the eyes and ears of like-minded scholars” (12). While meeting with Professor Stern last Friday, we spoke about this phenomenon in broader terms. Many of us expressed feelings of powerlessness and doubt that education can ever be improved. Though the state of our union can be insanely frustrating these days, the best that we can do as individuals is to live our lives in a truthful way, spreading what we learn (without giving up, or getting into brawls!) and rebelling against a life as a mindless, uncritical consumer.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Austin raises a question that we have all faced during the course of our class. Why do we even bother with the system when there seems to be no hope? Public and private sectors have goals that are entirely different from one another, and the goals of the private seem to align with the goals of society. Individuals, money, choice, and consumption are dominating the way of life and how we make our identity. However, when we criticize these ideas we tend to be slightly disgusted. My point is that our class cannot be the only group of people repulsed by a society with no existing public sector. We can’t be the only people who think blatant oppression and individualism is wrong. I think the problem we face is how to make these ideas hidden beneath propaganda accessible to the public. We are privileged enough to study these systems and learn to understand them without having to live within them. We spend a lot of time criticizing the system and the people who implement the system, but how long did it take for us to actually understand what was taking place? How can we get others on board to understand the systems that govern their life and know that they can take part in determining the construction of civic structures? I feel like demystifying the system is one of the first steps to take.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Today, we live in a world of individualism. Large corporations and CEOs are constantly looking to gain more power, whether is be through lobbying organization or, in the case we read about, 'philanthropic' donations. However, these donations can hardly be viewed as charitable. As we have talked about previously in class, wealthy individuals donate to these failing schools in hopes to shape curriculum and push neoliberal ideas to better their social standing. The influx of money puts much burden on the heads of the schools because they can either choose to turn down the funds, because they are given with poor intentions, and the school can continue to be under financed or they can use the money and continue this awful cycle. The people of America must realize the actions going on behind the scenes in America's schooling and take action. If not, American education will continue to fail through neoliberal agenda.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I have found myself struggling with the same idea that Austin and KJ both discussed, what is the point in investing time, emotions, and resources in the system when there is no light at the end of the tunnel? It is hard to feel like there is only a select group of people that feel as though there is a problem with the way that the system works, and not only that but feel strongly enough that they believe that something needs to be changed. Individualism controls our society as Pat stated above, and breaking that mold of power seems nearly impossible. Last week when we all discussed our ideas of a ‘perfect world’, almost all were followed with ‘I know this would never happen, but its ideal’ really stuck a cord with me. Why is it that we have all of these idealistic thoughts and ways in which we want the world to work but it is so far fetched? Are we willing to do anything to take the steps to get to a point in which we are even heading in that direction? Society has placed norms and standards on the way that things work whether it is economically, within policies, in the education system, or the way that we are supposed to dress and act. Anyone who challenges these norms is seen as an extremist or an outcast. Why is this the case when we know that we could look around the room at 25 people and know that they share for the most part the same ideas that surround the education system? We need to find a way in which we are not the only ones that have a strong opinion on this subject, or the neoliberal ways of society will never change.

    ReplyDelete