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.
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.
ReplyDeleteAustin 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
ReplyDeleteI 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.
ReplyDeleteDespite 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.
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.
ReplyDeleteToday, 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.
ReplyDeleteI 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.
ReplyDeleteSuperb writing!
ReplyDelete