Wells discusses how, as a nation, we have reconceived democracy in economic rather than political terms. In the U.S., we have a narrow conception of democracy as a means to maintain capitalism and promote independent economic success. A notion of democracy primarily concerned with ensuring deregulated free-markets to allow for independent capital accumulation fundamentally undermines democracy as a means to pursue common, collective goals and reduces human relations to market transactions (340). Egalitarian ideals have been subordinated as the private sector wields increasingly greater power in the political sphere. Wells elaborates on the depth of this reconceptualization by articulating the discursive limitations that result from this narrow idea of democracy. Because capitalist ideas about free-markets are framed as common sense, there is no space to critique capitalism. This hindrance of critical reflection and debate is at odds with notions of democracy that promote deliberation among a collective citizenry. We only know how to discuss “democratic” schools in market terms, and offering alternative models is often perceived as idealistic or nonsensical.
Importantly, the idea that citizens can assert their democratic voice via market transactions privileges those with greater social, cultural, and human capital. This is apparent in Fabricant and Fine’s discussion of social stratification in charter schools. Wells explains that charter schools serve disproportionately low numbers of ELLs and students with disabilities. Additionally, the charter school movement allows for white flight and has served to further stratify already highly segregated public schools. The idea that parents can assert their democratic voice via choice in a free-market is flawed because not all families have access to equal information. Those students who come from families with greater social and cultural capital are able to more effectively navigate the school system to benefit their individual child. The exclusion of the highest needs students form charter schools is noteworthy for a number of reasons. These students often perform poorly on culturally-biased high-stakes tests. This suggests that, were charter schools serving students representative of the larger population, they would perform even more poorly on standardized tests than they currently are. Additionally, it is incredibly problematic that schools that exclude the neediest students are being appraised as replicable models. In stark contrast to the discourses used to promote them, charter schools are emerging as a means to return to separate and unequal schooling practices.
Fabricant and Fine’s articulation of the disconnect between rhetoric surrounding charter schools and these schools’ actual performance is incredibly ironic given the movements obsession with accountability. This raises issues we’ve previously discussed regarding the lack of accountability to the public on the part of private corporations and wealthy philanthropists who support charter schools. Charter schools, instead of developing innovative practices, are recreating and furthering many of the shortcomings of traditional public schools. They are emerging as an alternative and even more flawed model for public schools. Fabricant and Fine describe the tension this dual system has created within schools. Charter schools are privileged by policy-makers and take funds and space away from public schools, the resultant tension of which was apparent in the public school we visited in NYC. As the reading substantiates, charter schools, despite all of the advantages they receive in terms of funding and political support, are still failing to deliver results. Policy-makers failure to consider the accumulation of evidence against these schools’ efficacy exemplifies how corporate influence undermines evidence-based policy-making.
Unlike my dear friend Bubbles, Laura can spell corporate correctly. I agree wholeheartedly with Laura thoughts about the U.S. view of democracy. "Virtually all writers and speakers tend to use the word "democracy" with very positive connotations"(340). This section of the article further proves that writers and politicians selectively use words that are socially constructed in a positive light. I also agree that because we take capitalist ideals as sacred we limit our "democracy". If the people and systems of power cannot be question how "democratic" are we?
ReplyDeleteEarly on Fabricant and Fine write about how "charter schools are being promoted as a kind of magic wand that will dramatically upgrade public performance and, in turn, the economy" (13). But as Laura lays out for us charter schools are problematic at their design. The so called "open" market design of charter schools is not open at all. Charter Schools are selective in their application process and don't have to except students labeled as high-needs. Furthermore, families who live and exist in the culture of power have an easier time selecting which school their child can go to. The irony that Laura writes about is interesting to me as well. It is comical to me how we pick and choose what we want to do. We stress accountability in our school system but only practice this halfheartedly. Policy Makers say we need to open the markets but yet keep our schools accountable by high-stakes testing. This theory seems contradictory to me. Just saying.
The Wells article reminded me of what we spoke about in class last week. We live in a society that is slowly being overcome by neoliberal ideology, even Colgate University. The ideas that Wells points out are not unfamiliar to most of us. Freedom to choose, autonomy in community schools, and increased revenue are not totally ugly ideas. We do live in a capitalist society and our economy thrives on consumer choice and free market ideologies. However, public education has never been wrapped up in free market ideology until recent decades.
ReplyDeleteIt’s hard to question these ideas when we realize that our country is in fact (as Wells points out) founded on them. We need to treat education as a platform rather than the ending point for consumption. There is no way equality can begin with free market ideology because those without capital or a chance to acquire it will never have an adequate education. A market is only open to those who have capital. Wells challenges us to question what democracy can do for public schools.
Laura is correct that this reform will inevitably exclude students and schools with the most needs. She also raises the issue of performance in charter schools that Fabricant and Fine write about. With charter schools performing under most public schools, we should be questioning this phenomena more. Why do we believe that choice and profit are better even if the quality is not? Is this the same as our bad habit of consuming cheap goods made with half the quality?
The idea behind charter school lies with providing an alternative to the public sector. In fines book, this alternative was looked at as a freedom from the governing policies on education and thus provide something different. Fine thus goes on to demonstrate that this freedom that was given to the charter schools to produce their own methods of teaching show no sign of improvement. I am fixating on the idea of freedom because charter schools were given that freedom and now they are trying to take away the idea of freedom from the public schools. By implementing vouchers, the advocates of charter schools are persuading people toward charter schools by promising choice and thus establishing a sense of democracy. The advocates are playing their words correctly as parents and people are becoming brainwashed by the idea of choice and thus do not look twice at the consequences. These poor families, as fine pointed, are put further under the poverty line and never really receive the aid they were falsely promised to get. Charter schools were turned from a safe alternative to a negative alternative that will make people pay with their kids.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that I found especially interesting that was noted in Laura’s post was the mentioned irony between charter schools’ stated mission and their actual, eventual outcome. As Fabricant and Fine note, “the promise of charter schools for many parents is therefore interlocked with a restoration of hope that their children can do better than the last generation,” (35). Parents, especially from poorer neighborhoods are looking to charter schools to improve their child’s educational outlook. However, despite these high hopes, research has shown that charter schools are not out-performing public schools given their exclusion of students with disabilities and thus skewed test scores. They also tend to be more racially segregated than public schools, their teachers have less experience, and their curriculums are failing to show any sort of innovation or improvement in learning styles (Fabricant and Fine 38-39). To further hinder improvement with charter schools, given that they are privately owned and thus not held accountable to the public, there is no public pressure or influence to help aid in school improvement or change. As noted by previous posts before me, charter schools remove the democratic process through their privatization and removal from public spherical influence. Charter schools are not held accountable to their participants/members: the students. This gives the surrounding inhabitants even less of a say in the education of their children, a reversal of their original goals and thus, further perpetuation of the poverty cycle and the achievement gap.
ReplyDeleteA point that everyone in the blog seemed to touch on, especially Hallie, was the inconsistency or low performance of charter schools compared to their mission. Ally then identifies, through the Fabricant and Fine piece, was politicians inability to identify the low performance of these charters or as Ally puts it "overlook" them. I think this is an extremely important point especially with the presidential election approaching. Politicians ability to overlook failing charter schools bleeds American exceptionalism. The American ideal of 'freedom' requires mainly a belief in deregulation and privatization. Legislators inability to address the failure of the private education sector is indicative of Americans fetish with privatizing everything or neoliberalism. It proves that many still believe that a private educational market can prove successful or that politicians are afraid to attack charter schools because they will be label as a 'communist' or 'socialists' (two terms that are thrown around in American politics all too often). The private vs. public battle in America is one that is very important in this approaching election and remains important in the American education system today.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that has really interested me in the readings from last Wednesday and today is the idea of choice. American’s demand choice, relish it, as it is seen as a type of power and individual right. You gain a sense of control, that the education your child is receiving is one that you mutually agree with. Fine and Fabricant state, “Choice in its many forms has been seen by reformers across the political spectrum as a way of improving the performance of public education.” (7) A lot of this choice has now been focused on charter schools and vouchers, fueled by small school and alternative school educators that advocate for choice within public schools. However, it seems that charter schools do the exact opposite for providing choice for public education. Charter schools close down larger public schools, are allowed to turn kids away causing them to be displaced, and force children to go to schools farther away that they do not choose to go to. In addition, the people who have a voice and argue for charter schools, shedding light on the benefits, are those who are disproportionally benefited from the charter schools. These families tend to be those who already have greater capital and a safety net of their money to fall back on. Those are the people who already have choice. Ones who actually need increased choice in education are further pushed away. Our society constantly finds way to “fix” and “better” our education on the surface, yet only deepens the wounds it already causes to lower socioeconomic families.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Laura that the Unites States has a narrow view of democracy, which is only concerned with gaining independent economic success. Wells argues, politically powerful institutions that control the rhetoric to support this narrow view of democracy have changed its definition. No one is willing to challenge capitalism within education because it is now viewed and defined as common-sense (340). Wells points out as a result of capitalism becoming more and more global we have seen a decease in alternatives. Saltman in Wells argues educational debates have become monopolized by free-markets terminology where by “students characterized as clients and teachers as service workers” (344). We need to change the neoliberal narrow view of democracy before we have any hope of changing our educational system with its push for charter schools. Wells and Fabricant and Fine both speak of the increase of charter schools as a problem because in reality there is little evidence of them working. With both political parties pushing and advocating for more charters I can help but add this to my huge list of reasons why I don’t like either candidate. But that is a whole different issue. We need to understand that these charter schools advocate for choice by emphasizing accountability but in actuality they creating more discriminations for those that don’t fit the system. Wells argues, “the challenge for educational researchers is to look beyond the political rhetoric to the actual lived experiences of the policy makers, educators, parents and students” but is this possible when the educators, parents and students all believe in the rhetoric used to defend this narrow view of democracy?
ReplyDeleteThe Wells article makes we think about the true meaning of democracy. The article was explicit in outlining how neo-liberal ideals appear to be promoted by democracy. For me, a democracy is made up of citizens who understand the system and can make informed choices about where to send their children to school. The problem now is that people are not fully informed while large corporations are aware of what is best for them in the market economy. As we discussed in class, public education is the last public institution left and slowly it is being taken over. Aside from that, public education was created to embody the values of democracy as a way to reach all members of society. As we saw in our field trip, public schools can work but people are led to believe that public schools are no longer a viable option for good education. HCZ seems to serve a need in the community, but not all children can get into these schools. Charter schools remove the freedom of choice and limit the children that can be impacted in a positive way. Furthermore, this article seems to be focusing on the dwindling spirit of democracy through the lens of education.
ReplyDelete