Main

March 05, 2008

"The Corporate Surge Against Public Schools"

Excuses2.jpg

"The Summary" of "The Corporate Surge . . ." report as written by the authors Jack Gerson and Steven Miller

It’s more than a year since we wrote “Exterminating Public Education” in response to the “Tough Choices or Tough Times” report of the National Commission on Skills in the Workplace.

That report, funded in large part by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and signed by a bipartisan collection of prominent politicians, businesspeople, and urban school superintendents, called for a series of measures including: (a) replacing public schools with what the report called “contract schools”, which would be charter schools writ large; (b) eliminating nearly all the powers of local school boards—their role would be to write and sign the authorizing agreements for the “contract schools; (c) eliminating teacher pensions and slashing health benefits; and (d) forcing all 10th graders to take a high school exit examination based on 12th grade skills, and terminating the education of those who failed (i.e., throwing millions of students out into the streets as they turn 16).

These measures, taken together, would effectively cripple public control of public education. They would dangerously weaken the power of teacher unions, thus facilitating still further attacks on the public sector. They would leave education policy in the hands of a network of entrepreneurial think tanks, corporate entrepreneurs, and armies of lobbyists whose priorities are profiting from the already huge education market while cutting back on public funding for schools and students.

Indeed, their measures would mean privatization of education, effectively terminating the right to a public education, as we have known it. Many of the most powerful forces in the country want the US, the first country to guarantee public education, to be the first country to end it.

For the last fifty years, public education was one of only two public mandates guaranteed by the government that was accessible to every person, regardless of income. Social Security is the other. Now both systems are threatened with privatization schemes. The government today openly defines its mission as protecting the rights of corporations above everything. Thus public education is a rare public space that is under attack.

The same scenario is being implemented with most of the services that governments used to provide for free or at little cost: electricity, national parks, health care and water. In every case, the methodology is the same: underfund public services, create an uproar and declare a crisis, claim that privatization can do the job better, deregulate or break public control, divert public money to corporations and then raise prices.

In the past year, it’s become evident that the corporate surge against public schools is only part of a much broader assault against the public sector, against unions, and indeed against the public’s rights and public control of public institutions.

This has been evident for some time now in New Orleans, where Hurricane Katrina’s devastation is used as an excuse for permanently privatizing the infrastructure of a major American city: razing public housing and turning land over to developers; replacing the city’s public school system with a combination of charter schools and state-run schools; letting the notorious Blackwater private army loose on the civilian population; and, in the end, forcing tens of thousands of families out of the city permanently. The citizens of New Orleans have had their civil rights forcibly expropriated.

Just as the shock of the hurricane was the excuse for the shock therapy applied to New Orleans, so the economic downturn triggered by the subprime mortgage crisis is now the excuse for a national assault on the public sector and the public’s rights.

In California, where we live, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has convened an emergency session of the legislature, demanding that the state’s $14.5 billion “budget deficit” be closed by slashing vital services including housing, health care, and education. He has proposed lopping $4.8 billion off next year’s K-14 education budget. That the deficit exists largely as a result of the Governors corporate friendly tax policies is not considered part of the debate.

In public education, the corporate surge has grown both qualitatively and quantitatively. Where two years ago the corporate education change agents were mainly operating in a relatively small number of large urban areas, they have now surfaced everywhere. The corporatization of public education is the leading edge of privatization. This has the effect of silencing the public voice on every aspect of the situation.

Across the US, public schools are not yet privatized, though private services are increasingly benefiting from this market. However, increasing corporate control of programs – a different mix in every locale – is having a chilling influence on the very things that people (though not corporations) want from teachers: the ability to relate to and teach each child, a nurturing approach that nudges every child to move ahead, human assessments that put people before performance on standardized tests.

Perhaps the single most dramatic development of the corporate approach was the launching of the $60 million Strong American Schools / Ed in ’08 initiative, funded by billionaires Bill Gates and Eli Broad. This is a naked effort to purchase the nation’s education policy, no matter who is elected President, by buying their way into every electoral forum.

Ed in ’08 has a three-point program: merit pay (basing teachers’ compensation on students’ scores on high stakes test); national education standards (enforcing conformity and rote learning); and longer school day and school year (still more time for rote learning, less time for kids to be kids). The chairman of Ed in ‘08/Strong American Schools program is Roy Romer: former governor of Colorado; former chair of the Democratic National Committee; most recently superintendent of schools in Los Angeles (he was persuaded to take that job by Eli Broad). Its executive director is Mark Lampkin, a Republican lobbyist and former deputy campaign manager for George Bush.

Other steering committee members include Eli Broad; Louis Gerstner (former CEO of IBM); Allan Golston (head of the Gates Foundation’s U.S. programs); and John Engler (president of the National Association of Manufacturers and former Governor of Michigan [where he gutted the state’s welfare program]). A truly stunning array of corporate wealth and bipartisan political power in the service of privatization.

Where two years ago charter schools were still viewed as experiments affecting a relatively small number of students, in 2007 the corporate privatizers—led by Broad and Gates—grossly expanded their funding to the point where they now loom as a major presence.

In March, the Gates Foundation announced a $100 million donation to KIPP charter schools, which would enable them to expand their Houston operation to 42 schools (from eight)—effectively, KIPP will be a full-fledged alternative school system in Houston. Also in the past year, Eli Broad and Gates have given in the neighborhood of $50 million to KIPP and Green Dot charter schools in Los Angeles, with the aim of doubling the percentage of LA students enrolled in charter schools. Oakland, another Broad/Gates targets, now has more than 30 charter schools out of 92. And, as we shall see below, the same trend holds across the country.

NCLB in 2008 is still a major issue. It continues to have a corrosive effect on public schools. It is designed an unfunded mandate, which means that schools must meet ever rigid standards every year, though no more money is appropriated to support this effort. This means that schools must take ever-more money out of the class room to meet federal requirements when schools with low test scores are in “Program Improvement”. Once schools are in PI for 5 years they can be forced into privatization.

NCLB is a driving force that decimates the “publicness” in public schools. In California, more than 2000 schools are now in “Program-Improvement”. This means that they have to meet certain specific, and mostly impossible standards, or they must divert increasingly greater amounts of money out of the classroom and into private programs.

For example, schools in 3rd year PI must take money out of programs that helped schools with a high proportion of low achieving schools and make it available to private tutors.

The struggles of the Civil Rights Era made people realize that quality education was a right that everyone deserves. Education today, whether public or private, is a social policy. We make choices about how far it is extended, what the purpose is, what quality is offered, and to whom. Now that wealth is polarizing in this country, corporate forces are determined to create a social system that benefits the “Haves” while excluding the “Have-Nots”.

Privatizing public schools inevitable leads to massive increase in social inequality. Private corporations have never been required to recognize civil rights, because, by definition, these are public rights. If the corporate privatizers succeed in taking over our schools, there will be neither quality education nor civil rights.

The system of public education in the United States is deeply flawed. While suburban schools are among the best in the world, public education in cities has been deliberately underfunded and is in a shambles. The solution is not to fight backwards to maintain the old system. Rather it is to fight forward to a new system that will truly guarantee quality education as a civil right for everyone.

Central to this is to challenge the idea that everything in human society should be run by corporations, that only corporations and their political hacks have the right or the power to discuss what public policy should be. As Naomi Klein stated so well in The Shock Doctrine, privatization “will remain entrenched until the corporate supremacist ideology that underpins it is identified, isolated and challenged”. (p 14)

The real direction is to increase the role and power of the public in every way, not eliminate it. If we can spend $2.5 billion a week for war in Iraq, we can certainly build quality schools. It’s not a matter of money. The issue is who will benefit and who will control. Should schools be organized to benefit the super-rich, or should they be organized to benefit everyone?

Contents

The sections below examine only some of the major privatizing in public education in the last year.:
-“A Tale of Two Cities” examines how corporate-dictated educational policies seriously eroded the quality of education in Oakland, Ca and New Orleans. “Creating and Education Market (The Plan)” looks at corporate objectives for education.
-"Philanthropreneurs (The Agents) the people who are implementing their attack.
-“Further Inroads into Public Education (The Campaigns)” discusses other specific situations.
-“Public Education and Health Care” treats the many parallels in how corporations control these essential human rights in America today.

For the full report email Steven Miller.

February 11, 2008

From the Baltimore Sun "25 Education Protesters Detained"

At State House, students, teacher call 'historic underfunding' of schools a 'crime'
35311402.jpg
A protester with the Algebra Project from Baltimore is arrested along with several of his peers near the steps of the Maryland State House in Annapolis. (Sun photo by Glenn Fawcett / February 6, 2008)

By Ruma Kumar | Sun reporter
7 February 2008

Twenty-five protesters, most of them Baltimore high school students, were detained yesterday after they charged up the steps of the State House demanding that Gov. Martin O'Malley be arrested for not addressing what they called a "historic underfunding" of Maryland public schools.

The demonstrators were handcuffed as they lay still, as if dead, before the bronze doors of the building. They had pressed past more than a dozen police officers, strung crime-scene tape along the stair railings of the State House and called O'Malley's budget proposal to slow the rate of education funding increases "a crime."

The detained protesters, including a Baltimore public school teacher and two dozen students from high schools and colleges in Baltimore and Washington, were held for about an hour by Department of General Services Police before they were released.

The demonstration, organized by the Baltimore Algebra Project, a student-run tutoring and advocacy group, involved about 150 high school and college students who said inadequate education funding has led to juvenile crime and the killing last month of one of the Algebra Project's members, Zachariah Hallback, who was shot in Northeast Baltimore during a robbery.

They lay a coffin symbolizing Hallback's death before the State House while loudly reciting, "No education, no life."

"We are identifying this place as a crime scene," organizer Christopher Goodman said to the protesters, who gathered before a bronze statue of Thurgood Marshall. "Every year, they underfund our schools, they kill us."

O'Malley spokesman Rick Abbruzzese said in an e-mail, "The governor has met with representatives from the Algebra Project in the past, and he shares their commitment to improving public education in our state."

O'Malley's proposed budget provides "a record $5.3 billion for K-12 education - an increase of $184 million over last year," Abbruzzese said.

O'Malley's proposal would change the way education funding is calculated in the landmark Thornton law, a move that, coupled with other formula adjustments, means Maryland public school districts would receive about $133 million less than they had expected.

Baltimore school officials have estimated that the city school system would receive about $45 million less over the next two years in state aid than it would have had the Thornton formula stayed in effect.

O'Malley's plan has sparked concern among teachers unions and superintendents, but the backlash had remained fairly muted until the demonstration yesterday.

Demonstrators - some as young as 11 - said they considered a provocative protest necessary to draw attention to their cause.

Charles Waters, a 16-year-old junior at City College, smiled as he sat in handcuffs on the sidewalk.

"This is beautiful. This is exactly what we wanted," he said. "We've been ignored for too long. All we're doing is fighting for our schools, our education, our future."

ruma.kumar@baltsun.com

Copyright © 2008 The Baltimore Sun

July 18, 2007

Professors are Supposed to Teach - So Why Don't They?

conv.650.1.jpg
Jodi Hilton for The New York Times

"Using the ‘Beauties of Physics’ to Conquer Science Illiteracy"
The New York Times
By Claudia Dreifus
17July 2007

See below an excerpt from a NYT article on Eric Mazur, the Gordon McKay Professor of Applied Physics at Harvard. Mazur believes in one, teaching students, an anomaly in university education; and two, teaching concepts through experience and student intra-action. This he seeks to accomplish within an educational site--the university--where experiential, interactive, and active critical pedagogy is unfortunately, anathema.

Q. Why do you willingly teach an introductory physics course?

A. First, it’s part of my job description. Professors are supposed to teach. The problem is how we teach . . .

Click here to read the complete article.

June 29, 2007

Dear Thurgood, What Have They Done Now . . .

dailey_fig01b.gif

On Thursday 28 June 2007, voting 5 to 4 in an opinion by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., the U.S. Supreme Court declared that public school systems cannot seek to achieve or maintain integration through measures that take explicit account of a student’s race.

Below are a video of a Howard University student rally on the steps of the Supreme Court, 4 December 2006 (from DC Indymedia), and an editorial from today's New York Times.
12-4-06_school_segregation.jpg
Download file

Editorial
New York Times
"Resegregation Now"
Friday 29 June 2007

“The Supreme Court ruled 53 years ago in Brown v. Board of Education that segregated education is inherently unequal, and it ordered the nation’s schools to integrate. Yesterday, the court switched sides and told two cities that they cannot take modest steps to bring public school students of different races together. It was a sad day for the court and for the ideal of racial equality.”

“Since 1954, the Supreme Court has been the nation’s driving force for integration. Its orders required segregated buses and public buildings, parks and playgrounds to open up to all Americans. It wasn’t always easy: governors, senators and angry mobs talked of massive resistance. But the court never wavered, and in many of the most important cases it spoke unanimously.”

“Yesterday, the court’s radical new majority turned its back on that proud tradition in a 5-4 ruling, written by Chief Justice John Roberts. It has been some time since the court, which has grown more conservative by the year, did much to compel local governments to promote racial integration. But now it is moving in reverse, broadly ordering the public schools to become more segregated.”

“Justice Anthony Kennedy, who provided the majority’s fifth vote, reined in the ruling somewhat by signing only part of the majority opinion and writing separately to underscore that some limited programs that take race into account are still acceptable. But it is unclear how much room his analysis will leave, in practice, for school districts to promote integration. His unwillingness to uphold Seattle’s and Louisville’s relatively modest plans is certainly a discouraging sign.”

“In an eloquent dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer explained just how sharp a break the decision is with history. The Supreme Court has often ordered schools to use race-conscious remedies, and it has unanimously held that deciding to make assignments based on race ‘to prepare students to live in a pluralistic society’ is ‘within the broad discretionary powers of school authorities.’”

“Chief Justice Roberts, who assured the Senate at his confirmation hearings that he respected precedent, and Brown in particular, eagerly set these precedents aside. The right wing of the court also tossed aside two other principles they claim to hold dear. Their campaign for ‘federalism,’ or scaling back federal power so states and localities have more authority, argued for upholding the Seattle and Louisville, Ky., programs. So did their supposed opposition to ‘judicial activism.’ This decision is the height of activism: federal judges relying on the Constitution to tell elected local officials what to do.”

“The nation is getting more diverse, but by many measures public schools are becoming more segregated. More than one in six black children now attend schools that are 99 to 100 percent minority. This resegregation is likely to get appreciably worse as a result of the court’s ruling.”

“There should be no mistaking just how radical this decision is. In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens said it was his “firm conviction that no Member of the Court that I joined in 1975 would have agreed with today’s decision.” He also noted the “cruel irony” of the court relying on Brown v. Board of Education while robbing that landmark ruling of much of its force and spirit. The citizens of Louisville and Seattle, and the rest of the nation, can ponder the majority’s kind words about Brown as they get to work today making their schools, and their cities, more segregated.”

BriggsvElliott1946NAACPPamphlet.gif
Briggs v. Elliott
NAACP Pamphlet, 1946


May 07, 2007

Land, Labor, and Money: Exposing Chicago's Corporate Coalition

55.jpg

"Capital's Daisy Chain: Exposing Chicago's Corporate Coalition"
Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies
Volume 5, Number 1 (May 2007)

By Lisa Arrastía

This article uses the global city of Chicago as an urban exemplar of a thirty-year worldwide economic shift toward public (state) - private (corporate) partnerships. Advanced by racialized youth-development discourses in Chicago, private corporations, public education, and social housing are in alliance to transform “the problems of urban America.” This move to restore American cities to places of “safety” and “progress” is code for the modernized redevelopment of white and of color, poor and working class youth. My intention in this article is to highlight the insidious meta-narratives of American progress inherent in neoliberal youth development discourses for the purposes of marking them. I want to make it more difficult for the language and practice of American youth development to go unseen by educators and their students. My hope in providing Chicago as a case study is to critically attend to and expose a U.S. economy of socio-political methods and spatial practices deployed transnationally to ontologically manipulate youth, aggravate their core of decency, and produce them as either owners or low-wage-earning laborers.

Full article available at JCEP.

April 13, 2007

"Charter Organizing on Union's Agenda" by Aaron Chamners & John Meyers

In Catalyst Chicago, April 2007

With help from its national and state affiliates, the Chicago Teachers Union is planning a push to organize charter school teachers.

The American Federation of Teachers, which recently won teacher support to unionize seven charter schools in Florida, has sent national representative Rob Callahan to Chicago to spearhead the charter outreach campaign. (In addition to Florida, the AFT has organized charter school teachers in Maryland, New Jersey, New York State, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island. New York City’s local, the United Federation of Teachers, runs two charters.)

Noting that teachers at some charters have “reached out” for union help, Callahan notes, “Unions don’t organize workers, workers organize unions.”

Initial steps in Chicago will include admitting charter teachers to union-run professional development programs, including the union’s touted National Board certification prep program, called Nurturing Teacher Leadership. The union will also ask charter teachers to join in a letter-writing campaign designed to pressure state legislators into passing school funding reform.

Callahan declined to identify the charter schools in which organizing efforts will initially be focused. But the union would extend its reach furthest by targeting the operators of multiple campuses, such as United Neighborhood Organization, Youth Connections and Chicago International Charter Schools. More than half of the approximately 900 Chicago charter school teachers and instructional aides work for these three operators.

Elizabeth Evans, executive director of the Illinois Network of Charter Schools, declined to comment on the organizing but notes that charters and unions share a long and often collaborative history, including charter endorsement from Albert Shanker, the late former AFT president.

Still, Evans says that charter school teacher contracts show a dash of progressivism. In New York, she notes, teachers work longer days at the union-run charter high school.

State law prohibits teachers in Chicago charters from being part of the same collective bargaining agreement as teachers in regular CPS schools. But the union could organize teachers under separate agreements with individual operators, says CTU’s Springfield lobbyist, Pamelyn Massarsky. A master contract that applies to all charters could also be forged, she notes.

“It’s a fairness issue,” Massarsky says. “Teachers in Illinois, as public employees, are entitled to collective bargaining, and we intend to step in and do that for them.”

http://catalyst-chicago.org/index.php

The views and opinions expressed in this page are strictly those of the page author. The contents of this page have not been reviewed or approved by the University of Minnesota.