Group items tagged

Our fight for public schooling is a fight for democracy, for one-for-all-and-all-for-one solutions to our problems. But what is this democracy idea? Or as the Occupiers say: "What does democracy look like"? We need to use schools to sell democracy-even to explain it! It doesn't just live on neglected and compromised. Even many of our parental allies seem content to view public education as a private concern for their kids' futures. Period. In such a world the only thing that matters is rank order and, as I used to remind colleagues, no matter how fast kids line up, there's always just one in the front all the way back to one at the end. We're fighting each other these days to see if by hook or crook we can get "ours" nearer the front. (And "cutting" the line is allowed.) We live, too many of us, in a climate that makes us all compete for the shortage of private goods rather than tackling the "shortage" issue.

Thanks to good ol' Mike Petrilli, much of this week's education policy debate has centered on the relevance of local school boards and the age old tug-of-war between state and local authority over the operation and financing of local public school districts. Much of the debate has been framed in terms of "democracy," and much of it has been rather fun and interesting to watch.  That is, until Mike and the crew at Fordham decided to let Bob Bowdon (of Cartel fame) join in the conversation, and inject his usual bizarre understanding of the world as we know it. This time, jumping in where Petrilli had left off, Bowdon opined about how teachers unions and their advocates repeatedly cry for respecting democracy while consistently thwarting democratic efforts through legal action. The layers of absurdity in Bowdon's  logic are truly astounding, and perhaps best illustrated by walking through one of the examples he chooses.

In the speech, Eisenhower warned the American people of the growing power of a "military-industrial complex," an alliance of the military with defense contractors that he saw as a threat to democracy. Democracy in the United States is now under a similar assault from an education-foundation-political-industrial complex. This complex takes many forms, but its primary goal is to shape state and federal educational policy in a way that maximizes private corporate profits.

...I stopped worrying as much about defending progressive school allies (and the schools to which I had given so many years) from the onslaught, but grew more concerned about the fundamental underpinning of what public'ness means in a democracy. I attributed some of my differences with the foundation/corporate reforms to simply being one of their ignorance about the pace of change possible in an essentially conservative institution with many constituents. I misunderstood. They had their eyes on something different. In the name of equality-and our survival as a nation-they decided we had to get rid of our sentimental attachment to public space, public life, and so much more that we "foolishly" associated with our nation's democratic history. Suddenly I, and others working in "the trenches," were an obstacle to reform! We were blocking the 2lst century, aiding America's enemies, etc. There was indeed a substantial group amongst our founding white fathers who distrusted democracy-deeply. Our opponents' nostalgia goes back in part to those olden days.

Quick.  What comes to mind when you hear "Democratic Education?"  Pause… Okay, years ago the first thing coming to mind would be that there was at least a Civics class being taught in the school.  Later, I would add that there should be a student government.  Then I would have thought that an experiential piece should be included, like a mock presidential election or town hall meeting. Much later I came to understand that teaching about how our democracy works (even including a "mock" event or a student council with limited decision making) is a pale imitation of the lived experience of democracy.  And therein lies the rub.

Neal McClusky at Cato Institute makes a good point about our casual, imprecise use of the term "democracy" in the post linked here. I did not delve into this in my previous post, and more or less allowed the imprecise terminology to slip past. Clearly there are huge differences between simple majority rule through direct democracy and our constitutional republic with separation of powers, and I certainly favor the latter.

Now that they've had some success destroying public education, the school reform privateers are setting their sights on something even more precious and fundamental to our nation -- our democracy. You see, democracy is "messy" and "one-size-fits-all" and has a pesky habit of getting in the way of even more mega profits and oligarchic* control by the nation's Bill Gateses and Eli Broads.

Many of our country's enduring dilemmas are the products of inequalities in power and wealth created by social class, race, culture, and sexism. Challenges exist inside and outside the education system. Although the society has made visible historic progress on many fronts, our nation's most pressing educational problem remains the opportunity gap between the children of the haves and those of the have-nots; this gap has grown with the mounting social inequality of the last 40 years. We believe the schools can and should do much more to make progress in many areas. Yet we recognize that improving schools for the families of the have-nots on any large scale will in the end depend on broader steps toward democracy and equality. In any case, we are unlikely to renew our democracy without a fresh commitment to quality public education.

Unfortunately, last week's publication of a guest essay by American Enterprise Institute researcher Daniel Lautzenheiser in Rick Hess' EdWeek column marks a return to the simplistic rhetoric and unsubstantiated assertions which Hess himself has warned are becoming too common among self-identified "reformers." In "A Tale of Two Schools," Lautzenheiser makes the claim that Democracy Prep's high test scores come despite its enrollment of "the same kinds of students" as its academically struggling co-located school, the Academy of Collaborative Education (ACE).

"Reducing everything-including people-to markets makes democracy impossible, UC Berkeley's Wendy Brown tells Salon"

At a recent Shanker Institute conference, a guest presenter from the United Kingdom was discussing the historical relationship between public spending and democracy. I don't remember the exact context, but at some point, he noted, in a perfectly calm, matter-of-fact tone, that one U.S. political party spends a great deal of effort and resources trying to suppress electoral turnout.

"Teachers are one of the most important resources a nation has for providing the skills, values and knowledge that prepare young people for productive citizenship - but more than this, to give sanctuary to their dreams and aspirations for a future of hope, dignity and justice. It is indeed ironic, in the unfolding nightmare in Newtown, that only in the midst of such a shocking tragedy are teachers celebrated in ways that justly acknowledge - albeit briefly and inadequately - the vital role they play every day in both protecting and educating our children.  What is repressed in these jarring historical moments is that teachers have been under vicious and sustained attack by right-wing conservatives, religious fundamentalists, and centrist democrats since the beginning of the 1980s. Depicted as the new "welfare queens," their labor and their care has been instrumentalized and infantilized; [1] they have been fired en masse under calls for austerity; they have seen rollbacks in their pensions, and have been derided because they teach in so-called "government schools."  Public school teachers too readily and far too pervasively have been relegated to zones of humiliation and denigration.  The importance of what teachers actually do, the crucial and highly differentiated nature of the work they perform and their value as guardians, role models and trustees only appears in the midst of such a tragic event. If the United States is to prevent its slide into a deeply violent and anti-democratic state, it will, among other things, be required fundamentally to rethink not merely the relationship between education and democracy, but also the very nature of teaching, the role of teachers as engaged citizens and public intellectuals and the relationship between teaching and social responsibility.  This essay makes one small contribution to that effort."

Theories are like maps, the authors argue. They are "useful in helping us get somewhere." "Rather than attempt to imitate the hard sciences, social scientists would be ... doing what they do best: thinking deeply about what prompts human beings to behave the way they do." This includes gathering data-anecdotes, myths, and other such "soft" insights along with the so-called "hard" ones. It means including direct data, not just indirect test data which we hope "correlates" with reality." It means acknowledging tradeoffs: Do life, liberty, and happiness sometimes clash? Of course, this kind of "soft science" leads to less certainty. But less certainty where certainty doesn't exist is a good thing. One reason we need to stick with even flawed forms of democracy is that there isn't any flawless form! Every form of voting, for example, rests on a bias about whom and what is more important. Anyone studying the gerrymandering of districts in New York state notes that the latest plan makes it likely that a majority of voters will be "out-voted" by a minority when it comes to our state's legislative bodies. Our Constitution rests on similar "gerrymandering"-some voters count more than others.

As the poor get poorer, and college tuitions keep rising, the media declare that no one without a B.A. qualifies for a living wage. Something's rotten in this proposition. It isn't that way in Finland, for example. Finland didn't do it overnight, but they built their education system around critical democratic habits: competence and trust. They didn't trade off one for the other. Looking for a trust-proof solution is the fragile error. David Remnick says it well in the March 12th New Yorker: Democracy, he writes: "At best, it's an ambition, a state of becoming," and "the fragility of democratic aspiration is a brutal fact of history." Every time we try an end-run around it we at best distract ourselves from useful next steps, and more often undermine our own aspirations.

I think it's bad for society for such disparities, although they are hardly new. But they were always bad for the general welfare and health of the rest of the people. But, offended as I am, I'm more concerned about the fact that it makes democracy, in any serious sense, virtually impossible. Because money comes with power-the more money, the more power. A society ruled by laws is a farce when some must defend themselves with a court-appointed attorney and others ... .

Doug Muzzio is joined by Richard D. Kahlenberg, senior fellow at The Century Foundation. The two discuss Mr. Kahlenberg's latest book "Tough Liberal: Albert Shanker and the Battles Over Schools, Unions, Race and Democracy."

Monday's post, "Dealing with disingenuous teachers unions: There are no shortcuts," sparked a wave of discussion and criticism-which, let's face it, is every writer's hope. But I wasn't just trying to be provocative; we at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute strongly believe that issues of governance and politics have been too often ignored in the education reform debate. We're happy to help put these issues at the top of the policy agenda. In fact, we've teamed up with the Center for American Progress on a three-year project to do exactly that.

...reminds me of what I have come to call the Rush Limbaugh strategy from posing an argument: Present a quick and compelling premise, and then argue within or against that premise. In popular and political discourse, this strategy is highly effective even though, as with the church sign noted above, the argument and conclusions depend entirely on whether or not the premise is accurate. In other words, start with a false premise and you have only false arguments and conclusions. The current discourse about education suffers under this paradigm; for example, two recent commentaries highlight just how pervasive and misleading the Rush Limbaugh strategy can be: Sol Stern's rambling endorsement of Common Core State Standards (CCSS), as a thinly veiled front for endorsing E. D. Hirsch and bashing "liberal" educators, and Joel Klein's praising of Success charters schools in New York. Vigorous and informed debate is an essential element in a democracy, just as I believe a vibrant universal public education is. Yet, when that debate becomes deformed, the results of public and political debate are also deformed. How, then, should all stakeholders in public education approach the many and varied claims and conclusions being offered about public schools and the need to reform that institution?

"Backing Governor Chris Christie and Commissioner Chris Cerf's unrelenting push for more "high-quality school options" in New Jersey, the Department of Education recently approved nine charter schools to open in September, bringing the total number of charter schools in New Jersey to 86. This move is part of a broader trend toward the marketization of education policy - the incorporation of market principles into the management and structure of public schools, as well as voucher programs to subsidize alternatives to public schools. These market principles include deregulation, competition, and the unqualified celebration of "choice," all of which are embodied in the charter school movement. Despite claims of greater efficiency, innovativeness, and responsiveness, however, the growing rhetoric around choice needs to be more closely scrutinized before we wholeheartedly jump on the charter school bandwagon."

"I have read with interest the dialogue between Marc Tucker, Diane Ravitch, Anthony Cody, and Yong Zhao on the establishment of an American test-based public education accountability system. Forty years of research on the impact of political structures on social systems,[1], [2] in particular public education,[3] leads me to categorize Marc Tucker's rhetoric as nothing more than political cant to protect the lucrative profits of poverty "non-profit" industry that is bent to the will of the powerful rich donor groups that are dominating education policy in the US and UK."