In the first part of this two-part posting, I explored the threat that China poses to our economy and our education system. If you listen to corporate and political leaders, you would think China is about to eat us for lunch, and yet it turns out they want to eat lunch with us. This rhetoric thrives off the failures of the American public school system and perpetuates the myth that public schools are somehow single-handedly responsible for our country's competitive ills.
Charged by the Nicolas Berggruen Institute with solving California's economic crisis, the Think Long committee tackled tax reform, offered legislative reform, and funded public education - sort of. You see, the section on public education clearly states that schools will only get the money if they institute certain reforms, which just so happen to be the corporate reform platform of school choice, test-based teacher evaluations, and union bashing. This is the reform platform of Michelle Rhee, who consulted with the group, and of philanthropist Eli Broad who funds these reform efforts and is a signer on the report.
This is a shocking statement to be found in a report that sets out to "reboot" California from its current crisis, which is largely economic and not so different from every other state, not to mention every other country in the world. That money for education be tied to these reforms, is not only a slap in the face to teachers, but an ignorant and misguided reform solution. Of course, these billionaires do not want to see public education survive (the proposed reform platform is unproven and not based on evidence or research) as much as they want to see unions bashed and the private sector take over the large pie piece that is the education budget.
"We believe such new funding should not be automatically given to a system that is failing to educate millions of Californians. It instead should be tied to improving performance of K-12 schools, as a result of rigorous evaluation of teachers, as well as curbs on automatic teacher tenure and seniority. We further believe that new financing for education should be designed in such a way as to provide parents, especially the working poor, with the maximum choice over how and where their children are educated."
The Think Long (but not too hard...) Committee had no problem lowering corporate tax rates and making California more business friendly with no strings attached. There was no, "We will lower your tax rate if you don't pollute and hire more workers." The proposal is one of tax reform, not corporate reform. Yet when it comes to schools, it is not budget reform, but education reform. Considering the huge failure of corporate America before and after 2008, this is ridiculous. Where is the corporate oversight built into this proposal? Ironically, the committee did not tackle health care and pension reform as it was "beyond the scope" of the committee. Education, on the other hand, must be an easy target.
Holding back money to force (blackmail) education reform is nothing new. President Obama and his basketball buddy Arne Duncan do the same thing with federal Race to the Top (RTTT) funds. States must enact the federal reform agenda, which looks similar to the reform agenda described above, in order to win RTTT funds. The end result of all this is that education remains a top down system, much like a corporate model.
Following is an analysis of the proposals in the Blueprint and those who signed the report. It is an insightful and scary premonition of where public education is heading, unless we manage to reclaim it. As mentioned in Part I of this two-part posting, the rhetoric of fear of international competition drives the corporate/billionaire pseudo-reformers, who perhaps have the most to lose or gain from this scenario.
The irony of this is that Finland, which has some of the highest international test scores, did not set out to dominate the world. They set out to be the dreaded "S" word - Socialist. Finland set out to make a public school system that was equitable (provide services for all children) and teacher driven (empower the teacher, don't punish them). Along the way, Finland started to do very well on these international exams. It was an unintended consequence of making a truly public education system."...students in other countries from Singapore to South Korea to China outperform California’s students. To ensure the state’s long-term competitiveness, California schools must be brought up to global standards."
The Blueprint proposes a three-tiered education reform that is exactly opposite that of Finland. The proposal seeks to address 1. Teacher and principal effectiveness 2. Promote equality and opportunity and 3. Provide strong and useful state, district, and school data systems. Sounds good, right? Not at all.
Teacher and Principal Effectiveness
This is code for union bashing through the dismantling of tenure and collective bargaining and for high-stakes test-based teacher evaluations. "Non-seniority based layoffs" and "meaningful evaluations" are all strategies that have been shown to not make a difference in student achievement. They do however weaken unions and place the power at the top instead of in the classroom.
Promoting Equality and Opportunity
Sounds like Finland's socialist system of providing health care and food for needy children, doesn't it? Not at all. Equality here refers to the equal funding of charter school programs. Charter schools, despite their initial purpose, have become a favorite of the corporate reform model because they can be run by private companies. Charters are a good way to get in on a slice of the pie. Another good way to make money off a public system is through the digital realm. The committee realized this as well and proposed to, "remove barriers to the expansion of digital learning opportunities." There is a lot of money to be made in online education and in education software. Jeb Bush knows this, as he is deeply involved in digital learning. It is much more lucrative than being a politician.
Providing Strong and Useful Data Systems
To track and punish teachers and schools will require data. The very countries we are trying to beat in Asia, do not use this type of system. Finland uses its resources to train and support its teachers, not to measure and punish them. Not only is this an additional expense, it puts the money as far from the classroom as possible.
Who besides the usual culprits (Eli Broad and Michelle Rhee in this case) would sign on to such an ill-fated and ineffective education reform platform? Of the cast of characters whose names appear on the cover page of the report, one in particular jumps out at me, Eric Schmidt of Google fame.
Google CEO Eric Schmidt has an obvious corporate and personal interest in the future of California, but why would someone who works for the "don't be evil" company support such an evil education reform platform? A quick search on none other than Google reveals some interesting information. Eric Schmidt sits on the board of the Menlo School, a private Silicon Valley school that costs $34,000 a year to attend - the beginning salary of a California teacher.
Schmidt, like many of the others on the Think Long Committee and like many of the others pushing for a corporate model of education reform, is a member of the 1%. He is not part of the 99% that public education ultimately must serve. These elites see public education as a source of profit, not as a place to send their children. Google, like Microsoft before it, is well positioned to get a slice of that pie. Never mind the quality of education if a buck is to be made. Corporate America is staging a hostile takeover of public education.
I suggest the economic and political leaders of California and our nation think harder, not longer. In the meantime, don't be evil and reclaim public education!
No comments:
Post a Comment