Wednesday, February 22, 2017

The Metaphor of School as A Business & How it has narrowed our view of Learning and Life

The metaphor of schools as businesses has become the dominant way of describing Education these days. It is difficult to find a conversation about schools in which business terminology and ideas do not pop up. Terms like emerging markets, global competitiveness, and monopoly are ever present in considerations about what our schools should be like and what they should do.  

The result of using business as The Metaphor (not just a metaphor) extends even beyond schools to most of the conversations about our society and culture in today’s academic and policy making circles. Our policymakers and policy advisers even see business in a particular light. Business in its contemporary neoliberal iteration is Competition, made up of winners and losers. Business is no longer a method whereby we share goods, develop products, or provide purpose and support for our communities, but is focused almost solely on making money for the investor class.

In other words, our leaders see life as business, and business as pure competition.

The fallout from that deeply embedded and distorted metaphor is heavily influencing every aspect of life in these early stages of the 21st century.

It has colored how we see others--Those around us are competitors to beat, whether they are family, friends, or newcomers.

It has defined how we structure increasing global connections-- creating global corporations that win power and money in a global competition where winner takes all. Nations and other societies are competitors to dominate and compete against.

It has influenced how we see God-- In this metaphor God is the ultimate winner who rewards followers with a piece of the winnings, making religion a competition, rating which is the most spiritual by who gets the most converts, the most airtime, and the most money.

And in schools, it has made grades more important than knowledge and school ranking and rating a cutthroat process.

In this metaphor, schools must align to the business model of global competition and be measured and datafied to prove their level of competitiveness or die.

The level of embeddedness of this metaphor has become so pervasive that many see business and competitiveness as the quintessential human characteristic, holding that humans are almost completely motivated by the desire to win.

Most of us don’t question this way of looking at the world on a daily basis.  We let the message and the metaphor wash over us and we go on about our daily tasks, not asking how it is influencing what we do or what we believe.

Yet, those who do question what motivates us, and what metaphors work best as representations of our way of life and learning, tell us that competition or extrinsic motivation is only one side of the story, and not a very effective side when wielded as it has been of late. We know that Competition and Collaboration are two sides of a duality in which both sides of the polarity are needed, like breathing out and breathing in. We cannot do only one or the other.

We know that other values besides winning and having the most are just as powerful for us as wanting to be first, values like discovery, caring,  gratitude, and meaningful connection. We know that the desires to create and serve are just as necessary to innovation as the desire to be first and most.

In English classes, I teach students that when using a metaphor, it's important to recognize the ways in which the metaphor works, and the ways in which it fails. At this point, we need to collectively do that examination.

Gareth Morgan, in his Images of Organizations puts forward a variety of metaphors for organizations. Those who see organizations as Complex Adaptive Systems speak of organizations as ecosystems or biological entities.  There are a wide variety of metaphors and comparisons we can use.  Perhaps it is time we widen our choices of metaphor.

Perhaps it is time, we do question those who try to frame the growth and development of our children and the meaning of our lives as a race, a contest, a business to run for maximum productivity and profit.  

Perhaps it is time we question our world being framed in that way as well.

*Graphic quote from Metaphors We Live By, by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson.

Thursday, February 16, 2017

School Choice: Philanthropy or Predatory Capitalism

Image may contain: sky and outdoor
John Handley High School in Winchester Virginia is an endowed public high school. Endowed by a judge.
Betsy DeVos, Bill and Melinda Gates, Alice Walton, Eli Broad, the Koch brothers and other billionaires each have the money to endow Many schools. Yet, they have been spending vast sums of money to dictate the structure of public schools and how communities run them.
If what they wanted was to provide educational opportunities, they could have created their own string of free schools in key locations -- based on their own fortunes, not tax dollars. Their endowed schools could have been the laboratories for innovation they claim to want. Their endowments could have offered free education to those students they claim to want to save. Their added money could have improved the economies of the poor communities they claim to want to help.
None of them have done so. Instead they have spent billions of dollars creating thinly veiled PR firms to malign public schools and purchasing public officials, all in an attempt to lay claim to tax dollars others have paid. Instead of paying tax dollars that could fund those public schools they so viciously criticize, they have tried to take the tax dollars working people pay to educate the community's children.
This latest push for "School Choice" is just another round in their ongoing fight to access other people's money for their global empires. Even more damning is that if billionaire "investors" pulled their dollars from non-profit astroturf groups, one issue think tanks, and legislator purchases-- the entire "School Choice" movement would collapse. There would be No huge push for deconstructing our local school systems. There would be some individual districts trying to provide better opportunities for their own children. (Another place our billionaire philanthropic community could have helped and hasn't).
At some point it becomes impossible to credit any of these individuals with ethical motivations. Their behavior tells us they are only interested in having access to opening a new market for profit, and long-term profits for businesses they already own. (Something Bill Gates actually said on PBS, that he started his public school interventions for long-term profits).
Worse, their choices tell us that they want to dominate other people's choices. Rather than offering real options to neighborhoods, families, or children, they attempt to force whole communities, districts, and states into pouring hard-earned money into the billionaires' coffers.
It's time to say to profiteers-- IF you want your own schools, go fund them. Leave ours alone. And it's time the philanthropic community reigned in their own. It's not philanthropy if it's just tax sheltered R&D or thinly veiled market takeover. We give the wealthy class tax breaks to give back to the community, not to ravage and pillage our best and greatest community services.

Sunday, February 12, 2017

How Mrs. DeVos sees Innovation and Transformation And How Parents and Teachers See it

With Mrs. Betsy DeVos’ taking office, Reformers are pleased and excited with the thought that at  last they may have the person in place to deliver quickly what they have long wanted. -- A New Market via their version of Innovation and Transformation. Until now no one has been able to deliver that in a way that the public would completely accept.

But, that is what Mrs. DeVos has promised in her first speech, “And I will promise you this: Together, we will find new ways in which we can positively transform education.”

It sounds wonderful, right? It’s going to be important in coming days and months to remember that when Mrs. DeVos uses these terms, she is not using them in the way we might think.

Just listening, we might think she was speaking of transformation as the process of becoming something new and better, like the way children grow and become.  And by saying she will deliver innovation, we might think she means she has new knowledge about how children learn and how we might help them.  Afterall, that’s what lots of us think of when we speak of transformation.

three kids light bulbs.jpg

The unspoken problem though, is that when Reformers talk about Transformation, they are talking about transforming a commercial market, not learning that changes lives; and when they talk about Innovation, they are talking about Innovative Disruption, not a great new idea for lesson activities, or new in school programs for learning kids, or even a great new way to organize our schools or districts for better learning chances for all kids.

Mrs. DeVos is talking about markets, not children.

The concepts she is using are from Business and Public Policy theories.  Like Mrs. DeVos,  Education Reformers are most often MBA rather than M.Ed. holders, and they know what she means. It is just the rank and file parents and teachers who misunderstand.

Most of us who work in schools or are around children a lot do not look into the earnest eyes of our students and think of them as either products to be sold on the job market, or as raw materials from which to profit. Nor do we think of our daily tasks as a product delivery system to be governed by business productivity models. We see our students as people, children on their way to becoming their future selves.

When these business words and ideas get transferred into the Ed field by consultants, would-be thought leaders, and edupreneurs, it is often with some adaptation of meaning, frequently with some confusion of the original concept, and almost always with little understanding about the psychology and neurology of learning, the nature of Human Development, the diverse conditions in communities, and the realities in classrooms across the country.  

So what do MBAs and Mrs. DeVos in particular mean when they speak of Innovative Disruption and Transformational Theory?

Transformation in simple lay language is a dramatic change in appearance or form. It is a word used in a variety of fields with different meanings in each. In business these are some of the terms.
  • Transformational Learning is a set of ideas about lifelong learning, usually an Adult and Continuing Education term.
  • Transformational Leadership is a style of management in which the compelling personality and high moral character of a leader creates remarkable outcomes. Think Nelson Mandela or Winston Churchill
  • Transformation Theory started as a systems model from George Land in his 1973 book Grow or Die that maintains there are moments when the rules of survival change. It is a three phase model of invention, improvement, and innovation.  
  • Market Transformation is the process businesses use for leveraging a product to become mainstream or dominant in a market.  

School Privatization advocates often use the last three concepts in an intertwined way, maintaining their changes will produce the next phase - either improvement or innovation, that they are leveraging that innovation through the market to improve the overall product of Education, and that leveraging is powered, at least in part, by their personal transformative leadership.

This is what Mrs. DeVos’ means when she promises transformational innovation- that she will bring change that will open Education as a new business market through the power of her leadership.

Of particular concern for both business and education is that Market Transformation and Transformation Theory are both somewhat dependent on constant growth as a requirement, and constant growth is quickly becoming less possible in today’s age of diminishing resources and rising populations. Many futurists think we truly may be at one of those moments when the rules of survival change, not just for Schools, but for Business, and possibly for most societal endeavors.  In that case, the reforms pushed by market creators is even more misguided, leading us in the wrong direction using the wrong concept map.
Disruptive Innovation
Innovation is usually seen as a positive change; a new idea, product or process that has positive impact. Disruption in its ordinary definition is Not a positive term.  Synonyms include shock, disturbance, confusion, disorder, and mess; but in economic terms Disruptive Innovation is a change, product, or service that creates a new market and value network, eventually disrupting the existing market.

Disruption has been a popular term among business and financial executives since 1997 when it was laid out by popular Harvard business professor Clayton Christensen in his book Innovators Dilemma. Christensen even jumped fields to promote innovative disruption as a means to reform schools in his 2008 book, Disrupting Class: How Disruptive Innovation Will Change the Way We Learn which he just reissued in October of 2016. His Disrupting Class book was even inspired by a group of Charter school promoters who approached him and asked him to write it. In it he maintains that the future of schools will be modular software facilitated by teachers who are coaches on the side.

One has to wonder how much screen time his grandchildren are given, whether he knows they need to develop muscular coordination and grow neurons through physical contact and interaction with their world, and if he knows that there are vast swaths of the country that still don’t have fully adequate internet service, but then Harvard probably has great internet. Sorry, he's clearly a very smart man and probably a very nice one. He's just teaching in a field where he's missing chunks of important information.

Economists and those in the Financial field have a long affection for the idea of Disruption. Think fire, guns, railroads, the car, the washing machine, TV, desktop computers, iphones and other world altering products, and it’s true that innovative ideas have propelled us into unexpected positive and negative change over the course of civilization. Contrary to the way we've been portrayed public school proponents are not about discouraging great ideas or the distribution of them.

The problem though, is not just with Financiers and Business opportunists who want to create a new education market and educational products. The larger problem is with a distortion of the idea of Disruptive Innovation and the model of Market Transformation. In classic Innovative Disruption, an idea for change or a new product holds so much promise that even with initial glitches or failures it provides a compelling new future.  Education Innovative Disruption has never had that. Even technology, which has only recently moved to the center of Reform ideas, has at best, provided new sometimes better tools for old tasks. Sorry, but so far they are just nice tools to have if we are given time to learn and use them.

There is an additional problem in that a distorted form of Market Transformation (leveraging the product)  is by far the dominant driver of Reform we have seen.

Education Reform in all its iterations of the last 20 years has tried experimental reform after reform in search of  one that could qualify as an innovation powerful enough to open the Education Market. Yet one by one, testing, accountability, school closures, charter/private schools, temporary teacher pools, standardization of curriculum and teaching methods, accountability/data collection have failed to fulfill their promise.

Education’s  Disruptive Innovators have not had an idea that actually improves on the existing system. What change they have achieved has come from a determined push to create a new market, not from an idea that could either create a system wide transformation, or transform the educational process itself. Many of the ideas promoted as change agents have been old ideas either abandoned for lack of efficacy, or rejected because they could not provide adequate resources for all students. Some have just been personal goals, such as Mrs. DeVos’ desire to use schools to promote her personal religious views.  Even billions of dollars spent on PR campaigns to demonize public schools and lionize Reform have not been able to redeem the failed experiments of Reform.

As Teachers and In-School managers many of us have become used to Business terms as downloads from above. Through Nation-At-Risk, No Child Left Behind, and Race to the Top, teachers and children have been through disruption after disruption, each claiming to be innovative, but with more sound and fury than light and innovation.  As a result Education’s Disruptive Innovators have created Disruption in the old fashioned and lay sense of the word for 20 years now  ---A Mess,  with little or no positive change in the systems or the quality of student learning. During this time teachers and localities have responded to real change in truly innovative ways as Reformers demanded acquiescence to the artificial change.

There will be change. There always has been, and it is accelerating naturally,  but those who are integral to the lives of children know that change for and with children is something to be closely managed and positively introduced with awareness of all the things Education’s Disruptive Innovators have ignored-- The developmental stages of children’s physical and mental growth, the need for a sense of stable surrounding environments and communities, the facilitated means to connections, friendships, and developing a healthy relationship to both authority and personal autonomy.

Einstein once said the central question for humans is whether the universe is friendly.  Education’s Disruptive Innovators in their pursuit of a new market to dominate have tried to turn schools into a universe that is not friendly to learning children or friendly for the adults around them. Their goals have amounted to no more than a damaging failed hostile takeover attempt.

According to Christensen, early iterations of market transformation often fail, but once a base is established the new market takes hold.  Reformers are counting on Mrs. DeVos to deliver that base, no matter what it does to the children in the nation's 14,000 different school systems.

Those of us in the systems would like to experience these words in the non-business-theory way.  We would like to accept that children do transform, and transform beautifully when nurtured and encouraged in their development.  And we would like to move into the future using truly positive creative design to meet the changes that are coming in ways that help our children and communities to engage change in healthy and integrated ways.  We can use various methods from polarities management to creative design cycle and complex adaptive systems tools.

To Mrs. DeVos, and her Education Transformers,
We do not need artificial disruption to create an unneeded new market, or you to levy new artificially created “innovations.”  We could use you working alongside us as parents and teachers to support all our children as they meet the real and organic changes in their lives and the world.

To all the Reformers who thought you were doing the right thing-- Please consider changing course. Your children and ours do not need to be dealing with predatory business practices in elementary and high school. Let them grow up and learn to problem solve, to use critical thinking and creative design cycle first.  Then they will be ready to take on Disruptive Innovators.

Wednesday, February 8, 2017

DeVos' First Promises

I listened to Betsy DeVos'  opening remarks to the Department of Education staff today, and was grateful for the Masters in Euphemistic Double Speak I earned under the various prior administrations at my schools and in the greater Education world.
Phil Rosenfelt, the long time Department Acting person spoke in code to his old colleagues, reminding everyone that all of them took an oath to uphold the Constitution and their mission was for equity and opportunity for the children, He spoke about the same length of time as Betsy on the importance of trying to listen to one another. (I remember once when I tried to gently suggest that to an administrator--, didn't work very well.) He did not give Betsy an effusive introduction, but was professional, respectful and welcomed her.
Betsy said all the things she thought she was supposed to say, that she would work with those who had been for her and those who had been against her, that she was an open door person (oddly, no one who has ever told me that as a boss actually was).
But careful as she was, there were a couple of places where she let slip what her actual perspective was.
She said all children are born with innate curiosity and wanted to learn, but there were problems. The problems were the adult humans around them who got in the way.
It doesn't take much to figure out that the adult humans she considers in the way are teachers. A word she could not bring herself to use. She spoke of educators, but not in proximity to words about students.
I am always suspicious of officials who call everyone who works in the education field Educators. It's always seemed to me a way of equating very different jobs as the same. Someone who works in an office all day and struggles with a word processor or spreadsheet in equated with the person who manages interactive learning in a classroom with a substantial group of young people every day. The jobs just aren't  close enough to call them the same job. But I think the reason Betsy couldn't say the word teacher is because she really doesn't want to acknowledge them other than as the problem for our children's learning.
Another place she gave a bit of her "vision" away is that she said she was there to create something "new and transformative." Let me also say, I'm a bit skeptical of anyone who declares themselves able to create transformation. In spite of amazing magic shows and a multitude of "thought leader" consultants these days, real transformation of anything is a tough thing to do, especially with humans. But the difficulty of transformative learning wasn't what she was talking about. 
What she did mean sent a chill up my spine. She used another phrase, "New world class education opportunities."
She was saying outright that she intended to change everything-- Transformation is not fixing around the edges. It's not losing a dress size. It's not fixing the furnace, mending the roof, and painting the rooms. Transformative is when you knock down the 4 bedroom 2 bath you bought, haul all the pieces to the dump, and put a McMansion with faux stone, fancy chandeliers, and very little insulation on the vacant lot.
I knew, right then-- though she had been fairly careful to avoid  many Edu-triggers from the old jargon, (no schools improvement, no accountability talk) --- I knew that she had not reconciled herself to anything less than a complete knock down and rebuild.
She encouraged everyone to listen carefully. I did, and I felt like the first time I watched the Shining.

Monday, January 23, 2017

How Defending Public Schools and the Environment can Save the Democratic Party

There has been much speculation about the whys and wherefores of the recent election as to why the Dems lost and the Trumpers won, and there’s been much hand wringing behind the scenes (in between the can-you-believe-he-did-thats) about how the Democratic party will recover from the election. They are fragmented, they are mistrustful of one another, and they are scared.

Right now in Congress the Republicans are ignoring the Dems like they were mailroom boys, while there are 33 Republican Governors, and 25 completely Republican state capitals, with another 20 state legislatures partially controlled by Republicans.  Let’s face it, ALEC is having a field day with state laws! If you wanna see pillaging, look to the states for rampant slash and burn politics from absolutely buzzark Koch legislators who now control our states.

Though there are some not so talked about ways we got to this disastrous place (hint: it’s by being more like the Republicans than like Democrats), I’d really like to present a clear option for getting out of the uncomfortably tight container where way more than half the country are crammed into a fraction of the legislative space.  

All the people issues are good, and as soon as the Dems get back the state houses and Congress they can pay attention to all of them.  But health care and immigration are going to be projects that are not easily solved, though we know we will have to fix them both.  However, there are two other issues that can deliver the country on a plate to the party that realizes it.

Here’s the solution-- Take a firm and strongly progressive stand on Education and the Environment.

First Education-- Yes, Education, and not just free college and more preschools; though loan forgiveness and quality childcare are definitely part of the solution.

Good old fashioned Local Schools with more nimble contemporary services and curriculum are the key to a renewed faith in government in this country.  I know, pundits and politicians are shaking their heads and mumbling “Who gives a …. About K-12 education”   

Well, here’s who-- Every parent in the country, every young couple considering children, every grandparent in the country, every teacher, recent graduate, or college student, and every person trying to make a better life for their family. They all care deeply about schools.

Common Core and Excessive Testing, Neighborhood school closures, Charter school scams and failure of federal and states’ school policies have had people all across the country hopping mad.  After all, if we can’t give our kids decent schools what the hell are we doing in the US? And the Democrats kept telling everyone we weren’t giving the kids a good education. (Which was a long way from the truth in most places).

The dissatisfaction rank and file citizens had with Democratic Education Policy, which in most poor localities was indistinguishable from Republican education policy, was highly overlooked in strategies during the 2016 election.

By pushing Outrageous Standards & Testing and complaining almost daily that the citizens’ children were stupid, Democrats managed to irritate huge swaths of the usually laid back public, and push a lot of usually noncommittal voters away from the Democratic party, including a lot of moms.

The political and economic elites seemed not to notice that local districts build, maintain and run their local schools without very much help from the feds (about 9%), and for the last 15 years every nickel the feds gave up for schools was hooked to overworking Jenny’s teacher to exhaustion with data collection, and paying most of the money to testing companies; the largest of which was overseas. Never mind the ongoing unfunded mandates, which continued to drain and raise local property taxes.

Then by side-stepping the views of rank and file teachers, the DNC grabbed the union endorsements without committing to any real support of the public schools--until the apparent difference between goals of the Dems and Repubs on public schools seemed that Dems were going a little slower and were for Common Core, which Republicans had the good sense to bail on earlier.  As a result, rank and file teachers did not turn out in the record numbers they might have for Democratic candidates, and the always relied on teacher boots-on-the-ground had to be begged, borrowed and hired elsewhere for 2016.

Because the upper campaign staff of Clinton was deeply wedded to privatizing schools, it never occurred to them that ordinary people might know what was up and resent billionaires taking over their local schools. The campaign staff and DNC had come to believe their own myth that everyone wanted to go to a pseudo-private school like rich people. Even worse, the heavy reliance on test scores and school closures came off as little more than closeted racism, labeling poor kids in mostly brown neighborhoods and their teachers as inferior and in need of fixing by colonizing gentrifiers-- Which made even voters of color question why they were sticking with the Dems.

So, what now?

Democrats need to announce, develop and promote a public schools plan for developing the Preeminent School System in the world-- not unlike the plan for the interstate highways, or for putting a man on the moon-- and finally put the money and real educationally trained talent into developing it at local levels.

However, that plan cannot be a thinly veiled rehab of Gates-Broad-Walton’s high tech vision of segregated, teacherless, perpetually testing virtual schools. There can be money for the tech companies, and money for corporations who genuinely want to provide relevant services and products for the kids, but first and foremost the money for the creative design and implementation must return to using people who have actually been around children and adolescents, who have been trained in childhood development, behavior and motivation, and who understand the need for positive stable enough environments to provide healthy growth for all our young people.

The money must go back into our neighborhoods, towns, and rural counties if the plan is to succeed, and if people are to believe the government is working with them and for them.

It is true that we are going to face exponential change throughout society for the next 40 or 50 years, unless we kill the planet or create our own extinction first. For that reason, we need to dedicate ourselves to the future of our children, and with that effort the Democratic party can prove themselves again to be friends of the people, rather than the billionaire elites' more amiable buddies.

Speaking of killing the planet and our own extinction-- The other category of voters that the Democrats lost in the 2016 election is the young people and those who love nature. Many of the millennials have not and will not return to the Democratic party without a firm, visible, and actual commitment to the planet.  They are pissed, and who can blame them. Our leaders have run out the clock to 3 minutes to midnight and ticking. Between their strong commitment to a status quo fossil fuel industry, and their politics as usual in the primaries, they pretty much alienated most people under 35.

By making the centerpiece of Democratic goals and ideology a commitment to our interdependent planet, Democrats can be the heroes of the 21st Century, and can activate an entire generation of committed and activist voters who will assure their long-term survival as a party. Otherwise, they may be the first or second minority party if there is a planet.

As with Education, this must be a well-articulated, well-funded, and globally collaborative act of leadership that pushes the fossil fuel companies and new entrepreneurs to be come true energy companies and to provide the newer technological jobs for a renewed, sustainable, environmentally sound economy. It can be done with the help of our scientists, but it will take national and state leaders who are unafraid to break with the past and unafraid to buck the global-corporate billionaires, but perhaps even the billionaires will recognize that there are no global markets without a population of consumers and workers and a globe.

But here’s the rub, if the Democratic party does not rise to this occasion, to speak up and put forward plans that are diametrically opposed to what Trump and the Republicans are pushing, they will be a party with little to offer, at both the national and states levels, and we all will suffer the consequences of a damaged or destroyed future.

They have a narrative that will work, that will bring them back to power, and do good.

What do you say? Ready to take back the state houses and the Congress -- For our Children?

Wednesday, January 18, 2017

Requiem for a Great Nation

And of all the places to get the news we are dying--at a Senate hearing for (of all things) the Secretary of Education. Yes, I know, surreal, but then terrible diagnoses always are.

You see, from the days Washington and Jefferson disagreed over whether 3 years or 5 years was the needed level of education for a democratic citizen, we have determinedly progressed toward an ever stronger, broader, and deeper education of our citizens. Until now a network of locally controlled schools covers the country and delivers for one of the few or only times in history, a nearly universal education to unsurpassed levels, and yes I do mean unsurpassed levels.

With that system, loosely strung together, mostly with local taxes, but augmented by state and a few federal dollars, and a large force of dedicated teachers, we have risen to become the preeminent nation of all time, the envy of the world, and a destination to reach; a place where people still want their children to grow up.

Generation after generation our schools have turned out bright, capable, innovative and empathetic citizens who, armed with what they learned, have produced unprecedented progress in almost every field of endeavor; each generation building on the last. Yes even and especially this generation. The results of our public schools have produced a staggering list of accomplishments, mind boggling in scope.

It has been a grand run, one for the history books, not that we will have history books after the....

A Grand run, that would still be going but for the “greed is good” movement, which decided to take over our schools. Like some munchausen syndrome attention seeker, that kills what it claims to love, they started with marketing, a long and expensive ongoing campaign. The messages were simple;
  • schools are failing;
  • you want special choice schools like the rich;
  • you don’t want your children with “those” kids.
  • The mostly women who are nurturing and teaching your children are not creative, charismatic, or smart enough;
  • Teachers, schools, and children need to be held “accountable.”

Then the “good greed” promoters moved in with deprivation, stripping schools in the poorest neighborhoods of basic things like heat, safe buildings, trained teachers, and supplies. Until finally the billions of dollars PR campaign began to pay off. And the piece de resistance, they bring on massive meaningless tests that setup failure deliberately and use them for the final flogging that could convince the populace that Mr. or Mrs. Jones, their child’s beloved teacher is worse than a failure; s/he is an ill-intentioned self-serving failure.

Finally, the "greed is good" munchausen movement had reached critical mass. Enough people believed our schools were inferior, to weaken them enough for the killers to move in for the kill.

Last night, the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pension committee delivered the final prognosis. The schools will die, and though they don’t acknowledge it yet, the nation with them.

The schools must die, not because they are actually terminal, but because we, the “greed is good” team are making them so. It’s ok though, they tell us. Disruption is good, even when artificial and not needed. This death will create new profit centers and all those inept teachers will get paid what they can demand in the open marketplace.

Last night, the Senate HELP committee informally but firmly announced that both sides of the aisle agree with the “greed is good” movement, and they are ready to move on with hiring the person who (with the help of some “greed is good' state legislators) can finally close the deal.

They are ready to choose the person to bring the last of the poison to young Kyra while she watches Punch and Judy, and Betsy DeVos makes no bones about her desire to kill public schools in a well-tailored suit that brings her much admiration. Last night she got the signal she will get that honor. Like the hunter allowed to kill the last of a beautiful species, or sacrificer who leads the young couple to the door of the labyrinth, she can deliver the blow. She has already performed the sacred task once for Michigan.

There’s only one problem.

Without the public schools, a nation dependent on a universally educated populace cannot survive, particularly in a time of exploding knowledge and exponential change. Washington and Jefferson knew that.  They lived in a similar time of massive change and fought similar “greed is good” long-term battles using the idea of education.

The “greed is good” team have already proven they cannot and will not teach exceptional children who do not provide a profit, and though they deny it, they cannot and will not provide the nurturing stability for children to grow. They can syphon off large salaries, shut down, leave town, deny rights, hire without qualifications, use zero tolerance discipline, do all the things detrimental to growing children; in fact, that is part of their business model.

It may take 5 years, 10, or  a generation, but without the stabilizing force of community schools building communities through providing our children with safe, balanced, nurturing places to grow, and without the creative, knowledgeable guidance for learning only highly qualified and dedicated teachers collaborating with parents can provide, we are doomed to become a shadow of ourselves-- if we survive at all.

The risks are unbelievably high. Almost all the many fields that hold danger for human survival, are dependent on a school system that develops those bright, capable, innovative, and empathetic people our system has always provided. And if we are to retain even the barest essence of our humanity in the face of spiraling increased technology, there must be a place with caring capable humans where our children learn what it means to Be Human.

The highly disruptive and stratified model the “greed is good” team proposes cannot hold our society together in the face of the quantum change our society is facing, neither can their amateur efforts at educating the wide and growing diversity of our children provide our children with the developmentally sound tasks and relevant motivation to help them become healthy, proactive, knowledgeable adults.

Quite simply, our human society cannot survive without our public schools--

  • Schools that belong to the communities they serve;
  • schools whose goal is to serve the children and community they belong to (not to provide a dividend for unknown shareholders);
  • schools managed by people who put children not profit first;
  • schools that stabilize and build a great nation;
  • schools that provide a prototype and connected collaboration to the entire global community.

Today is a day for requiems.

We lost a lot last night. We may have lost everything.

Sunday, November 27, 2016

Locally Owned and Operated: The Logical Fallacy At the Center of Trump’s Education Plans

Throughout Donald Trump’s campaign and in his recent announcements he has come out swinging on education that, "There's no failed policy more in need of change than our government-run education monopoly and you know that's exactly what it is."

There’s just one problem.  Schools are not a monopoly! In fact, they are the last vestige of the old Mom-and-Pop local democracy holding out against Corporate driven Federal takeover! They are not managed by a single entity.

There are well over 14,000 different local school districts across the country, and 80% of them are managed by locally elected school boards, providing every parent in the district with a direct conduit of someone to meet with, complain to, and fire through the next election if they don’t like the service they are getting.  Each school system is directly responsible to the people who own it-- the people in that district.

Each district is different,  in size, demographics, and services- just like the locally owned stores that we once had; the locally owned department stores, where you could get alteration services, often for free; the hardware stores where you could get someone who would not only sell you the part, but explain how to put it on; the medical care where you got follow up calls, free samples if the doctor knew you were laid off, and even the occasional house call.  That’s the kind of service we still have available from our schools in most communities across the country.  

Think about what your child’s teacher does for their classes every day: buying crayons and pencils, supplying newsprint, bandaiding booboos,  and keeping extra changes of children’s clothes in their cabinet, just in case, and waiting with them for you to arrive when they miss the bus. The service our children are getting -- when the district is not impoverished, is a very person to person service.  

Who then, is so dissatisfied with the schools, that they want them leveled, closed, and remade? Those who would like them to be managed by Corporations (profit and non-profit) whose offices are almost always hundreds of miles away; people like Betsy DeVos, who never attended a public school, and whose children never attended a public school, but who along with her husband contributes heavily to private schools, and Alice Walton who owns her own charter chain, as any number of other billionaires do.  Mostly people who want to apply that money districts are spending on local children, to their own pockets instead.

Those 14,000 districts, currently contribute about 46% of the money it takes to education their children.  Another 45% comes from taxes they pay into their state, and only about 8-10% comes from special programs the federal government funds-- Title I funds for extremely poor schools, IDEA funds for students with special learning needs, and a handful of other programs.   

Lately, though the federal government, heavily influenced by outside lobbyists, has pushed localities and states to standardize, withholding chunks of that 10% if localities and states don’t up the standardization of how they treat their students, including standardizing the curriculum through the Common Core (or federally approved substitutes) and standardized measurement through commercial, poorly developed standardized tests-- and lots of them.

All the requirements the Education Reform movement (both Republican and Democrat) have been pushing have one thing in common-- They syphon off those local dollars to distantly managed corporate enterprises and take control away from local districts as to how they manage their schools.  When you look at the numbers on average-- by pulling those dollars collected from the parents at the local level (mostly through property taxes) and at the state level (mostly through state taxes) -- that’s on average about $9,000 per year per student.  We educate 50 million children a year in this country.

Trump published that  he would require localities and states to contribute $12,000 per year, per student for the new Education Secretary to give to private schools or charter school services.  -- That’s correct, Trump would increase the taxes local parents have to pay, and that money would not go to the schools their children attend, but go to the corporate-school only certain students could go to.  

So, the next time Trump says local schools are a government run monopoly, we might just ask, Does he know what a monopoly is?