Going back farther...

It came to my attention today, thanks to Dr. Rowan at CSUSB, to examine the works of Ira Shor in my discussion. I did, and found a plethora of information regarding this very topic. Shor gave significant regard to John Dewey, who made this profound statement in his 1916 book Democracy and Education: "The idea still prevails that a truly cultural or liberal education cannot have anything in common, directly at least, with industrial affairs, and that the education which is fit for the masses must be a useful or practical education in a sense which opposes useful and practical to nurture of appreciation and liberation of thought...The notion that the 'essentials' of elementary education are the three R's, mechanically treated, is based upon ignorance of the essentials needed for realization of democratic ideals" (Shor). Shor goes on to note that the discourse of the classroom is not the same discourse used by most students in their individual lives. This, again, is an idea proposed by Dewey. Dewey found the teaching of language absurd in the development of responsible citizens participating in a democracy. He felt that teaching language as a system dismissed entirely the very usefulness of language as it is used in human interaction. This is exactly what we have allowed to happen in this country by instituting standardized testing as a gauge of a school's progress. Privatizing schools only serves to add to this problem, as standardizd tests are the only means by which a large corporation can assess students.

David Hursh and his understanding

In my research, I have found few scholars who were willing to dig as deep as David Hursh. Hursh's articles initially got me interested in the privatization of education, as I feel he was one of the few willing to come out and place on the line just what is at stakes here. In his article, "Neoliberalism and the Control of Teachers, Students, and Learning: The Rise of Standards, Standardization, and Accountability," Hursh makes some very interesting notes regarding the direction of education in this country. As he notes in point 13 of that essay, globalization has led to a drastic change in the significance given to education. As we have already become and constantly continue to develop into a more global society, thanks to such ideas as the internet, global markets, world banks, etc., education has become more and more geared toward contributing to the new global society. The most significant contribution to the global society is, of course, economic. Thus, as Hursh points out, education has become a means of engaging members of society toward a more prosperous economy, allowing all other important aspects of education to go by the wayside. It is for this reason that we see art and music programs cut first any time school budgets must be slimmed down. Standardized tests focus on reading, mathematics, history, and science, as these subjects have been taught by teachers forced to follow curriculuma out of fear of losing their jobs. The focus is on creating students who all know the same information, believe the same information, and can regurgitate the same information. It is through art which students learn to express themselves as individuals, whether that art be poetry, music, writing, or visual art. It seems fitting, then, that these would be the first programs cut, especially in a world where the powers-that-be seek uniformity amongst students. Truly, the idea of standards existing for education are in direct opposition to the fundamentals of education themselves. A world in which all students, no matter the race, socioeconomic status, or geographical region, are expected to meet the same standards is one in which it is every bit as hard to get ahead as it is behind. Thus, we are obviously on the path to uniformity, particularly among students. And uniformity, equality among all, is the basic principle which leads to socialism and/or communism, each and either a means to usher in a system of fascism. We are on our way. We still are in the earliest stages, though, and it is through individual research, a learning for ourselves, that we will learn truth. Mandated curriculums cannot be trusted. We must learn on our own and educate those around us, that we might know true history, true information, and not be subjected and subjugated to propanda which dispells truth and affirms lies and manipulation.

Moving toward privatized education

The problem with privatizing public school services is one on which the verdict is not fully in yet. As Philadelphia was the first to attempt a large scale privatization, which began in 2002 with the privatization of over 30 schools, not a lot of research has been accumulated regarding the plan's successes and shortcomings. However, interesting to note is the fact that in June, 2008, the committee which heads Philadelphia's schools decided to retake control of six of the schools which had been put under private control. It had been noted that students had, in fact, improved academically, but no more so than the public schools which had remained under district supervision. Furthermore, the remaining schools still under private contract were warned that they had one year to show marked improvement, or they too, would be reabsorbed into the care of the district (Washington Post). Jeff Henig, professor of political science and education at Columbia University, notes another frightening fact with regards to how development is studied in privatized schools. He notes a common occurrence: the studies carried out to determine the effectiveness of privatization are often done so by the same corporations heading the schools. That is to say, these large corporations or organizations are the only ones with the means to perform studies to test the effectiveness of their methods. Thus, studies released often show one side of the story, and because they are produced by those heading the schools (the "providers" as Henig refers to them), it is only their side of the story which is shown. Therefore, the public is given a less-than-accurate portrayal of the true results of instituting these types of programs (The Notebook). This is where a huge problem lies: as long as these companies, whose main goal is to produce profit, are deciding whether or not they are doing an acceptable job of educating, the public will remain in the dark as to the true results. It is simple: if a company wants to make money, and running schools is the means by which they do so, those same companies will not admit that they are performing poorly. And when the only information available regarding the matter is produced by them, it will of course be lopsided to make the company look better.

Some more info...

Philadelphia led the way toward privatized schools by, in 2002, placing 42 of its poorest performing public schools under the control of a number of private corporations. The most notable of these was Edison Schools, a for-profit corporation specializing in education management. Edison Schools provides a number of services for schools, all the way down to "complete school solutions," which provide training for faculty and staff, as well as preprepared curriculums. Six years later, though, in June 2008, six of the privatized schools were reclaimed by the state committee which heads Philadelphia's schools. It was shown that Philadelphia students improved, but no more in the schools headed by private corporations than in the public schools which had remained under state control.

The Beginning of My Blog

Well I am very new to blogging, but here goes nothing. It came to my attention, during my Literacy Studies class during fall term, that there is a very grave plan in the works regarding education. Falling in line with what seems to be the overall direction of all things political, education is moving toward a privatized state, that is, one in which for-profit corporations control the information disseminated to both students and parents alike. The scariest part is that it has already begun. Teachers, in many situations, do not design curriculums any longer. In fact, many schools buy their curriculums from text book companies or other education contractors. The greatest threat in so doing comes from the fact that these for-profit corporations have little or no understanding of what will be necessary to most benefit student's academic careers. In short, the curriculum is out of touch with student needs. I will examine this phenomena in this blog, citing sources when available and where applicable.