The Broad Effect” is behind the recent events in Rhode Island (the Central Falls firings ), and in Detroit, where the Detroit Public School Board has just unanimously voted to file a second lawsuit against Emergency Financial Manager Robert Bobb, saying the extra $145,000 in private foundation support he receives is an unlawful conflict of interest.

Related posts

• Hess on Federal Jargon & the Jargon of Venture Capitalism and Wall Street Dictate (0)
• Thousand Demonstrate Against California Education Cuts (0)
• “Best Urban School District in America” Blocks Access to Websites Critical of “Education Reform” (0)
• “Uncommon Schools” Charter School Executive Will Be NYS Education Deputy (0)
• Are Charter Schools Public Schools? (0)

The first site known to be blocked is that of Susan Ohanian. A veteran teacher and author of 23 books, Ohanian has been an active and vocal critic of high stakes testing, the No Child Left Behind legislation, and what she describes as the “politico-corporate takeover of curriculum” (http://susanohanian.org). In 2003, Ohanian reported concerns of teachers from more than one Aldine High School “that some administrators are manipulating testing criteria for students taking the state mandated TAAS and TAKS examinations for the purpose of achieving Recognized or Exemplary ratings which affect the amount of bonus and promotion opportunities for administrators within the district.”

The second site blocked by Aldine is that of the Institute for Language and Education Policy, a “newly formed nonprofit organization,” which describes itself as “dedicated to promoting research-based policies in serving English and heritage language learners…We are teachers, administrators, researchers, professors, students, and others who believe that the time for advocacy is now.” The organization openly challenges the direction the Obama administration is heading, including what they describe as the “test-and-punish approach”. The organization challenges visitors to think about the impact of this direction: “Reform, change, innovation, and other pleasing generalities are in the air and on the lips of the President and his education advisers. Virtually no one on any side of today’s policy debates would oppose these goals in principle. But what will the words mean in practice?” (http://www.elladvocates.org/)

The message received by those attempting to access either of these websites from computers on Aldine’s network reads: “Access to this web page is restricted at this time. Your attempt to access the requested site may be in violation of Aldine ISD policy and has been restricted by the Technology Services Department. Site Category: ‘Education;Political/Activist Groups’”

Participants on the email listserv have challenged Aldine, raising important concerns about the responsibility of government to the public. “This may be [the result of] some site-blocking software, but it seems highly unlikely. Let’s not forget that Aldine ISD and all the other public schools are formally arms of the local governments (and, it could be argued, the state governments). They cannot censor wily-nilly. In this case, I would very much want to know their formal reason for blocking “Education; Political/Activist Groups”, in general, and for classifying any particular site under that label, specifically,” writes Victor Steinbok.

According to Ohanian, Aldine was one of six districts selected in 2007 by the Center for Reform of School Systems to participate in Reform Governance in Action (RGA), described as “a comprehensive two-year training program for school boards and superintendents…. The RGA program is an effort underwritten by the Eli Broad Foundation and the Meadows Foundation to support and encourage reform-minded leadership in school districts across the country. School Boards enrolled in RGA will study ways to better serve their constituents’ needs, how institute effective policy, and how to create and implement a cogent transformation plan.”

Education Week described the school as follows: “Aldine is striking because the district leaves so little to chance when it comes to student success…. It takes little time for a visitor to Aldine to see the heavy emphasis that is placed on preparation for state tests. Computer programs scroll through lists of practice questions. Printers spit out scores for teachers to review. Timed practice quizzes help students prepare for the real thing.”

Related posts

• Alan Singer: Charter Schools Don’t Do Miracles (0)
• Maryland First State to Bar Schools Releasing Tests to Military (0)
• Race to the Top Assessment Program: Part II – The Political Significance of Assessment Governance (0)
• Race to the Top Assessment Program: Part 1 – Danger, Will Robinson, Irrational Discourse Ahead! (0)
• Broad Foundation: Facts on the Wrecking of Public Education (0)

Here’s the state’s press release about King’s appointment:

STATE BOARD OF REGENTS APPOINTS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TO LEAD EDUCATION REFORM EFFORT

The State Board of Regents today announced the appointment of Dr. John B. King, Jr. as Senior Deputy Commissioner for P-12 Education. In his position, King will lead the State’s school reform efforts. He will begin State service on October 5, 2009.

Regents Chancellor Merryl Tisch said, “John King is a nationally recognized education leader with a proven track record of lifting student achievement, particularly for low-income minority students in urban settings. His goal is always the same – ensuring that the students in his care are prepared for college-level work and productive careers.”

“New York’s children, teachers, and schools are fortunate to have John King assume this important leadership position,” said Education Commissioner-elect David M. Steiner, who will begin service as Commissioner on October 1, 2009. Steiner added, “Students have thrived at the schools John King has overseen. And I know he will bring the same commitment to educational excellence to all of New York’s children in his new role at the Education Department.”

King said, “I look forward to working with teachers, school leaders, parents, and all of those throughout the State who are interested in raising student achievement. The Regents have set an aggressive reform agenda and I am thrilled to work with them and Commissioner-elect Steiner to accelerate the progress already underway.”

John King has been recognized across the State and the nation for providing results-driven educational leadership. As co-founder and co-director of the Roxbury Preparatory Charter School in Boston, he developed an instructional program and school culture that provided not only the academic skills but also the self-discipline and character essential for success in high school and college. Under John King’s leadership, Roxbury Prep’s students attained the highest state exam scores of any urban middle school in Massachusetts, closed the racial achievement gap, and outperformed students from not only the Boston district schools but the city’s affluent suburbs. One hundred percent of the school’s students are Black or Latino, over 70% of the students qualify for free or reduced price lunch, and all of its graduates matriculate to college preparatory high schools; 80 percent of the school’s graduates who are now college-age are persisting in college.

In his current role as Managing Director with Uncommon Schools, a non-profit charter management organization that operates schools in New York and New Jersey, Dr. King has continued to improve educational outcomes for low-income students in urban settings. In 2009, 98 percent of grade 3-8 students in the New York State Uncommon Schools network scored at Level 3 or 4 on the State math assessments, compared with 86 percent of all New York students and 82 percent of New York City students. In addition, 89 percent of the New York State Uncommon Schools grade 3-8 students scored at Level 3 or 4 on the State’s English Language Arts assessments, compared with 77 percent at the State level and 69 percent in New York City.

A former high school history teacher from a family of New York City public school educators, John King is a magna cum laude graduate of Harvard College. Additionally, he holds a J.D. from Yale Law School and both an M.A. in the Teaching of Social Studies and an Ed.D. from Teachers College, Columbia University. He has served on the board of New Leaders for New Schools, the nationally recognized principal training program, and is an Aspen Institute-NewSchools Entrepreneurial Leaders for Public Education Fellow.

Related posts

• Alan Singer: Charter Schools Don’t Do Miracles (0)
• Charter Schools/Market Violence/Disruptive Innovation: Student Beating, Paying the Rich, and the Irrelevance of Facts (0)
• Broad Foundation: Facts on the Wrecking of Public Education (0)
• Think Tank Review: Report on Impact of Charters Overstates Results (0)
• “Best Urban School District in America” Blocks Access to Websites Critical of “Education Reform” (0)

She writes:

The state has certified the Chicago Alliance of Charter Teachers and Staff as the bargaining unit for teachers at three campuses of the Chicago International Charter School, which would seem to make it the city’s first unionized charter.

The union is calling on Chicago International Charter School management—which is handled at the three unionizing campuses by Civitas Schools—to sit down with teachers and start hammering out a contract.

Not so fast, Civitas says.

Election vs. card check. The nonprofit management group is arguing that the feds should have jurisdiction over the union certification, not the state. So it’s filed a petition with the National Labor Relations Board. A decision is expected this month.

Civitas’ motivation? Under federal law, the three charter campuses fighting for union representation would have to hold an election to determine whether teachers want the union.

State law doesn’t require an election at the schools, because a majority of teachers have already signed union cards. The Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board says it received 91 signed and dated cards; organizers say that’s about 75 percent of employees at the three campuses.

Civitas’ CEO Simon Hess says he wants teachers to be able to make a “private, informed decision” about whether to join the union. The union says Civitas is stalling and would love to buy time to pressure teachers not to join the union.

Standing behind the fight over unionization is the distinction between public and private. Lutton writes:

The legal fight has forced Civitas to make a prickly argument: Charter schools have worked hard to emphasize they are public schools, funded with public dollars. But in order to fall under the jurisdiction of the NLRB, you’ve got to be a private firm, and that’s what Civitas is arguing. The Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board has jurisdiction over public educational employers.

“I wouldn’t be so certain that you’ve got a bargaining unit there in that charter school as long as there’s a question about whether the employer is a private firm,” said Robert Bruno, a labor expert at UIC.

Then again, arguing you’re a private firm just because “the place is being managed by some private management firm, that’s not gonna wash. They’re still a public entity,” Bruno told me. It’s not a clear-cut case.

Civitas CEO Simon Hess said Civitas is essentially a private vendor. Just because you receive public funds doesn’t mean you’re a public entity, Hess told me.

This raises a key problem: why would public funds be given to a private entity in the first place? The original arguments for what the right-wing calls “government schools” is that public funds should serve public purposes and to ensure public purposes are being served, public oversight is required. That “private vendors” receive public funds under the guise that “charter schools are public schools” yet demand regulations consistent with private not public entities suggests not only a self-serving agenda, but more importantly, a broad shift in the public/private distinction.

Lutton continues, summarizing legal precedent:

There’s been one other case like this, which might give us some idea of how things will turn out. A year ago, teachers at Cambridge Lakes Charter School in Kane County formed a union. Their employer, the Northern Kane Educational Corporation, also argued that the NLRB should have jurisdiction in the case, using the same private employer argument. But the state IELRB ruled otherwise. In a decision issued in November 2008, the IELRB determined that Northern Kane should indeed be considered a public employer subject to the state public educational employer act.

The school’s administration appealed the decision to the appellate court, which is where the case remains.

Who is our boss? That’s one of the first questions Chicago International Charter School teachers faced when they began organizing.

The Chicago International Charter School has 12 campuses—they’re run by four different educational management organizations: two for-profits (EdisonLearning and Victory Schools, Inc.) and two non-profits, American Quality Schools and Civitas.

Civitas was started by Chicago International Charter School in 2002 and is described on the Web site as a “wholly owned subsidiary” of CICS. For you business maj0rs out there, Hess told me that technically Civitas is a limited liability corporation whose sole member is CICS. The Civitas name is on teachers’ paychecks at the campuses it manages, so “we decided they were the employer,” says Northtown Academy teacher Eric Levy.

Related posts

• Buffalo News endorses flawed system of teacher compensation (0)
• Alan Singer: Charter Schools Don’t Do Miracles (0)
• Charter Schools/Market Violence/Disruptive Innovation: Student Beating, Paying the Rich, and the Irrelevance of Facts (0)
• Broad Foundation: Facts on the Wrecking of Public Education (0)
• Think Tank Review: Report on Impact of Charters Overstates Results (0)

Detroit should follow the path of Chicago and New Orleans, says Duncan.  “Duncan, Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, newly elected Detroit Mayor Dave Bing and Robert Bobb, the district’s emergency financial manager, spoke with students at Cody High School about improving education.  The city was Duncan’s second stop on his national ‘Listening and Learning Tour’.”

“He’s got billions of dollars in Race to the Top Recovery Act money that they are willing to invest in the cities that are willing to make the changes necessary to get the results we want,” Granholm said.  Despite evidence that eliminating public control over education improves what goes on inside schools, “Duncan has been a proponent of turning control of Detroit’s school system over to the mayor, and said he is encouraged by Bing’s interest in Detroit schools.”

Williams notes: “An elected school board runs the system, and Detroit voters in 2004 overwhelmingly turned down a proposal to hand over that power to the mayor. But with $5 billion at Duncan’s disposal, Bing doesn’t see a problem. “I think the mood of this city and its citizens have really changed since five years ago. Everybody is pretty much outraged with the outcomes at this point, and a change is necessary.”

Related posts

• Race to the Top Assessment Program: Part II – The Political Significance of Assessment Governance (0)
• Broad Foundation: Facts on the Wrecking of Public Education (0)
• Remarks by the President on Strengthening America’s Education System (0)
• Labor Beat Chicago Video Exposes Duncan’s Record (0)
• “Best Urban School District in America” Blocks Access to Websites Critical of “Education Reform” (0)

Obama [is] behind the destructive strategies of Renaissance 2010 in a way that may just destroy the heart and soul of hundreds of communities across the US. Obama wants to see 5,000 schools closed and ‘turned around,’ which hasn’t worked….  And he’s going to use the precious stimulus money — you know, the money that’s supposed to help create new jobs — to fire thousands of experienced teachers.  Duncan says that ‘The point is to take bold action in persistently low-achieving schools’.  I disagree.  I think the point should be to try to do something that works, not to BOLDLY go expand a program that doesn’t work and actually creates worse problems.”

The post goes on to cite work by William J. Mathis and Charles Payne (who wrote the book, So Much Reform, So Little Change).  The essence is not only that “restructuring” schools does not improve the quality of education for those attending the restructured school, but that it also makes things worse for the students and communities ostensibly being helped.

Again, reports and debates about the merits of governance reform such as mayoral control now being promoted by Arne Duncan have meet with just criticism.  Here too there is little evidence that such reforms “work”.   Sherman Dorn argues that “governance reform” is not reform:

While New York rages over mayoral control, which is all the rage, schools in Pinellas County are headed towards The New Site Based Management, which was the rage in the late 1980s and early 1990s and which Bill Ouchi hopes will be the rage again.  While there are plenty of ways that governance can affect the classroom, I am consistently underwhelmed by the argument that governance reform improves what happens in the classroom.

While these criticisms and observations are certainly warranted and helpful, might they be missing something? 

If someone pursues the same path, over and over again, with little evidence of positive results, yet says they expect different results this time, and are going to push even harder, and even further expand their efforts in this failed direction, even when the chance of obtaining these expected results is extremely unlikely in light of past experience, and the possible negative outcomes for those who are the object of these efforts are likely negative, one has to conclude that the person is (a) insane and/or (b) not being truthful about the purpose of their efforts.  

“What works” is of course the kind of phrase designed to divert attention from the question: what works for whom, to what end? It may just be that these reforms are working well to alter the larger governance structures in the society, with the ideals of improved education the ideological garb that has us all debating the merits of “school reform” when in fact the object of reform is not school, but government itself.

Why not inform these debates with this question: who decides?  Even if “restructuring” or “mayoral control” “worked” shouldn’t the schools and communities who will be effected have a say?  Can research justify the elimination of democratic institutions?  Haven’t we learned our lesson from A Nation at Risk, a report authored by a committee that, in the end, had little regard for “what the facts are”?  Debates about proposed or enacted education reforms that ignore the larger political function of school reform are likely to mask in whose interests these efforts are driven, and what problem are in fact being addressed.

The AP story may have come the closet to going from appearance to essence:  “Obama doesn’t have authority to close and reopen schools himself.  That power rests with local school districts and states.  But he has an incentive in the economic stimulus law, which requires states to help failing schools improve.”  Indeed.  And so, we need an analysis of the political functions of the ARRA, the way in which it serves to alter the rights and responsibilities of the levels and branches of government.

Related posts

• Broad Foundation: Facts on the Wrecking of Public Education (0)
• “Best Urban School District in America” Blocks Access to Websites Critical of “Education Reform” (0)
• “Uncommon Schools” Charter School Executive Will Be NYS Education Deputy (0)
• Are Charter Schools Public Schools? (0)
• Mayor Bing Says Eliminating Democratic Control of Schools (“Change”) is Necessary; Ducan’s “Race to Wreck Education” Funds Used as Wedge Against Detroit Voters (0)

Under “General Principles” for the use of ARRA funds, the law states: “The President and the heads of Federal departments and agencies shall manage and expend the funds made available in this Act so as to achieve the purposes specified in subsection (a) [described above], including commencing expenditures and activities as quickly as possible consistent with prudent management.”      

While the ARRA provides broad latitude to heads of federal agencies, the emphasis on using ARRA funds to compel educators and state and local authorities to adopt the Obama administration’s agenda for education goes beyond what explicitly appears in the ARRA legislation and is possibly contrary to the explicit purpose of the law, that is, to stimulate the economy.

Approximately $100 billion of the stimulus package’s $787 billion is devoted to education programs. While the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD), the national-level association for K-12 educational administrators, recognizes that the ARRA is aimed at “stimulating” the economy and “helping states address their deficits (of which education is one of the largest state expenditures) and forestalling teacher layoffs at the local level,” it also emphasizes another feature of the stimulus. In the ASCD brief entitled “Eligible Education Activities for Funding,” the association observes that, “Education Secretary Arne Duncan has, however, signaled a third priority for this unprecedented federal infusion of education funding: reform.” Duncan demands the funds be used for activities he determines “promote student achievement.”

The one-time nature of the stimulus funding (all of it is to be spent by September 2011 at the latest) encourages expenditures on activities that do not result in ongoing or recurring expenses beyond that date, after which districts will be solely responsible for the costs. Neither the law nor federal policy regarding the disbursement of funds addresses how meeting a main stated objective — forestalling teacher layoffs for example — will not result in “recurring expenditure.” In the words of the ASCD, the Department of Education dictates funds be used to “elevate the quality of the teaching profession by using a significant amount of the stimulus funds for professional development activities.” These activities, it should be noted, will have little impact on “stimulating the economy” although they will serve to enrich for-profit providers of professional development services (the value of which has long been questioned by educators), especially those “approved” by the U.S. Department of Education or state agencies.

Major Areas of Education Funding Within the Stimulus

Most of the nearly $100 billion for education activities will be delivered to states and districts through one of four distinct mechanisms: through the existing Title I and Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) formulae, the state’s primary K-12 funding formula, and competitive grants under the auspices of the Secretary of Education. Both the $5 billion in competitive grants (“Race to the Top” funds) and the more than $50 billion in state fiscal stabilization funds (the largest portion of the ARRA money targeted to education) require application (from school districts and state governors, in the case of stabilization funds), with funds released to each state and district on the condition that the Secretary of Education judges their efforts to be in compliance with President Obama’s vision for education “reform.”

Title I, Part A—$10 billion

Title I is prominent feature of federal K-12 education funding. According to the ASCD: “The $10 billion of stimulus funds earmarked for Title I over the next two years are in addition to the regular appropriation for fiscal year 2009 of $14.5 billion.” Half of this money is being made available immediately (April, 2009), with the other half to be dispursed during the summer and fall of 2009, pending Secretary Duncan’s approval of state spending plans, record keeping and reporting. In addition, 95 percent of these funds must be allocated to districts for “school improvement” activities such as professional development as well as extension of the school day and school year.

In visits to numerous states, Duncan has suggested that states and districts that adopt governance mechanisms that eliminate unions (such as Colorado’s “Innovation Schools Act” providing waivers from collective bargaining agreements) and reduce or eliminate public control of school districts (such Secretary Ducan’s call for mayoral control of urban school districts) will be more likely to receive more ARRA funds than states that are less aggressive in adopting such measures.

Duncan’s model of education, as evidenced in his support of KIPP charter schools and similar charter programs across the U.S. that effectively ban teachers unions, require teachers “who are willing or able to work long hours for low pay” according to an article in Slate magazine. These schools run 10 hour programs during the week, half day programs every other Saturday, and require teachers to be available for hours in the evening for assistance with homework. Not surprisingly, these schools have high rates of teacher turnover, and despite monopoly media reports, do not perform better on state tests.

Title I School Improvement Grants—$3 billion

The School Improvement Grant subprogram under Title I funds “turnaround activities” at schools identified as “in need of improvement” based on the arbitrary testing requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Since 2004, under former Chicago School Chief Executive Officer Arne Duncan, many neighborhood schools in African American and Latino communities have been closed despite public opposition. These schools were subsequently either turned into selective enrollment schools for the wealthy or over to outside “turnaround” specialists leading to corporate charter status. Closing “low performing” schools has been described by Department of Education officials as a key part of “school improvement grants” issued under ARRA.

IDEA Part B— $11.3 billion

Federal funding through IDEA helps “defray the additional costs of states and districts associated with educating students with disabilities” according to the ACSD. The stimulus funding of $11.3 billion essentially doubles the $11.5 billion for IDEA state grants in the fiscal year 2009 appropriation. “Additionally, the stimulus provides $400 million for the IDEA preschool program and $500 million for the IDEA infants and toddlers program.” As with Title I funds, half of this money is being made available immediately. In order to receive the remaining Part B recovery funds, a state must submit, for review and approval by the Department of Educaiton, an amendment to its fiscal year 2009 application to address the recordkeeping and reporting requirements under the ARRA.

Aside from the potential uses of IDEA stimulus dollars below, it is important to note that under the existing IDEA rules, local districts can reduce their state and local expenditures by up to 50 percent of any federal increase received under the normal IDEA appropriation and apply it to ESEA activities. The U.S. Department of Education is encouraging districts to take “advantage of this flexibility to focus the freed-up local funds on one-time expenditures such as the equitable distribution of effective teachers and the quality of assessments.” The move encourages state reliance on federal funding and thus increased federal executive control over state education systems.

State Fiscal Stabilization Fund for Education—$39.8 billion

$48.3 billion is earmarked for state use under the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund and is allocated to states by formula: 61 percent on the basis of relative population of 5–24-year-olds and 39 percent on the basis of the relative share of the total population. The money is divided into two pots for use within states. The largest pot, $39.8 billion, must be used to restore (in equal proportions) both a state’s K-12 and higher education funding to either fiscal year 2008 or fiscal year 2009 levels, whichever is higher. States must distribute these funds to local districts based on the state’s primary education funding formula. If any funds remain after K-12 funding restoration, such a surplus will be distributed to districts on the basis of the Title I formula (but is not required to be used for Title I activities).

This method does not take into account actual state and district financial needs, serving to exacerbate inequalities between states and regions. For example, states such as Texas, Alaska and Wyoming have not cut K-12 funding, yet they will nonetheless receive stimulus funds aimed at restoring educational funding. Rural districts will receive relatively little ARRA funds as a result of this calculation. States such as California and Florida will not receive enough funds under this formula to achieve the stated aim of “restoring funding” to previous levels.

The second pot, the remaining $8.5 billion, is to be used for “public safety” and other government operations and may include K-12 services (or the renovation/repair of school facilities—but not new building construction). At the district level, there are specific provisions related to the use of education funds, which can be used for any activities under No Child Left Behind, IDEA, the Adult and Family Literacy Act, or the Carl. D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act (Perkins Act).

To receive the initial 67 percent of the State’s allocation under the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, a Governor must submit to the Department of Education an application that includes assurances that the State will commit to advancing education reform in four specific areas:

(1) Achieving equity in teacher distribution;
(2) Improving collection and use of data;
(3) Enhancing the quality of standards and assessments; and
(4) Supporting struggling schools.

Secretary’s Innovation Fund—$5 billion

The most direct and obvious stimulus investment in education reform is a $5 billion fund overseen by the Secretary of Education to promote his four reform priorities. The “Race to the Top Fund” is $4.35 billion worth of competitive grants to states “making the most progress” in reform as determined by the Secretary.

The Investing in What Works and Innovation Fund is $650 million in competitive grants to Local Education Authorities (LEAs) and nonprofits that “have made significant gains in closing achievement gaps and are models of best practices. Because the grants are awarded on a competitive basis and are also somewhat contingent on state and district use of other stimulus funds, the government will award these grants last. The 2010 awards will be made in two rounds, first in late fall 2009 and then again in summer of 2010,” according to the ASCD.

Education Technology State Grants— $650 million

The stimulus plan provides $650 million for the Enhancing Education Through Technology (EETT, or E2T2) state grant program beyond the fiscal year 2009 appropriation of $270 million. The program helps districts utilize technology to improve teaching and learning to increase student achievement and technological literacy. States must use 25 percent of stimulus funds distributed under this program for professional development.

Related posts

• Race to the Top Assessment Program: Part II – The Political Significance of Assessment Governance (0)
• Broad Foundation: Facts on the Wrecking of Public Education (0)
• Remarks by the President on Strengthening America’s Education System (0)
• Labor Beat Chicago Video Exposes Duncan’s Record (0)
• “Best Urban School District in America” Blocks Access to Websites Critical of “Education Reform” (0)

“If folks are playing shell games, if folks are operating in bad faith, it puts their second chance at billions of dollars in jeopardy,” he said. “We have significant carrots and sticks.” — Arne Duncan, April 15, Chicago Tribute.

In a April 1, Washington Post interview, under the banner of “New Voices of Power,” staff writer Lois Romano queries Secretary of Education Arne Duncan: “So you have all this money, but, in a sense, aren’t you a little bit powerless because, in the end, the States are going to decide how to spend the money?”

Duncan: “Well, we’re going to work very, very closely with those states, and we’ve given out–we will give out over the next couple weeks billions of dollars, but we’re going to keep billions of dollars here to really watch and monitor how states do in terms of implementing these reforms.”

“Secondly, there’s unprecedented discretionary dollars, a $5-billion Race to the Top Fund where we’re going to work exclusively with those states and those districts that are really willing to challenge the status quo and get dramatically better.”

“So we’ve never had greater resources, more carrots, but also some sticks to make sure that we’re doing the right thing by children around the country.”

Lois Romano: “You talked about carrots and sticks. What are your sticks going to be?”

Duncan: “Well, again, if states aren’t doing the right thing with the stimulus package, basically they’re going to disqualify themselves from even competing for the Race to the Top Fund, and so there’s a huge financial incentive.”

During a March 24 interview with Education Week reporters Alyson Klein, Michele McNeil, and Stephen Sawchuk, Secretary Duncan was asked the following question: “Would you ever ask for money back if you found that states didn’t use it in the way you think was intended?”

Duncan: “We want to be very, very clear: If things are not going the way we like, we are going to challenge that. But … I’m much more interested in getting it right the first time, and it is absolutely in states’ best interest … to get it right the first time.”

Again Duncan is querried: “There are a couple of states [for example South Carolina] that made news because they want to reject stimulus money, especially education money. Are you working with people in those states to figure out how to possibly still get some of that stimulus money into those states, or is it going to be a dead end for you all?”

Duncan: “We are absolutely working with folks in those states who care passionately about the care of their children’s education, and there isn’t a state in the country [that] doesn’t have tremendous unmet educational need. … And so we are actually looking to be creative and work with people who have a vision and a passion for this and want to do the right thing by children.”

The reporters push Duncan: “What can you do?”

Duncan: “Stay tuned.”

Arbitrary Power against the Public & the Crisis of Legitimacy

Since being appointed Secretary of Education by President Obama, Arne Duncan and the U.S. Department of Education have initiated a massive media campaign of interviews, speeches, and news and department press releases, a sample of which is reprinted above, which focus on how the Obama Administration will use ARRA funds to further its agenda for education, with Ducan emphasizing that “this is the President’s vision.”

Key to this campaign is the role given to “incentives” at the disposal of executives, such as Duncan, who arbitrarily use the funds to support “what they like”. “We have significant carrots and sticks,” Ducan emphasizes. This arbitrary use of large sums of the public treasury by executive and unelected officials signals a significant concentration of power and a challenge to the constitutional powers given to states. But one cannot understand the drive to increase executive power, the secretary’s emphasis on “carrots and sticks,” absent an understanding of the opposition to “the President’s vision” for education.

As outlined in speeches by both Obama and Duncan, the administration is calling for more high-stakes testing, academic sweatshops for teachers and students in the form of corporate run charter schools and more mayoral control of urban school districts against more, not less, public control over education. Yet, by the U.S. Department of Education’s own accounts, and by the accounts chronicled in decades worth of independent research on school reform, not to mention people’s own direct experience these “reforms”, none of these methods have served to improve education.

So why the continued pursuit of “reforms” that have not served the aims for which they were officially established? Why the emphasis on “carrots and sticks” or what amounts to outright bribery?

While Duncan misuses the carrot and stick idiom (as it refers to a “carrot on a stick,” where a driver would tie a carrot on a string to a long stick and dangle it in front of the donkey, just out of its reach, to induce the donkey forward) the content of bribery is clear.

To bribe means to “persuade (someone) to act in one’s favor by a gift of money or other inducement”. Importantly, bribery only makes sense in the face of a norm, standard or other basis for refusal to act in a manner desired by the person offering the bribe. What is very significant from the political point of view is that, as a form of persuasion, bribery does not rest on reasoned argument, the use of facts and logic to justify a proposed course of action. At the level of federal law and policy, bribery is a form of persuasion that rests on the open assertion of authority against public opinion: one would not need to bribe educators and locally elected officials into doing what was inherently in their interest. The use of the public treasury to bribe educators is an open admission that the path being imposed by the ruling elite cannot be justified.

Thus, the use of ARRA funds to compel educators to take up “reforms” that have already been discredited as ineffective and against voters demand for change (not more of the same Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush cooperate education agenda) signals a profound legitimacy crisis. It signals a fairly broad opposition within official organizations to the wrecking of public education. The National School Boards Association has, for example, continually opposed mayoral control as both ineffective and anti-democratic. Every major education research organization, such as the American Psychological Association and the American Educational Research Association, has opposed in some form, to take another example, the use of high-stakes testing. Only a few weeks ago, Warrick County (Indiana) Superintendent Brad Schneider criticized the Bush-sponsored No Child Left Behind (NCLB) act as “mind-boggling” and “absurd.” And, public opinion still supports public education against privatization.

The transformation of public funds into “carrots and sticks” to be used against students, educators and parents must be rejected as an illegitimate use of power against public opinion. It must also be recognized as an admission on the part of the elite that they have no solutions to the problems in education and society. What is needed is more, not less, control over institutions that have an inherent public function.

Related posts

• Clifford Adelman’s “White Noise of Accountability” (0)
• Race to the Top Assessment Program: Part II – The Political Significance of Assessment Governance (0)
• Broad Foundation: Facts on the Wrecking of Public Education (0)
• Is Thinking a “Skill”? Values and Problems in Thinking About the “Liberal Arts” (0)
• Realism and Social Change (0)