When the Status Quo Isn’t

Fix the Mitten, an excellent blog hosted by Nick Krieger, recently had a post that decried the ability of local journalists to report on educational issues. Nick uses the post to point out that the word “reform,” when associated with education, has become code for “destroy.” As Nick eloquently puts it, “It is a code word for experimenting with poor kids and promoting private enterprise at the expense of urban public school districts.”

I want to pick up on this theme and explore it a little bit more. I am a bit shocked after all of these years of education reform, that “reform” is still given as an alternative to the “status quo.” Fix the Mitten shares that local Detroit Channel 4 reporter Devin Scillian, a reporter with a relatively solid sense of educational issues (again, something all too rare in today’s reporting) tweeted that, “If the opposite of reform is the status quo it’s hard to argue against reform.” The argument that the “status quo” needs to be reformed has actually worked to allow for a free market disruption of the common good at the expense of our children in order to create private profit. Knowingly or not, Scillian’s comment functions to promote the free market narrative of competition as the means towards reform, a narrative that has become so insidious that it is part of our language.

I would like to suggest that the opposite of reform, in fact, is not the status quo. Rather, the opposite of reform (as it is used in education currently) is actually investment and support.

Let’s take a very brief look at Detroit and see how this so-called reform has worked to date.

  • Detroit Public schools has had democracy put on hold with the imposition of an Emergency Manager. During that time, its debt has increased by over $100 million.
  • At the same time, unchecked charter growth has exacerbated the drain from DPS of needed resources. DPS enrollment is predicted at just over 38,000 for fall of 2016, down from almost 96,000 in 2008-09.
  • The lowest performing schools in the state were taken from DPS and instead placed in the Education Achievement Authority, a state-wide district that isn’t actually state-wide (limited to DPS schools) and has proven by all accounts to be a colossal failure.

According to policy expert David Arsen, such “reform” is going exactly as planned by our current Governor, Rick Snyder.(Yes, that Rick Snyder.)

“The Governor’s Education Agenda: Disruptive Innovation
In April 2011, soon after assuming office and just two months before announcing the EAA, Governor Snyder issued a special message setting forth his agenda for public education (Snyder, 2011). Noting the mediocre performance of Michigan’s public schools by several measures and the need to compete on a world scale, the governor called for sweeping changes in the provision of educational services. The plan offered a hopeful vision of educational innovation, entrepreneurship, and markets that would usher in improved models of instruction and student outcomes across the state. The policies would disrupt the prevailing complacency and mediocrity, ‘jettison the status quo’ (p. 2), and move Michigan ‘from school systems to systems of schools'(p. 8)”

Charter profit

This market imposition has created a weird dynamic, one which, as researcher Dan Cohen writes, has established a competition between traditional public schools and charter schools (a majority of which are for-profit) for state money: “The result: what are essentially two separate school systems — one traditional, one charter — in direct competition for students and state funding.”

All of this is intentional. This “disruption” ripens public education for profit and plunder in a state that has the greatest percentage of for-profit charter schools in the country, in a city that is isolated by a history of structural racism and ridden with poverty.

It hasn’t seemed to work too well for anybody except the share holders of charter schools.

So, what really has occurred here, is that a fairly stable system (though one that was in need of investment and the support that educating within a context of poverty requires) was completely  and intentionally disrupted by “reform.”

Which is bad enough.

But now, to have that disrupted system referred to as the “status quo” in need of reform is incredibly ignorant, or disingenuous, or just plain mean. It is victim blaming at its worse. DPS has been taken over by the state, charters have drained its resources, it has been ravaged by privatization, all to the point that mushrooms have been growing in its classrooms, and this is the status quo that needs reform?

All of this amounts to a refusal to look at the context of poverty and race. According to the National Center for Educational Statistics, “…nationwide about three-fourths of both African American and Hispanic young people (compared to about one-third of white students) attend schools where most of their classmates qualify as low income. The analysis expands on that national portrait to examine the extent of economic isolation at the city level. That assessment points to one overwhelming conclusion: economic isolation and the concentration of poverty among students of color afflicts not only a few struggling cities, but virtually all cities—including many that have seen the most robust growth in jobs, incomes and population since the Great Recession…these factors have left most African American and Hispanic students marooned in schools where economic struggle is the rule and financial stability—and all the social and educational benefits that flow from that—is very much the exception.” (Emphasis added)

You want to really reform education? Reform economic isolation and the concentration of poverty.

Or do you want to make a profit? Then keep up this “reform” and pretend it’s for the kids.

(Cartoon from Weapons of Mass Destruction web-page. Check it out!)

Look Out 2016

I was out with some friends yesterday to close out the holidays. The issue of education and “fixing schools” in poor urban areas came up. I explained how school “success” is measured by the use of “achievement data,” and that the results of these test scores have a high correlation to socio-economic status. Thus poor schools are set up for failure because of their poverty, and all of public education is blamed and this blame is then used as justification for disinvesting in public education, while increasing the opportunity for profit through privatization.

It was a short conversation. Some questions. No arguments. It was simple. My highly privileged friends got it immediately.

Why is it so hard for others?

Today I woke up and read a piece in the Detroit Free Press called, “2016: Stories to Watch.”  There were two separate paragraphs written by Rochelle Riley, a well known opinion editor for the Free Press, which is positioned as the “liberal” news source in opposition to the “conservative” Detroit News. (I put quotes around those words because I’m truly not sure what they mean anymore, other than to serve as abstractions that we can organize meaningless differences around.)

In the first paragraph, Riley writes about, “A tale of two Detroits.” This has become a common concern in Detroit as it attempts to recovery economically. The concern is that those of privilege are the beneficiaries of the Detroit’s gentrification, while the marginalized continue to struggle. Riley describes the “two Detroits”: “Detroit is a city of two tales…one of sunshine and joy and renaissance. The other a landscape of shadows, and hurt and longing.” Riley rightly ends with her concern of, “whether Detroit’s comeback is an equal opportunity employer.”

All well and good so far.

But next, Riley writes about schools in Detroit without making any connection between the context that these schools exist within, and their position in serving those most marginalized in her previous paragraph on the “two Detroits.”

This absolutely boggles my mind.

Riley writes on Detroit’s renaissance, “Success can come only with a viable working education system for Detroit kids that trains them to be responsible, tax-paying adults.”

I’m not sure how to even address this sentence, as it leaves so many questions.

First, it sees those in poverty through the deficit lens, assuming that those suffering from poverty must be in this condition because of their lack of “responsibility,” which leaves them unable to pay taxes. This is clearly something that these people need to be “trained” out of.

Paul Thomas succinctly explains how the language of deficit  functions this way:

“… the message persists that impoverished parents lack something that is thus passed on to their children, who must have that lack filled.

In other words, we are not willing to turn our deficit gaze away from the victims of poverty and toward the systemic conditions creating that poverty… (Emphasis added)

Abondoned Detroit Classroom

In one simple sentence, Riley, intentionally or not, shifts the gaze of her readers, and thus accountability, from the systemic conditions that created poverty, to the victims of that poverty.

Linked to this is the idea of “what works.” Again, “what works” in schools is measured by achievement data. And the students in these schools are set up for failure. The game is absolutely, unequivocally rigged against them.

As I’ve written previously,

“…when we are unavoidably involved in anything to do with achievement data’ we must act with the recognition that such data is not a reflection of ability.  Nor is it a reflection of achievement.  It is simply a marker of privilege. ‘Achievement data’ tells us what we already know from history – our society is full of inequalities, and race and poverty are the organizing principles of these inequalities. This data, taken as real, has become the lever for the current education reform movement that is decimating our public education system.”

 Riley has fallen into the trap of assuming that achievement data is a meaningful measure of “what works.” She fails to recognize that, rather than measuring “achievement,” this data simply shows us where privilege lies. In this case, it tells us what we already know- that the students in Detroit are ravaged by a history of racism and poverty.


And this makes a following sentence in Riley’s article downright chilling. “…I plan to take a continuing look at programs that work. Every program should work. If it doesn’t it should be shut down– something I called for concerning DPS in my first column in October 2000.” (Emphasis added)


So much for an investment of resources where those resources are most needed. So much for recognizing the increased need for support that conditions of poverty create. So much for addressing the structural conditions that lead to poverty in the first place.

DPS refers to Detroit Public Schools. Shut down.

A visible, clear statement for the privatization of our public school systems.

People used to be ashamed of making these kinds of statements, especially in a “liberal” newspaper.

Look out 2016.

Photo (http://detroitarchitectjournal.blogspot.com/2012/02/story-of-timbuktu_06.html)

The Blame for Our Failures

It’s been another miserable year for educators.

I could spend some time giving a detailed list of all of the negatives, but I’m tired. So just trust me on this.

I do, though, want to try to summarize the most disheartening thing to me. That is, the continued narrative that makes schools both the savior of our society (read, “economy”), and therefore, as the gap between our aspirations and our reality remains,  the recipient of the blame for our failures.

Unfortunately, I can continue to provide much evidence for this within my state of  Michigan. More precisely, my state’s approach to “fixing” the “problem of Detroit schools.” First of all let me begin to deconstruct the narrative of this line of thinking.


This narrative of “fixing schools” depends upon the myth that education is the means of escaping poverty. Unfortunately, with exceptions that prove the rule, this simply is not true. Matt Bruenig shows,”One convenient way to describe what’s going on is that rich kids are more likely to get a better education, which translates into being richer and wealthier as adults. It is certainly the case that richer kids are more likely to get a college degree, and it is certainly the case that getting a college degree leaves you much better off on average than not getting one. But this does not explain the full picture of social immobility…

So, you are 2.5x more likely to be a rich adult if you were born rich and never bothered to go to college than if you were born poor and, against all odds,  went to college and graduated. The disparity in the outcomes of rich and   poor kids persists, not only when you control for college attainment, but even when you compare non-degreed rich kids to degreed poor. 

Therefore, the answer to the question in the title is that you are better off being born rich regardless of whether you go to college than being born poor  and getting a college degree.”

So  let’s be clear. “Fixing schools” is not the means  for students to escape poverty


In fact, “Fixing schools” can not occur without addressing poverty. The narrative of “fixing schools” addresses issues in isolation from the context they exist within. It ignores the context of poverty and racism, and imagines schools, teachers and children as isolated from the debilitating effects of these. Then, because these effects are ignored, the logic of this narrative leaves no one to blame for “poor performance” except teachers, children and their parents. In addition, the use of “achievement data” (ie., high stakes test scores) as the means of measuring the success of schools ensures that those schools most affected by poverty and structural racism are also set up for failure by these measurements.  As I’ve written previously,

“My point is not that standardized tests reflect a reality that students of color  are ‘under-performing’ in schools.  My point is that the design and context  of the tests are an imposition of a racist frame upon this so-called ‘reality.’ My point is that the tests…actually ensure the outcome before the tests are even taken.”

To summarize, this narrative of “fixing schools” depends upon the myth of education as the answer to all societal ills, works to effectively ignore the conditions of poverty of racism while reifying the conditions of poverty and racism, blames schools, teachers, children and parents for the failure, and finally, as a trump card of the double bind, uses this blame as justification for disinvesting in public education.

It’s truly twisted, and leaves me tired and despairing at the end of this year.

This narrative appears subtly. And it mostly appears in what is not said. Here’s a brief example from the Detroit Free Press’s lauding of the new ESSA act:

“The new law maintains a focus on making schools accountable for the performance of poor, minority, special education and limited English speaking students. That’ll be key in a state like Michigan, which ranks as among the worst states in the U.S. for the performance of African-American students on a rigorous national exam. There are also troubling, large gaps in performance between minority students and white students on the state’s exam.” (Emphasis added)

Note that there is no mention of the effect of poverty, merely the mention of individual, “poor, minority…students.” This obscures the effect of the conditions of poverty while individualizing these conditions. We are left with a fantasy of individuals who can “be saved” from poverty, rather than on poverty as a condition itself that is addressable. It also reinforces the measurement of tests that serve to reify racism, without mentioning racism as a cause of these “large gaps.”

And who is left accountable for the ills of society? Schools.

It’s crazy.

We won’t change schools until we address the structures that stratify according to race and class. It’s simple. And it’s difficult. But to put our hope in anything else is a waste of time.

MLK Poverty

I’ve recently discovered the work of Lisa Patel. (Read it.) She succinctly summarizes:

“To critique education as an institution is, then, to critique the nation itself. To reckon with the longstanding race, class and gender stratification that is, in part, delivered by schools is to acknowledge that schools are deeply connected to the bidding of a larger national structure, put in place hundreds of years ago and reshaped into subvariants throughout history.”

Sure, it’s a big task. But let’s not waste any more time.

Please read:

Education as the Great Equalizer Deforming Myth. Not Reality, Paul Thomas

Photo from voicesofdetroit.net

Recognizing Community, Recognizing Its Members

Note: This is blog written for Dr. Ethan Lowenstein’s students at Eastern Michigan University. Ethan is a master of Placed Based Education, leadership and community building. He also serves as the director of the Southeast Michigan Stewardship Coalition, a tremendous resource for PBE.

One of the more promising antidotes to the alienated individualism of the “ethic of achievement” in schools lies in the use of Restorative Practices.  As I’ve written previously,

“We tend to look at schools through the ethic of achievement. Students’ purpose is to achieve success, and this success is measured by grades and test scores. Part of the hidden curriculum in this view is that students are valued in accordance to their level of achievement. This valuing is not overt, but it is nonetheless real. And achievement becomes the means to garnering future economic success. This, again , reinforces a privatized view of student as consumer, and sees the purpose of schools as being the production of economic achievers and consumers.”

The theory underlying Restorative Practices, on the other hand, is based on the use of the lens of community rather than the competitive lens of achievement as the view through which we see our relationships in school. This theory understands that the root of learning is the same as the foundation for being human- that is, that belonging trumps everything. That this sense of belonging is a fundamental necessity in learning. If I feel that I belong, that who I am matters and is honored, then I will engage as a responsible member of this community. Education, in this view, is not about the individual success that leads to greater “status” and an increased income and ability to consume. Such “success” functions to create the illusion of independence and thus distances us from the necessity of the context of community. Rather, Restorative Practices correctly imagine students as being dependent upon the nexus of relationships that occur within the context of school. It imagines that, rather than being a pathway out of community and abstracted from place, the purpose of education is to build and strengthen the social capital of community. These practices recognize and leverage the necessity of our interdependence with the people involved in our community, and thus require us to learn the skills needed to function within the communities we live within.

And all of this is crucially important.

But it doesn’t address what we mean by “community.” And a definition of “community” that isn’t explicitly broad will end up reducing community to being defined as people.

So join me in thinking this through a little.

If we define community as a nexus of interdependent relationships, that is, those relationships that we are dependent on for thriving, then community certainly includes, but is not limited to, the human. In addition to the people we are connected, knowingly or not, we are also clearly dependent on, among other things, the air we breathe, the water we drink and the soil we grow our food in. I don’t think I need to point out that currently our dominant culture commodifies these “members” of our community in a way that obscures our dependence on them.

And how is this working for us?

Let’s explore a local example. The governor of Michigan has appointed an emergency manager to the city of Flint.  This move, and the law that allows for it, eradicates community participation under democratic elections and replaces it with an autocracy that prioritizes the value of economic efficiency over all other values. As a result, one decision that the emergency manager of Flint made was to save money by no longer getting quality water from the Detroit Water and Sewage Department, but instead to pump it from the local and polluted Flint River as a means of saving money.  

The result?

As told by the Detroit Free Press:

“Mona Hanna-Attisha, a researcher at Flint’s Hurley Medical Center, analyzed blood-lead level information collected as part of a routine screening process, and found that the percentage of Flint children with elevated blood-lead levels has increased significantly since the city started pumping water from the Flint River in April 2014. In some ZIP codes — those considered most at-risk — the percentage of kids affected by lead has doubled.”

And how much lead is safe in children?

“The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says that there is no safe blood-lead level for children. Lead poisoning causes a host of developmental and behavioral problems in exposed children. It is irreversible.”

A decision based on economics, one that was made outside of the bounds of community, has led to the poisoning of Flint residents that has disproportionately affected its children.

Clearly, the adults of this community are dependent upon each other. Clearly, the children of this community are dependent upon the adults. And clearly, all are dependent upon the quality of their water. So each of these are important in the health of this community. Each of these need to have a voice that is heard.

The practice of community building and restoration always involves hearing the voice of the “Other”- those voices that would otherwise go unheard, unseen, that are marginalized sometimes in ways that we might be unaware of. So community building and restoration always involves seeing what we haven’t seen before, and hearing what we haven’t heard before. How, then, do we include the voice of the Other when the Other can’t speak? How do we include the Other when the Other isn’t human? Who, in this case, will speak for the Other?

The fact of the matter is that, when we are interdependent, the Other will always speak. The water in Flint is now speaking loud and clear.  It is speaking through its toxicity. It is making its needs clear in the symptoms that it creates, in the damage it is doing. Children who are marginalized in school speak through their misbehavior or disengagement. Poor water quality speaks through lead in the bodies of children. Poor air quality speaks through lung pollution. Poor soil speaks through drought and the addiction to chemical fertilization, which leads to poor water quality, which leads to poisoned children. The Other will always speak, and will always will scream for us recognize our interdependence with it through symptoms that affect our health and the quality of our communal life.

So the issue isn’t the “speech” of the Other, but it is our ability to listen.

The first step is recognizing this interdependence.

The second is to listen for it.

Restorative Practices are a fairly new movement within schools, but they are not new. We look at them as progressive, and they are in our times, but they are actually based on the traditions of the indigenous Maori of New Zealand. As practices they go back to what has worked within community for thousands of years. In this sense they are deeply conservative. And conservative really means “to conserve” those things that “work.” (I put this in quotes because in our times, what “works” is often reduced to that which is economically expedient.)  The most “conservative” communities are always those indigenous to place. Their ways are the ways that necessarily “work” in accordance with place. If we are to live on what the Native Americans call Turtle Island and we have named America, we should probably look back to some of the traditions that have worked here for thousands of years. In fact, until relatively recently, most humans have necessarily acted with the awareness that we are always dependent upon the sources of our life that sustain us, the non human elements that make up our community. Chief Seattle famously put it this way:

Man did not weave the web of life, he is merely a strand in it. Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself.

All things share the same breath – the beast, the tree, the man… the air shares its spirit with all the life it supports.”

We used to recognize that all of the members of our community, human and non-human, are “sacred.” By this I don’t mean anything spiritual in a woo-woo way. I mean something much different, something very concrete, and, in the deepest sense, something very practical.  Parker Palmer said that the sacred is, “That which is most worthy of respect.” People, specific, concrete, living, breathing people, are most worthy of respect. The children we work with are most worthy of respect. The air we breathe is most worthy of respect. The water we drink is most worthy of respect. Anything that we are interconnected with is necessarily most worthy of respect. These are sacred. And one way or another, we always pay the cost for any disrespect. We always pay the price for treating the sacred as profane, for making a commodity of anything that is sacred.

How to live and work with this awareness?  How to teach with this awareness?

Again, how to include the voices of the ignored?

I wish I had all of the answers.

But there is little doubt in my mind that we need to begin to educate in way that builds and restores a holistic view of community. We need to resist the commodification of our teachers and schools, of our children, of our earth. We need to develop the means and skills of combining Restorative Practices with a strong grounding in Ecojustice. This work is all of ours, just as the consequences for not doing so are consequences that we all will face.

Why Flint’s Water Crisis May Be a Boon for #EdReform

Let me start with some background information.

My home state of Michigan has a law that allows an Emergency Manager to be put in place. This  Emergency Manager has dictatorial control. Decisions that were previously made by a democratically elected city council or school board are given over to an appointee of the governor.

If you are a citizen of a country that purports itself to be a democracy, you may have some obvious concerns about this.

If you are a fan of human rights, there are even more.

One of the decisions that the Emergency Manager of Flint has made is to end its contract with Detroit Water and Sewage Department and instead pump water from the local and polluted Flint River for its residents. The good news is that it saves some money. The bad news is that this move is poisoning the residents of Flint.

According to the Detroit Free Press“Mona Hanna-Attisha, a researcher at Flint’s Hurley Medical Center, analyzed blood-lead level information collected as part of a routine screening process, and found that the percentage of Flint children with elevated blood-lead levels has increased significantly since the city started pumping water from the Flint River in April 2014. In some ZIP codes — those considered most at-risk — the percentage of kids affected by lead has doubled.”

And how much lead is safe in children?

“The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says that there is no safe blood-lead level for children. Lead poisoning causes a host of developmental and behavioral problems in exposed children. It is irreversible.” (Emphasis added)

Which, to me, calls forward a seemingly obvious question: What is more important, economic efficiency or human lives?

I guess we know where the Flint Emergency Manager and Michigan governor stand, because they don’t quite seem to be accepting the data.

“Michigan Department of Health and Human Services spokeswoman Angela Minicuci told the Free Press on Thursday that the increase was ‘seasonal and not related to the water supply.'”


Despite the state’s efforts to discredit the Hurley data, the state’s own data show that there are a higher percentage of kids in Flint with elevated lead levels in their blood after the switch.” (Emphasis added)

So, any level of lead in the blood of a human is unsafe, and yet, the state is arguing that the increase in lead in the bodies of children in Flint is seasonal, as if:

1. Such an increase can be rationalized.

2. The state and its governor can wash its hands of this particular situation.

detroit-water-shut-off-400x240 (1)

And what does all of this have to do with education reform?

Remember, the way that our current crop of top down, data driven education reformers imagine education is via the vehicle of wishful thinking that assumes that teachers and students are alienated individuals who work in isolation from social systems. This logic thus suggests these teachers and students are responsible for their own success and failure. The way to reform is then to reward the successes of these individuals, and to punish their failures. Failure leads to school closures, which leads to privatization (and its corollary of profit-making for some) often in the form of quasi-public, directly for-profit charters. Distractions offered by the social context that they work within, such as poverty or the poisoning of their water sources, are irrelevant because responsibility for success and failure lies completely within the control of the students and teachers involved.

So, forgive my simplification, but the formula goes; low test scores leads to profit for some.

Now, if an entirely evil person were to develop a plan that would ensure low test scores, thereby ripening the potential for profit, what might this person do? Maybe slip something into the children’s water source to  decrease their cognitive ability? This would ensure low test scores, create “school failure,” and allow for all of the profit-making such school failure leads to. (Because of the underlying assumptions explained above, it would also wonderfully and magically point all blame to the victims themselves.)

Can you spell F…l…i…n…t?

Let me be clear. I am not suggesting that Governor Snyder is an evil person with an evil plan. I do not pretend to know his intentions.

However, his intentions are irrelevant to the people who are suffering under his policies. What is relevant is the effect that his policies are having on communities. What is relevant is how his policies actually function. And the effect of his policies is exactly what is spelled out above. If his intentions include  helping and supporting people, then it seems  that he would begin to take responsibility for the damage his polices are having.

It seems he would take responsibility for the imposing autocratic decision-making processes where once there was the accountability offered by democracy.

It seems he would take responsibility for the dismantling of  our schools, and for the poisoning of our children.

Meanwhile, the rest of us need to see the connections between water and schooling- between the suffering of our children and the “failure” of our schools. We have to stop seeing poverty, ecological health, mental health and education as separate categories and start to understand that there is truly one issue that works across categories:  Exploitation for the sake of profit.

This is what we must resist in all of the forms we find it.

Photo credit

Symptoms and Schools

Schools either replicate the illnesses of our social system, or, in the best possible sense, can serve as resistance to, and provide of vision of alternatives to our current social system. Recognizing that school takes place within a broader context, and recognizing that the broader context influences school, allows educators to be intentional about behaving in ways that increase health, or not.

In this interview, Canadian Dr. Gabor Mate, an expert in addiction, stress and childhood development, helps us to see these connections.

“I’m intending to write a book tentatively called Toxic Culture: How Capitalism Makes us Sick. That’s the working title. My contention is that the very nature of the system in which people live their lives is a significant source of illness. Now there are obvious factors like environmental pollution, toxins, and then of course there are the social determinants of health that you write about in A Healthy Society: the impact of poverty, the impact of inequality, the impact of history and continued racism. ….

But I’m going to go beyond even that and say that even the people who are not on the wrong end of economic inequality or systemic racism are still made ill just by how we live our lives. The stress that we live under, the competition, the aggressiveness, the uncertainty, the loss of control that we experience in our lives. The gender inequalities, these are not just social phenomena, they have an actual impact on community health. The isolation people are experiencing.

The question for educators then, is in what ways does an education reform policy that is based on unfair competition (in that it ignores social circumstances),that ignores the fundamental importance of a healthy context of relationships supported by community, in what ways does such an approach add to the stress and alienation our children experience? In what was does an approach to education reform that objectifies and reduces the value of our children to their test results exacerbate the suffering of our children and our teachers while interfering with their learning?

These are the kinds of questions that need to enter into the discussion. Because, regardless of how hard we try, we can’t ignore our humanity and the humanity of our children. Regardless of our attempts to look away, the symptoms that Mate talks about  will continue to point to the direction we need to move in.

What’s the Organizing Force of #EdReform?

Truthout has an excellent new article on the role that the “Non Profit Industrial Complex” has played in the rise of charter schools, and in the demise of community agency. Robert Skeels, the author of The Nonprofit Industrial Complex’s Role in Imposing Neoliberalism on Public Education, rightly points out that as most charter schools are managed by either private corporations or non-profits, they are actually private schools. As such, they represent a loss to the commons of the local. Here Skeels touches on the implications:

“It is important to use the phrase ‘privately managed charters’ because the deep pocketed charter advocacy NPICs continually bombard the public with the mendacious phrase ‘public charter schools.’ By definition if a charter is run by a non-profit, then it is not public. The United States Census Bureau frames this issue best: ‘A few “public charter schools” are run by public universities and municipalities. However, most charter schools are run by private nonprofit organizations and are therefore classified as private.’ (US Census Bureau vi). The more of our schools that are handed over to these private sector organizations, the less agency our communities have, and the more control those espousing neoliberalism have over our lives. Our rulers don’t just want exclusive control over the governance and finances of our schools, they want to control both what is taught and by whom.” (Emphasis added.)

In states like Michigan, over 80% of the charters are run by for-profit agencies, and the number of charters continues to increase,  so Skeels’ point is important to remember and consider. And in reading the article we find that his use of the word “rulers” above is not mere hyperbole.  Skeels does an excellent job of connecting the dots between our children and what he calls “the Broad/Gates/Walton Triumvirate.”

“In exhaustive survey of what these three mega-foundations have done to undermine public education nationwide (e.g. The Gates Foundation’s machinations behind the malignant Common Core State Standards) exceeds the scope of this essay.”

Skeels goes on to explicate the machinations of this triumvirate in Los Angeles, a pattern that is recognizable in most urban cities in the U.S.

Most interesting to me is the link specifically between the Common Core and *neoliberal practices.”  I’ve written about this connection between standardization and economic efficiency previously:

“Again, why standardization?

Because it allows for economic efficiency, predictable outcomes and technocratic control.  This is what allows for the creation of income. However, we must recognize the purpose for which standardization has historically been used, and the contextual boundaries that it is now leaping over. We must continually ask, what do we want for our children?” (Also see here.)

Skeels recognizes that the Common Core Standards, funded and supported largely by the Broad/Gates/Walton Triumvirate, impose a neoliberal agenda on schools while at the same time using their power to remove contestation of this agenda from the public. Such contestation between goals and means is supposedly a core principle of a democratic societies.

Very sneaky.

Very effective.


However, Skeels goes one step further in helping us to see institutional racism behind this agenda, and, through the free market value of “choice,” the resegration and increased inequity this “choice” has brought with it. He quotes the scholar Antonia Darder:

“The rhetoric of choice effectively capitalized upon discourses of ‘high-risk’ students, ‘achievement gap’ anxieties and victim-blaming notions of deficit – all of which have served well to legitimate racialized inequalities and exclusions. Hence, the charter school movement, driven by the logic of the ‘free market,’ became an extension of former mainstream efforts to ensure class imperatives and the continuing segregation of US schools. The slippery use of language here effectively captured the imagination of conservative voters and detracted focus away from the increasing wealth gap. Yet, the rub here is that charter schools encourage the merging of public and private enterprise, distorting or blurring any separation or distinction between the public and private spheres and the moral responsibility of the state to provide for the educational formation of all its children. In the process, the glorification of the free market simultaneously legitimizes the covertly racialized ethos of the capitalist economy and its persistent reproduction and perpetuation of educational inequalities, in the first place. Devoid of institutional critiques of racism, current educational discourses posit a false portrayal for the persistence of school segregation and school failure.” (Emphasis added.)

Ah yes.

What do our schools still do?

They reproduce our societal inequities.

What does the free market do best?

It reproduces societal inequities in a manner that is more efficient and profitable to those of privilege. (See, for instance, the noted triumvirate above).

Ta-Nehesi Coates writes, “I view white supremacy as one of the central organizing forces in American life…”

Among other things, it has become obvious that the organizing force of the “white frame” leads to class inequities, concentrated poverty, the state sanctioned murder of people of color and to a history of segregation that continues.

It also has less obviously led to the the neoliberalization of our schools.

The sad part is, we are much more concerned with profit than with children. If we cared about children, our approach would reflect what has been proven to work.

So what’s the answer?

Darder again:

“If our goal is to eliminate educational failure, we must create a system of federal funding to states determined by the actual needs of their people and effectively linked to ameliorating poverty, the only approach that has been shown, time and again, to improve academic achievement. In contrast, initiatives like the Common Core standards are market driven and thus more likely to echo existing inequalities than to eliminate them. National education standards like Common Core simply codify what all children should learn, with little attention paid to the unequal playing field of American society. Despite its liberal overtones, the Common Core initiative reproduces what the late Brazilian educator Paulo Freire called the banking model of education, debilitating because it narrows what constitutes legitimate knowledge, while excluding those who are outside of its boundaries. Such national policies create a smokescreen of homogeneity and educational equality, which do not create equality.”

When will our actions and policies elevate children over profit?

*I struggle, like many others, with the clunkiness of the word “neoliberal.”  However, I still have not found one that works better. And since reading Wendy Brown’s wonderful work, Undoing the Demos, I feel a little better about it.

Photo credit to Doris Mercado Melon.