Teachers College Press has published a major study of venture philanthropy and its efforts to introduce market forces into teacher education. It was written by Kenneth Zeichner and Cesar Pena-Sandoval of the University of Washington in Seattle.
The article focuses on the key role of the NewSchools Venture Fund in promoting legislation to authorize charter academies to train teachers and principals. This close examination of the NSVF is especially pertinent now that its most recent CEO, Ted Mitchell, was named as Undersecretary of Education, and will play a large role in shaping higher education policy.
The strategy of the venture philanthropists is by now familiar: first, proclaim that traditional institutions are failing; second, declare a crisis; third, propose market-based solutions accompanied by grandiose promises.
Here is a summary of the study:
“Background & Purpose:
“This article focuses on the growing role of venture philanthropy in shaping policy and practice in teacher education in the United States. Our goal is to bring a greater level of transparency to private influences on public policy and to promote greater discussion and debate in the public arena about alternative solutions to current problems. In this article, we focus on the role of one of the most influential private groups in the United States that invests in education, the New Schools Venture Fund (NSVF), in promoting deregulation and market-based policies.
“Research Design:
“We examine the changing role of philanthropy in education and the role of the NSVF in developing and promoting a bill in the U.S. Congress (the GREAT Act) that would create a system throughout the nation of charter teacher and principal preparation programs called academies. In assessing the wisdom of the GREAT Act, we examine the warrant for claims that education schools have failed in their mission to educate teachers well and the corresponding narrative that entrepreneurial programs emanating from the private sector are the solution.
Conclusions:
“We reject both the position that the status quo in teacher education is acceptable (a position held by what we term “defenders”) and the position that the current system needs to be “blown up” and replaced by a market economy (“reformers”). We suggest a third position (“transformers”) that we believe will strengthen the U.S. system of public teacher education and provide everyone’s children with high-quality teachers. We conclude with a call for more trenchant dialogue about the policy options before us and for greater transparency about the ways that private interests are influencing public policy and practice in teacher education…
“This article examines the increasing role of venture philanthropy (Reckhow, 2013; Saltman, 2010; Scott, 2006) and the ideas of educational entrepreneurship and disruptive innovation in influencing the course of federal and state policies and practices in teacher education in the United States.”
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Just a thought here: is there a basis for a class action suit against these philanthropists for peddling educational reform that has no scientific basis? Can we argue that exposing kids to non-validated educational reforms is a form of malpractice? I think that’s the only thing that can wake people up.
Reblogged this on David R. Taylor-Thoughts on Texas Education.
It has become clear that market minds and moneytheists simply do not grasp the role of social institutions in sustaining civil society. They will continue their push to atomize democratic institutions and convert the remains to corporate-controlled commercial commodities no matter what any amount of research says or proven harm shows.
Are schools of education, both at public and private colleges and universities, democratic institutions?
Do lunch counters count?
Does the University of Phoenix education school count? That would seem much more to the point of this post.
It depends on the institution. I have taught at public colleges, private non-profit colleges and private for-profit colleges. It’s only at private for-profit colleges that faculty have played no role whatsoever in governance, i.e., there’s no faculty senate, no committees, etc.
I would take the term “democratic institution” to refer to a wider group than simply the employees of the institution. My local government is a democratic institution in this sense, but my local food coop is not. If you expand the concept far enough, you might well end up including some charter schools as democratic institutions (the Walton Rural Life Center Charter School, for example).
More yada yada yada from know-it-all, TE. So now college faculty are “simply the employees.” (Is that your resentment from years of being employed full time on the non-tenure track speaking?)
It is NOT democratic when professors, who are the experts in higher ed, not the janitors, are omitted from participating in school governance and decision making.
Cosmic,
What does it mean to be a “democratic institution”? If you mean the employees get a say in how the institution is run, does that mean that the legislature fails to be a “democratic institution” because not all those employed by the legislature have a voice in decisions?
It seems to me that teacher education is basically “privatized” now. Teachers College at Columbia (the school that asked Dr. Ravitch to leave because she served in the department of education) is a private institution. So is the Steinhardt school at NYU.
Do you even know what you are talking about?
I certainly think I do. What do you consider democratic institutions, what not?
I don’t think so, Susan. He’s just about baiting people, so he can argue with them, try to wear them down and slip in promos for his beloved privatized schools. Waste of time.
Actually I am trying to understand if Jon Awbrey considers private university schools of education like NYU’s Steinhardt school to be a “democratic institution” and, more generally, why folks here think that teacher education at private universities is not already “privatized”.
Lunch counters do count. On the other hand, counters do lunch. If you can’t count lunch, would lunch count for a Count?
TE, what do you mean by “democratic” and “institution”?
I am trying to figure out what poster Jon Awbrey means by “democratic institutions” when he says “They will continue their push to atomize democratic institutions and convert the remains to corporate-controlled…” in the context of a discussion of changes to the traditional method of teacher education done at public and private colleges and universities. Does he think that NYU’s Steinhardt school a “democratic institution”?
I take the term to mean those institutions that are required for a democratic society to function. Thus a legislative body is a democratic institution while a food coop is not. I do not think that NYU is a democratic institution, but my local city commission is a democratic institution.
In fact, I find it hard to understand how one might think that NYU is a democratic institution under any definition. Here is a link to a newspaper account about the fourth no confidence vote at an NYU school that President Sexton has lost: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/11/education/fourth-no-confidence-vote-for-the-president-of-nyu.html?_r=0
The goal is privatizied teacher ed, and, as with Match and Relay, the model is privately run schools, such as the charters that created those “colleges” to prepare drill sergeant teachers for their military style charters. Those charters do not have democratically elected school boards, so one can expect that there will be no democratic representation in their teacher prep schools as well. (And BTW, NYU is a private school.).
NYU is the largest private university in the country.
My state university system does not have an elected board. Does that mean we are undemocratic and just like charter schools?
It’s not about elected boards in colleges, and the size of the school is irrelevant. It’s about faculty governance, as demonstrated in faculty senate and faculty committees that have teeth. I have worked at several colleges where faculty had a lot of decision-making power due to those avenues.
I won’t be taking any questions, so drop the routine.
There is no democratic representation in the education school at my public university, so it subject to the same criticism you are leveling against other “teacher prep” schools.
Colleges that involve constituents in university governance do not typically single out one department to exclude from participating. And they are typically elected positions.
Where does it say the education department is not permitted to participate in university governance here?
http://www2.ku.edu/~unigov/
Are we talking about democratic institutions here or something else? I suppose that in institutions where faculty governance is powerful (and it is generally less powerful than the faculty understand) you might say that decisions are reached democratically, but you would have to ignore all of the other interested parties that have no vote in the outcome. The sort of democracy we had in the United States when the franchise was preserved for white males.
You can dish out tons of red herring questions but you can’t answer relevant questions posed to you. Contrary to your claim, your own university does NOT exclude the education department from participating in university governance.
My institutions excludes the almost every employee of the institution, almost every student of the institution, almost every citizen of the state from governance decisions about the institution. If that makes it a democratically controlled institution, we must have a different notion of what it means to be a democratic institution.
Your university has FOUR Constituent Governance Senates: The Faculty Senate, Student Senate, Unclassified Senate, and the University Support Staff Senate. That looks like a lot of constituent representation and governance to me.
You might want to see what powers any of these bodies have at any institution. Heck, I can’t even vote on most matters in a department I have been teaching in for a couple of decades.
I have worked at colleges where non-tenure and part time faculty were welcome to be involved in college governance, and constituents have a lot of decision-making power at some of those schools.
You chose to stay for decades in a non-tenure track position at a university where tenure matters a lot. Not all departments in colleges that value tenure exclude non-tenured faculty from decision-making though. Maybe there are other reasons why your own department does not value your input.
So are we in agreement that my institution does not fit your definition of a democratic institution?
I should point out that there are certainly some things that some tenure stream faculty can not vote on as well. Only tenured faculty can vote to recommend tenure (or not recommend tenure), only full professors can vote to recommend an associate professor for promotion to full professor, and only distinguished professors can vote to recommend a full professor for promotion to distinguished professor. All of these recommendations, of course, can be overruled by the Chancellor or President.
If you are as combative and off base at your school as you are here, no wonder you don’t get a vote. I’m done here.
I guess we have made no progress in determining which institutions are democratic and which are not. Perhaps these issues will arise again in the future.
What an absurd argument. Merely substitute the power structure in colleges with that of our country. Just because the POTUS has veto power does not mean the people have no democratic representation.
Ignoring these ridiculous assertions and moving on is the right thing to do.
“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” ― George Carlin
You might think we have a lessor form of democracy if there was no way to override a presidential veto.
In any case, the central point here concerns what constitutes a democratic institution. Unfortunately little progress was made in defining what that meant.
This is a great example of why some people are never considered to be tenure material in higher education. I would not want such an argumentative colleague on my team. Few want to get stuck working with someone who is incapable of recognizing anything of value articulated by colleagues, has to be the one to set the ground rules, define terms and evaluate progress, and always wants to have the last word.
Gee, someone who can only hear his own voice and and decides nothing of value occurred when things don’t go his way… It sounds like an egocentric preschooler who has not yet learned how to play well with others.
My search in this thread is to understand what poster Jon means by “democratic institutions” and how to distinguish them from other institutions. Poster Jon was not forthcoming this time, but I hope in the future that he will choose to engage in a meaningful discussion.
Theorem. It has become clear that market minds and moneytheists simply do not grasp the role of social institutions in sustaining civil society. They will continue their push to atomize democratic institutions and convert the remains to corporate-controlled commercial commodities no matter what any amount of research says or proven harm shows.
Proof. See Above. QED.
It really would be helpful to define what you mean by a “democratic institution” and perhaps even give examples of different institutions that are “democratic” and not “democratic” institutions.
Oh, please. Jon chose to ignore your inane questioning long ago. Get a clue, troll.
I do understand that making grandiose unchallenged claims, ridicule, and name calling is much easier than having an actual discussion, but having a discussion is important in the search for finding a better education for all.
Interesting that this comes from UW, given that they have created a special (and troubled) teacher cert program just for TFA, and the dean of the College of Ed is ex-TFA who pushed hard to being TFA to Seattle.
http://crosscut.com/2011/06/10/seattle-schools/21000/Teach-for-America-in-Seattle-Tracing-big-push-from/
http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/155603897
And my other comment is awaiting moderation, but here’s more on the UW push for a special teacher ed program just for TFA.
http://www.scribd.com/mobile/users/48045565/collections/3087061
I knew Obama supported charter schools. He said so when he campaigned. I had no idea he would work so hard to completely destroy the institution of public education in the US.
No SURPRISE here for me.
I suggest the “trenchant dialogue” be founded on http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/critical-thinking-where-to-begin/796 intellectual reasoning and ethological standards centered on Tinbergen’s four questions to accurately and precisely assess the meme infested education institutions that perpetuate US education policy and implementation. In turn this would provide a true baseline to measure from based on SCIENCE and not the unscientific hodge-podge of Ed.psych metrics currently accepted as adequate…we all know they are bs!
For the first time ever education observation would include Tinbergen and ethology as best practice to measure ontological, genetic, phenotypical aspects of educating learners well for a future evolving at the speed of might seemingly.
For more please explore: http://link.springer.com/journal/12052/7/1/page/1 for examples and further reading along this line.
Don’t blame Ed Psyc. Voodoo VAM came from a statistician studying agricultural growth, not from education. Some of the most astute Educational Psychologists are against the scam measures that are promoted by corporate “reformers,” including Barney Berliner, and qualitative measures are valued by them as well.
Not surprising to anyone here, but this past year the New York Times did an entire Sunday magazine feature on “Disrupting Higher Ed.” It’s like the DoEd feeds them stories that forecast market trends for investors.
What is the difference between “venture” philanthropy and this kind of philanthropy: http://www.tc.columbia.edu/news.htm?tid=22
Tim,
The old-fashioned kind of philanthropy consisted of a individual ging a gift to a worthy cause, or a philanthropy reviewing requests and funding some of them, depending on the goals or whims of the foundation.
The new “venture philanthropy” does not encourage unsolicited proposals. It operates like venture capital. It has its own ideas, then looks for organizations to do what it wants (like fighting teacher tenure) or literally creates new organizations to do what the foundation wants.
I explain this in chapter 10 of “Death and Life of the Great American School System.” The Billionaire Boys Club.
Dr. Ravitch–
When teacher education programs were first being set up and established, whose influence had the biggest impact? That is, before there was research, before there was a well-established program, what individuals shaped the programs and by whose authority?
I am genuinely curious, and not being flippant (in fact, I’m thinking of enrolling in a doctoral program on higher ed. . .this subject intrigues me greatly).
Who started public school “best practices” as they once were? When? With whose money? Is the shift we are seeing, as mentioned in this post, a shift further away from the original setup
(would love answers from anyone with insight on the subject)
. . .or are we moving closer to the way things got set up anyway? (with a few who had money and self-satisfied perception enough to set things up on behalf of “best practices” for most?)
For example, read about the establishment of Vanderbilt University.
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/about/history/
Is this really any different than some of the shifts we are seeing by “transformers?” How? How not?
Joanna,
Earliest teacher training programs created by Horace Mann in Massachusetts to promote expertise and professionalism. In early 20th century, the new study of psychology dominated teacher preparation, as profession sought to understand how children learn. Unfortunately most leading psychologists believed that IQ was fixed, innate. Also tied to race and ethnicity. This was a dead end that lead to dominance of testing for sorting and administrative convenience.
And that’s sort of where we are now? Stuck because of legislation guided by the dead end premise?
From whom did Mann get funding and support for his astute observation that teacher training was needed? That is, how did he rally enough support to begin the “status quo” that has since been altered by reformers and perpetuated by bad laws?
I assume before Mann that education for children in the US was hit or miss, easily attained by the wealthy, sometimes advocated for and disseminated through church efforts, but largely not cohesive?
Is there talk or study now to move away from the influence of psychology to quite the extent that it has permeated, or do we really just have to call the whole thing off? That is, how do we unring that bell, or lessen the effects of that area of study on the field of education? Or does a balance naturally occur if we do not have our hands tied by mandates (I tend to think so—-albeit I still do think that fiefdoms are a problem within the public education realm in each state—-where you see generations of families teaching in the same district and taking on the leadership roles, and I also think that there was not enough intentional effort to balance teaching forces racially when integration occurred).
Before Mann, teachers were untrained. Some were not even high school graduates.
That was the encapsulated version. It’s not where psychology and education were by the 90s, when there was so much push back against the fixed IQ and “The Bell Curve” by Hernstein & Murray, due to competing research and theories of intelligence, such as those of psychologists’ Robert Sternberg, Howard Gardner and Joseph Renzulli.
Cosmic–
Ah yes, I remember their names quite well from when I was a gifted ed facilitator (I studied it at KU for the certification). But their work has so far only benefited those on the right end of the bell curve, yes?
Not at all, Joanne. Giftedness has traditionally been determined by an IQ score of 130 and above –which omits many creative people. Their theories postulated that all people have constellations of strengths in different areas, much of which is not measured by standardized IQ tests.
Cosmic, it’s JoannA.
But, as a recall from being a gifted teacher, there has to be a demonstrated need AND several scores that would be right of the bell curve. So in a practical sense, no matter what we do know about creativity, those who qualify for services typically have scores indicating they “belong” there.
I moved on from the field. I prefer teaching music.
These theories are applicable to all students and I studied them in my training for BOTH general education and gifted education. For example, Renzulli’s model casts a much wider net and has a revolving door so that many more kids who need them can get specialized supports. The schools based on Gardner’s MI theory are for all kids.
Here’s an example of a public school based on Multiple Intelligences:
http://www.edutopia.org/multiple-intelligences-immersion-enota-video
Always good, and surprising, to see a charter school praised here. Are there examples of traditional public schools that take this approach?
I should have known George Lucas’s foundation is about charter schools. I l do not support any charters, plus that means they do NOT accept all kids. I’ve seen neighborhood MI schools, too, but that was back when those schools got adequate resources and their hands were not tied by government mandates.
So the fact that this is a charter school invalidates all the good work they are doing for the students in the school? Your praise for this approach to education turns to condemnation?
Yep, I like the approach, not the school. I am very busy so I did not have a chance to look at the video. A few minutes ago. I just glanced at it and I stopped it after seeing the rote learning. I implemented MI in my classroom for years and children learned geography in much more engaging ways. I also saw very few children of color there, but again, I have no time to see the whole tape.
Teachers can implement MI in their classrooms in schools where they have some degree of autonomy. It’s not required that an entire school implement it.
Read about the history of the common school movement, and the role of teacher education colleges, especially in or connected to land grant universities. Until the mid-1950’s many teachers found employment with only two years of college.
Then look at the sustained effort to improve teacher education by closing the many small and marginal teacher training programs, with research universities leading the charge, notably the Holmes Group and faculty in the arts and sciences.
Many of these reformers were and are committed to the idea that all a teacher needs to learn is the subject to be taught. There is a corresponding distrust of knowledge about learning as that intersects with development and motivation as a driver of learning and so on. The teacher is viewed as a sage on the stage and “high quality” teaching is the result of knowing your subject.
As an indication of the turn in teacher education, my grade 5 teacher had a two year degree from a teacher eduction college. She earned her four year degree the same year that I did in 1957.
The CCSS are a version of thinking that you can just reverse engineer what you want students “to know and be able to do” as they enter college…all the way back to pre-school in tidy learning progressions completed on time in a lockstep manner. All of that will give you a “quality ” plan for education and you just need to hire “high quality” teachers as the delivery system….or better yet, offer computers with programmed instruction. Add the rigor and the grit thing and you will leave no child behind and all of other people’s children will race to the top.
Interesting statement in your conclusion summary….
“We reject both the position that the status quo in teacher education is acceptable (a position held by what we term “defenders”) and the position that the current system needs to be “blown up” and replaced by a market economy (“reformers”). We suggest a third position (“transformers”) that we believe will strengthen the U.S. system of public teacher education and provide everyone’s children with high-quality teachers.”
The third position still is focused on improving teacher quality. Although I believe any teacher can improve their practice, until we change to system, public education will fall short of meeting the needs of students. The market place or the reformers has/have no clue what blowing up the system entails. I am reminded of the film, “A few Good Men.” Jack Nicholson’s character states to Tom Cruise’s character, “You can’t handle the truth.” What is the truth? The truth is we need to flip education to create a learning environment which inspires the student. The preordained sense of what student should know and be able to do (i.e. Cultural Literacy and E.D. Hirsch) is no longer relevant to a society where information can be obtained through a few touches of the screen on your phone. The reformers want better teachers to improve current practice. this thought process is one reason why charter schools aren’t successful. More of the same won’t work.
Transforming education must include addressing the failures of the current system built to educate students for the past.
“Failures”? What failures? I don’t see the same thing being peddled for law schools or medical schools.
The “reformers” don’t want “better teachers.” They don’t want TEACHERS AT ALL because they are mostly unionized and they “cost too much money.”
They know EXACTLY what they are doing. They want to sell off public assets for private gain. That is what neoliberalism/libertarianism is. Public education is only one institution they want to abolish.
Until this truth is out there, fighting against these forces of privatization will fail.
Really.
We ought to make a list of famous people who attended public schools and made valuable contributions to our planet.
Here’s someone to start, who went to public schools in the neighborhood where I grew up:
James Watson, molecular biologist, geneticist and co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, for which he won a Nobel Prize.
Carl Sagan and Neil deGrasse Tyson both went to public schools, too.
Agree. Greed is driving the bus, not thought for the common good. Data mine students, Equip them with laptops and individualized software. Good luck with learning. Eliminate, teachers, buildings. Transportation, admin. All a business plan. Time to wake up and be heard.
I have not been to law school or medical school. My thought is that the traditional nature of these institutions is supported by a motivated student who will do what it takes to earn an education.
As a high school principal, I see evidence of failure every day. I define failure as a student who sits for hours every day disengaged from any real or relevant experiences which inspire learning. In a school with a high socioeconomic background, students sit and compliantly work their way through school. The education they get does not serve them well for the future.
Google Stanford 2025 for a look at what post-secondary schools are discussing regarding the future of education.
John Houbolt, an aerospace engineer who died last month, went to public schools. He is credited with leading the team that was responsible for developing the lunar orbit rendezvous (LOR), which made it possible to successfully land astronauts on the Moon and return them to the Earth.
Neil DeGrasse Tyson has a rather interesting take on the role public school teachers played in his life. Here’s the money quote in a conversation started around the subject of why he turned down an invitation to return to his elementary school and give a talk: “I would say I am where I am today not because of what the teachers said about me or did for me, but in spite of it.”
More here: http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=283443670
AlwaysLearning: couldn’t we argue, though, that greed has always driven the American bus? We did usurp the very land we call ours from a different culture. I think the greed characterization certainly has veracity, but it’s not enough. We cannot move forward and solve problems by isolating one sin over another. We have to look at facts void of characterizations that pit one ideology over another. How we do that is really the challenge.
Greed may very well be part of the equation. But so is lust part of the equation of families and vanity part of the desire to become educated in the first place.
I just think we have to be careful not to get stuck on easy characterizations. That doesn’t lead us anywhere.
Richard Feynmann went to NYC public schools when their system was the best in the nation. Things have changed.
That’s a rather selective quote.
What Tyson replied when asked “Did you feel let down by the public school system when you were a kid,” was, “Oh, no, no…”
Then he explained about not being identified as anyone particularly gifted because his grades were all over the place and it’s the kids who have straight As in everything that usually get singled out.
That is not exactly a gross condemnation of his public education, but it is a very valid complaint. I have long been a believer in the mistake of the Animal School –which is only confounded by standardized college and career ready standards:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/03/14/956190/-The-Animal-School-A-Fable
People have said that about the schools in the area where I grew up, too, but the only significant change is that middle class whites moved out and low income blacks moved in. It’s about poverty, not the schools.
CaresAboutKids&Teachers, even in full context and viewed with a generous dose of nuance and spin, his remarks are far from a ringing endorsement of public schools and public school teachers. He’s a “reformer,” no doubt about it.
Tim, Point taken. I did get the impression that he’s another non-educator who thinks he knows all about teaching, especially since he’s under the impression that all those straight students would do just fine without teachers. Clearly, he does not know children and he is not familiar with research indicating that gifted kids need guidance and supports in order to actualize their potentials.
Sorry, meant to say “straight A students”. Not that there’s anything wrong with being straight.
Lars Peter Hansen, Nobel Laureate in economics, went to public schools. His brother even wrote an article about that for my local newspaper: http://m.sltrib.com/sltrib/mobile3/57185377-219/lars-university-nobel-economics.html.csp
Steve Jobs went to public schools. Of course, it helps if your parents let you use their garage for tinkering and creating your own company.
If a patient gets sick, has the doctor failed? There are many reasons students disengage, and not all of them are the fault of the teacher, principal, or school. To get increasing marginal gain, education costs rise non linearly. This is the underlying flaw in standardization. Not every student learns at the same rate or achieves the same level of understanding with the same amount of effort in the classroom. Reformers like to ignore that and simply say it is the teacher’s fault. Private schools address the issue by excluding the most difficult students.
Engagement is confused with entertainment. Sometimes, students just need to sit down, make the brain hurt, and do dry, hard, challenging work. I can explain all day long a math concept, but until students try to solve on their own, the learning doesn’t occur. Not to say we just do drill and kill or ignore “real world” problems, but responsibility for engagement must come from the student.
This is already being done by tfa and broad super academy – tfa-ers get masters degrees, administrator training, super training, etc. How else could a 24 year old be the principal of a charter? A superintendent of a charter? Is there broad politician school too? Is that how these very smart idiots get into politics?
Few are really talking about gender bias and gender bashing. Corporate bullies would NEVER propose such an agenda to a career/profession dominated by men!
Cross posted with comment at
http://www.opednews.com/Quicklink/An-Important-New-Study-on-in-Best_Web_OpEds-Debate_Discussion_Education_Important-140531-513.html#comment492152http://www.opednews.com/Quicklink/An-Important-New-Study-on-in-Best_Web_OpEds-Debate_Discussion_Education_Important-140531-513.html#comment492152
What would happen if teachers stopped shopping at Walmart? What would happen if ALL teachers stopped buying products supported by CORPORATIONS AND FOUNDATIONS behind these reforms?
And what of the EdTPA for these new trainees?
@justathought – I totally agree with you – except look at how the PARCC assessment required schools to invest in computers….THere is so much out there. I would love to get all teachers to boycott Wal Mart, Microsoft, etc….
Theorem. It has become clear that market minds and moneytheists simply do not grasp the role of social institutions in sustaining civil society. They will continue their push to atomize democratic institutions and convert the remains to corporate-controlled commercial commodities no matter what any amount of research says or proven harm shows.
Proof. See Above. QED.
I think the mistake you are making here is that markets ARE social institutions that allow people to connect to each other in ways that are not possible with other social institutions. They depend largely on chains of trust between individuals (we can see how the lack of trust nearly destroyed the financial markets during the great recession) in order to operate efficiently. Are they the best social institution for every problem or issue we face? No. Are they the best social institution for some problems and issues that we face? Yes.
Seriously, Dude, your rendition of Blurred Lines would make Robin Thicke blush.
As I have said before, economists tend to be pragmatists and not ideological purists.
I know pragmatists.
Pragmatists are friends of mine.
Sir, you’re no pragmatist.
You are mistaken about that.
I had to break for dinner and you said so many hilarious things above that I thought I would leave it to the wittier comedians in the wings to supply the dinner theatre.
That bit about “Markets Are Social Institutions” is so funny I fell out of the Republican Convention the last time I heard it — Romney’s dead-on impression of Charlton Heston screaming — Greenbacks Are PEOPLE ❢❢❢ had us all in shtiches for months on end but it’s way past its expiration date and needs to come off the shelves.
And I’m not even going to touch that one about broken chains of trust causing the financial meltdown. Everyone but econ-artistes knows it was precisely the trusts we failed to bust that caused it.
There are none so blind as those that will not see.
Well, there are people who care about education and there are people who operate like anti-educators, doing all they can to make people stupid. Luckily, most folks hereabouts can see the difference quite well.
I certainly hope most people can tell the difference.
And you might just learn what most people hereabouts see by listening to what they say about what they see. And if you cared about education, you would care about what they care about.
Instead, you persist in serving as the Imperial Apologist, trying to convince people there is no difference between being clothed and being buck naked, and so the Emperor has really been modestly attired all along. That’s really all you do here, and all your arguments have the very same form.
I tend to occupy the middle ground. Shorts and a shirt, perhaps no socks or hat.
Sock you may be, but the issue is what privates you hide.
I know, I know, most of you have been around the block of social media for more than a few years, and you all got shtick and tired a long time ago of that “Pretending To Be Stupid” (PTBS) syndrome that so many astro-turfers seem to be stuck on.
But maybe it’s like my Mom used to say, “Keep making that face and you may get stuck in it”, so it’s entirely possible that a few of them have been PTBSing so long that they really are stuck in that state of obliviscence about all the things most of us learned in Jr. High, at least in my ancient days we did.