Andy Borowitz, who writes humorous pieces for the New Yorker, says only one person can stop North Korea.
That will cripple its nuclear program.
Archives for the month of: July, 2017
Antonio Olmedo wrote this analysis of Philanthro-Capitalism.
VENTURE PHILANTHROPY & THE NEOLIBERAL ECOSYSTEM: WHO NEEDS A MINISTRY OF EDUCATION?
By Antonio Olmedo, University of Roehampton
Coinciding with this year’s World Social Forum in Davos, Oxfam released a report based on Credit Suisse Global Wealth Databook [1], denouncing that the top 1% richest people have gained more income than the poorest 50% altogether[2]. The tendency seems to be worsening.
In 2010, the combined assets of the 388 multibillionaires were required in order to equal the wealth of the 50% at the bottom, however, in 2016 only 8 of them would be needed to reach the same situation[3].
The counter narrative claims that, while the richest become richer, the average wellbeing of the population increases correspondingly. However, even the friendliest statistics (ie. the Brookings Institution has recalibrated poverty indicators according to new data available on prices for goods and services [Purchasing Power Parities] in every country in the world) show that while in some regions the new calculations seem to suggest an improvement in the percentage of people living in extreme poverty, that is not the case in other areas, where such proportions seem to aggravate[4].
Moreover, the think tank signals that there is a large concentration of people whose living standards are virtually similar to the global poverty line, which epitomises the fragility of such estimates.
All in all, the situation seems far from resolved and the number of deadlines missed by international declarations, multilateral agreements, development goals, etc. continues to amass.
Capitalism, the elephant in the room
Nevertheless, far from engulfing policy makers in a deep and self-reflexive critical exercise, within mainstream politics Capitalism remains as the solution to such stagnant social and economic crisis, rather than its central cause. The fact that the richest are even richer seems to be a good news rather than cause for concern.
As Bill Clinton (2010) acknowledges: “The 21st century has given people with wealth unprecedented opportunities, and commensurate responsibilities, to advance the public good”.
Back in 2008, right after the latest global collapse of the capitalist system, Bishop and Green published their Ode to (what they baptised as) the Philanthrocapitalism. In the preface of the 2nd edition of the volume, the authors celebrate the fact that the global economic crisis does not seem to have endangered, but rather fortified, the wealth of the wealthiest on Earth:
The world has changed since the financial meltdown of September 2009, but in ways that make the ideas in Philanthrocapitalism more relevant than ever. According to the annual rich list compiled by Forbes magazine, the collapse of the stock and other asset prices reduced the global number of billionaires by over 300, nearly one-third, from 2008 to 2009. The average charitable foundation saw its assets shrink by at least one-quarter. Yet the world still has plenty of super-rich people. Indeed, overall, the super rich are likely to emerge from the crisis in better financial shape than anyone else. The reservoir of wealth to fund Philanthrocapitalism is still there. [emphasis added] (Bishop & Green, 2010, p. xii)
The book preaches the renaissance of giving and philanthropy. It portrays how a group of new philanthropists give, by applying business techniques and ways of thinking to their philanthropy and also describes the growing recognition by the leaders of capitalism that are giving back much of their fortune to improve society is as much a part of the system as making the money in the first place (2010, p. xii).
A study commissioned by Education International (the final report will be publicly released later this year) considers the general implications of the involvement of new philanthropists in global education policy communities in different countries across the world.
The Venture Philanthropy neoliberal ecosystem
More concretely, this piece of work concentrates in tracking the investments and agendas of a group of Venture Philanthropic organisations, which openly promote market-based solution and dynamics of privatisation of education at all levels: funding of private and charter schools, developing new public management schemes, incubating new edu-tech businesses, advocating for new forms and methods of accountability and evaluation, etc.
When brought together, their portfolios configure a full neoliberal ecosystem. From chains of private schools operating within public-private partnerships or fully independent, teacher training programmes and countless tools for evaluation and school management, to curriculum development, electronic materials, new funding channels for both school providers and students and families, the options are all-encompassing.
It would not be an overstatement to say that the sum of investments of the philanthropic ventures analysed above offers the possibility of running a complete educational system through the services that their investees offer.
Moreover, though most of those tools and models and programs have been designed for specific countries or continental regions, it is also clear that they are ready to be scalable. As the case of Bridge International Academies shows:
The first Bridge International Academy opened in the Mukuru slum in Nairobi, Kenya in 2009. Today there are hundreds and Bridge continues to expand across Africa and Asia. With a mission of Knowledge for all, Bridge plans to educate 10,000,000 children across a dozen countries by 2025.[5]
As a result of the detailed selection processes of their scrupulous funders, the majority of the companies in their portfolios are prepared to follow similar pathways. Varthana, for instance, started as a microcredit venture operating in India, but they are already examining the possibilities to go beyond their current field of operations reaching new markets:
We see the loan as the starting point of a long association and believe in working with those school owners who are committed to quality. In the future, we plan to hold seminars and workshops for the school owners; get people in the field of teacher training to engage with the schools and connect them with vendors and solution providers who have innovative, state of the art solutions for schools. By nurturing a long term relationship with our clients and working with the school entrepreneurs and teachers as a team, Varthana believes we can create value and make a difference.[6]
There are multiple examples of companies that are looking into expanding their operations, either by moving into new geographies, adventuring into new markets, or targeting new populations.
They are the icebreakers at the forefront of privatisation dynamics, paving the way for deeper and more significant changes. In a clinical exploratory way, they are testing the temperature of national and local governments, of politicians and civil society groups, of individual citizens and consumers. They bring new ways of doing things into the public policy arena, new solutions and techniques, but more importantly a new vocabulary based on new forms of knowledge.
[1] https://www.credit-suisse.com/uk/en/about-us/research/research-institute/global-wealth-report.html
[5] http://www.bridgeinternationalacademies.com/company/about/
John Kasich likes to be unpredictable.
One minute, he plays the moderate, sane Republican in contrast to irresponsible, impulsive Trump.
Then he acts in Ohio and shows that he doesn’t have a clue about education, the most important responsibility and budget item in every state.
Stephen Dyer of Innovation Ohio writes:
“While Gov. John Kasich’s line-item veto of the Ohio Legislature’s freeze on Medicaid has rightly eaten up much of the veto discussion, Kasich also vetoed 11 different education provisions in House Bill 49 — the state’s beinnial budget. For a complete rundown, look here. But I would like to focus on a couple things.
“CHARTER SCHOOLS
“In several of the vetoes regarding charter schools, Kasich said he struck the provision because it was unfair, or treated schools differently, or lowered standards. My issue with this reasoning is, well, that’s kind of been the story of Ohio’s charter school system. Ohio charters have been treated differently, held to lower standards and been unfairly funded at the expense of children in local public schools since 1998.
“So why the sudden call to conscience? I don’t know. But let me take a few of the vetoes in turn.
“1) He vetoed a provision that would have allowed charters to count student growth as 60 percent of its student achievement measure rather than the current 20 percent. He claimed this was because it would hold charters to a lower standard than local schools. But that’s only true if you believe that student growth is not as effective a measure as straight performance. And while there are real concerns with how student growth is calculated and used, putting more emphasis on that measure could encourage schools to spend more time with more students rather than just focusing on high fliers whose high scores would help a school’s rating more than growing the lower scoring students. That’s not a horrible public policy outcome. And we have always held charters to different standards than local schools — that’s been part of the point with charter law and criticism of it.
“2) He vetoed a provision that would have allowed sponsors that were stripped of their ability to sponsor schools this school year to sponsor them again this year if they scored 3 out of 4 or higher on academics. His reason? Because they would still score poorly on the other bureaucratic measures under which they are now evaluated. But this is exactly the problem the legislature was trying to address — you have some of the highest rated sponsors for academics (arguably the most important of the three charter school sponsor measures) unable to continue sponsoring schools because they don’t meet the bureaucratic measures. Instead, with his veto Kasich essentially is putting a greater emphasis on whether a sponsor fills out forms correctly than whether the schools they oversee serve kids well. I fail to see how that outcome upholds quality for kids.
“SCHOOL DISTRICT FUNDING
“Several of Kasich’s vetoes would directly harm the funding for kids in local school districts.
“1) He vetoed a provision that would have helped ease the removal of Tangible Personal Property (TPP) tax reimbursement payments to districts, forcing many districts to deal with much steeper cliffs. He claimed schools have had enough time to cope with this loss. Kasich has never really understood why removing this formerly $1 billion a year payment for kids in local schools was so detrimental. I think it stems from a fundamental misunderstanding (or deliberate misunderstanding) of the 2005 law that eliminated the TPP. In exchange for the elimination of the TPP (which went mostly to kids in school districts), the state agreed to make school districts whole with Commercial Activity Tax payments until a real replacement could be developed. It’s that last part of the agreement whose promise Kasich broke in 2011 when he decided to eliminate the reimbursement payments, cutting funding to kids in local school districts by $1.8 billion in that budget. The last year before Kasich, the TPP payment was $920 million. Now it’s all but gone. Which is why when lawmakers claim they’ve increased funding to schools, they NEVER include this lost revenue. Anyway, Kasich’s draconian adherence to this false narrative about TPP continues to be one of his greatest failings. And kids will suffer for it.
“2) Kasich vetoed a couple provisions that would have allowed school districts to apply for state matching funds for new buildings at lower local share matches if they phased them in over time. He claimed this would have created inequities among districts. Which is a nice sentiment, but the whole reason the legislature did this is because of the current system’s inequities. Some districts are caught in a nether zone where they are considered too “wealthy” for a big state match, but also too poor to fund the whole thing — hence the current inequity. However, if they could go for a smaller bond issue, kids in those districts might be able to access the same new buildings as many other districts in the state. Again, this punishes districts who are neither wealthy nor poor, but are less wealthy than the wealthiest.
“HOSING APPALACHIA. AGAIN.
“Throughout Kasich’s turn in the Governor’s office he has found new and creative ways to hurt rural Appalachian schools. When he developed what was supposed to be his signature “Achievement Everywhere” school funding plan (a plan that was dumped unceremoniously by his own party), the plan disproportionately hurt rural Appalachian districts. He used school funding formulations that would downplay the poverty in Appalachia. And now he vetoed a provision that would allow school districts to give state tests in paper rather than computer formats. Rural Appalachian districts simply don’t have enough computers to give tests over computers effectively or efficiently. We also know that kids who take paper tests tend to do better than those who take them on computers. So Kasich is forcing kids in mostly rural Appalachian districts to take more time taking tests and in a format that’s biased against them. All in the name of what? “Standards”?
“Part of his decision I think stems from Kasich’s sharing of the school reform bias toward assessments that show kids doing worse. I’ve discussed this before, but just because kids to worse on a test doesn’t mean that test is more accurately assessing their proficiency in a subject. Does anyone honestly believe that a test showing that only 1/3 of students are proficient readers is a more accurate read of how kids are doing than one that suggests 85 percent are?”
They’re baaaaccckkk!
The zombies called vouchers will be introduced again in the Texas State Senate, once again under the fraudulent claim that they are intended for children with disabilities.
Governor Greg Abbott is calling a special session, holding new state funding hostage in exchange for vouchers. Once again, we pray, the Texas House of Representatives will stop the voucher proposal. The House has saner and wiser people than the State Senate.
Texas’s very own version of Rush Limbaugh, the former rightwing talk-show host and current Lt. Governor Dan Patrick, will once again promote his favorite obsession.
The vouchers won’t help many–or any– kids with disabilities, because private and religious schools are not equipped to help them and don’t want them.
One parent of a child with special needs testified against vouchers in the last session. Her child was turned away by 13 private schools.
The press release is self-explanatory:
Contact: Leonie Haimson, Class Size Matters, 917-435-9329; leoniehaimson@gmail.com
Wendy Lecker, Education Law Center, 203-536-7567, wlecker@edlawcenter.org
NYC PARENTS FILE COMPLAINT TO ENFORCE LAW TO REDUCE CLASS SIZE
Demand Department of Education Reduce Class Size as Mandated in State Law
Today, nine parents from every New York City borough filed a petition with State Commissioner of Education MaryEllen Elia, charging the City Department of Education (DOE) with failing to reduce class sizes as mandated by the Contract for Excellence Law (C4E). The City’s Public Advocate, Letitia James, and two advocacy groups, Class Size Matters and the Alliance for Quality Education, also joined the parents in the petition.
Education Law Center (ELC) is representing the Petitioners.
Please see Parent Petitioners’ quotes below.
In 2007, as required by the C4E law, the DOE developed a class size reduction plan for the City’s public schools, pledging to lower average class sizes in Kindergarten through third grade over five years to no more than 20 students; in fourth through eighth grade to no more than 23 students; and to no more than 25 students per class in high school core classes. The State Education Commissioner approved the plan.
The DOE never delivered on its plan. Instead, class sizes have increased sharply since 2007, particularly in the early grades, and are now substantially larger than when the C4E law was enacted. As of fall 2016, DOE data show classes in Kindergarten through third grade were more than 18 percent larger, classes in grades four through eight were six percent larger, and high school classes were 1.5 percent larger than in 2007.
“The growth in class size from 2007 to the present is breathtaking,” said David Sciarra, ELC Executive Director. “For example, in 2007, a little over 1,100 students in grades one through three were in classes of 30 students or more. As of November 2016, a staggering 43,219 first through third graders were in classes this large, an increase of almost 4000 percent.”
“New York City students have waited too long for a better opportunity to learn, and it is unacceptable that the City has reneged on its legal obligations,” said Leonie Haimson, Executive Director of Class Size Matters. “The research is crystal clear that smaller classes benefit all children, but especially those who predominate in our public schools: students who are low-income, have special needs, or are English Language Learners.”
“A decade ago, the City committed to reducing class sizes to appropriate levels, a resource identified by New York’s highest court in the Campaign for Fiscal Equity case as essential for a constitutional sound basic education,” said Billy Easton, Executive Director of the Alliance for Quality Education. “But now class sizes are even larger than when the court issued its decision. It is past time for the DOE to live up to this legal obligation.”
“The research is clear: smaller classes are better for our children. This indisputable fact can no longer be ignored. I am proud to stand with a diverse coalition of education advocates to demand the city provide our students with the smaller class sizes they are owed. There can be no equity or excellence when students in The Bronx and throughout New York City must sit in classes this large,” said Bronx Borough President Ruben Diaz Jr.
The Petitioners are requesting that Commissioner Elia order the DOE to immediately begin reducing class sizes to the averages set forth in the 2007 class-size reduction plan and to reach those averages in no more than five years. Petitioners are also asking the Commissioner to order the City to promptly align its capital plan for school construction to the class size averages in the 2007 Plan, another requirement of the C4E regulations.
_____________________
Parent Petitioners Speak:
“My daughter has been in extremely large classes since Kindergarten,” said Naila Rosario, a parent in District 15 in Brooklyn. “This year, in fourth grade, she is in a class of 32 students. She cannot possibly receive the kind of personal attention and feedback every child deserves and needs to be successful in school. In fact, often her teacher does not even have enough time to answer all the students’ questions. There is no way my daughter or any of her classmates can get a quality education in a class this large.”
Deborah Alexander has two children at P.S. 150 in Queens, one in 1st grade and the other in 4th grade. Both are in classes of 3O students: “My fourth grader told me he doesn’t bother to raise his hand anymore, because as he said to me, there are too many kids, so I’m never picked. My daughter’s class is full of restless children, waiting their turn to be able to speak. Some of the children have social-emotional issues and clearly feel deprived, no matter how hard their teacher tries. It is time to aggressively address class size reduction once and for all so that all children know they are seen and heard.”
“My son, who has an IEP, has been held back twice and is at risk of being held back again,” said Rubnelia Agostini, who has a second grade child at P.S. 277 in the Bronx. “His class size is now 25, and he was in a class of 27 in Kindergarten at P.S. 205. After two months in Kindergarten he was bused to another school to address class size violations, since Kindergarten classes are supposed to be capped at 25. Now his independent evaluation says he needs a small class, but his school doesn’t have any small classes, and some are as large as 27. Why can’t my son receive the quality education he needs to succeed?”
Litza Stark’s son is in an inclusion, or ICT, Kindergarten class with 28 students at P.S. 85 in Queens. The ICT class contains 10-12 students with special needs: “Especially since this is an ICT class where students present an array of extra challenges, his class size causes excessive stress on the teachers and the students alike. PreK is important, but so is the quality of education for children in Kindergarten and up.”
“My son’s class has 24 children, many of them requiring close support, and his teacher is not able to individualize instruction as she could in a smaller class,” said Reeshemah Brightley, the mother of a Kindergarten child at P.S./I.S. 76 in Manhattan. “Classroom management is difficult, and students are more disruptive in a large class than they otherwise would be, making it hard for the rest of the class to focus.”
JoAnn Schneider’s son is a fourth grader in an ICT class of 31 students at P.S./I.S. 113 in Queens: “My son receives special education services and has been in an inclusion class since Kindergarten. He’s making only minimal progress because he needs a more focused environment that only a small class can provide. It is not right that my child should be denied the kind of education given to children elsewhere in the state where classes average only 20-22 students per class – especially when the law requires it.”
Johanna Garcia, a mother of two children at P.S./I.S. 187 in Manhattan, explained: “My son is in third grade in a class of 28. He receives special services, but his class is far too big and he has trouble keeping up. When he was in Kindergarten, his class size exceeded the cap, and that’s when it became clear to me that it was impossible for him to receive the attention he needed with so many other children in the class. My daughter is in a class of 29 students in fifth grade, and many in her class have been unable to stay engaged and afloat. The city owes it to my children and all other students in the public school system to remedy this egregious violation of their rights.”
_____________________
To read the petition, click here ; a timeline documenting the DOE’s failure to reduce class sizes since the CFE lawsuit is available here; and data showing class size trends is available
Ed Johnson is a passionate advocate for quality education for all. He lives in Atlanta. Ed is a follower of the philosophy of W. Edwards Deming, who taught that you don’t blame frontline workers for the failure of the system and its poor leadership. He frequently writes letters to the members of the Atlanta Board of Education, hoping to enlighten them.
Here is the latest:
New-age colonialism in Africa, and in Atlanta public schools
Want to know and understand what new-age colonialism (neocolonialism) in Africa is starting to look like? Then grab a cup of coffee or whatever and read…
Old-age colonialism, of course, went after capturing and controlling African bodies for profit.
Now, new-age colonialism aims to capture and control African minds for profit.
Fortunately, the many African nations operating cooperatively to make Agenda 2063 a reality are not buying new-age colonialism. Why are some African-Americans buying it?
Unfortunately, African-Americans who opt for or support charter schools and “school choice” help to catalyze new-age colonialism here in the U.S. as well as in Africa and worldwide especially in developing countries, perhaps not knowing that is what they do. But why wouldn’t they know that is what they do?
So please understand, for example, no matter how currently serving Atlanta school board members and their superintendent try to influence your thinking to favor “school choice,” there is no such thing as “public charter schools.”
If you want to understand why there is no such thing as “public charter schools,” then grab another cup of coffee or whatever and spend some time with Princeton University’s publication of Paul Starr’s article, The Meaning of Privatization, at…
http://www.princeton.edu/~starr/articles/articles80-89/Starr-MeaningPrivatization-88.htm
A short except:
“The rhetoric of the public choice school is a kind of hard-nosed realism. The theory dismisses as naive civic ideals such as public service; it denies the capacity of voters or politicians to act on the basis of a national interest wider than their own private aggrandizement. Rather like Marxism, public choice theory claims to face up to the self-interested basis of democratic politics and therefore treats all claims of higher purpose as smoke and deception. And also like Marxism, the theory presents itself as a scientific advance over earlier romantic and idealized views of the state. But rather than being an advance of science over intuition, the appeal of the public choice school is precisely to those who are intuitively certain that whatever government does, the private sector can do better. Together, the property rights and public choice schools show only that, if you start by assuming a purely individualistic model of human behavior and treat politics as if it were a pale imitation of the market, democracy will, indeed, make no sense.”
Without question, “school choice” is “a purely individualistic model of human behavior” hence arguably and unavoidably leads to democracy making no sense simply because democracy is about “We …,” not “I,” the individual.
However, contrarily though not surprisingly, the Atlanta superintendent is widely known to praise new-age colonialism’s “choice” of schools as being “appropriate in a country focused on democracy:”
Accordingly, one might reasonably assume the Atlanta superintendent also praises old-age colonialism’s “choice” of slaves as being “appropriate in a country focused on democracy.”
Ed Johnson
Advocate for Quality in Public Education
Atlanta GA | (404) 505-8176 | edwjohnson@aol.com
Bcc: Various
Jo Lieb, who blogs as “Poetic Justice,” posted the powerful graduation speech written and delivered by Coral Ortiz, with Coral’s permission. Coral just graduated from a public high school in New Haven, Connecticut.
When we were young, we were taught that we were “one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” Our country taught us that no matter our income or race, we would all have the same chance to achieve our dreams. We were taught that there would never be a bias against a certain group of people, and that society believes in each and every one of us. These lessons of equality were taught as self-evident. These lessons of equality have and continue to be a lie.
The reality is that despite the fact that we recite the words “one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all,” it has been 50 years since the civil rights movement that our country has never been equal. We—a class mostly made up of minority, low income, and first generation students—have had the odds stacked against us, but here we are standing at this graduation with 3 state championships, college acceptances, and one of largest increases in graduation rates in the State, because we didn’t let the inherent inequality stop us from achieving our goals.
I would be lying if I said today is like any other day, because today is not like any other day. Most importantly, Today is not your typical high school graduation; it is more than that. Today is the day when we walk across a stage and take our diplomas, as an act of defiance to those who said we could not. We have had many students, administrators, and teachers come and go. We have had heart break; we have had our nation turn its backs on us, through supporting those who support hate. So, to those that believed my classmates and I were incapable, I have decided to leave a message for you:
To the teacher who said my classmates and I would fail and that the taxpayers wasted resources on our education -– Today, we teach you that you were wrong.
To the counselor who told me students at this school never get into prestigious colleges – we didn’t let your perception of us define who we are.
To the people who assume we are robbing their stores because of the color of our skin – don’t judge a book by its cover.
To the people who told us that only boys were good at math – Girls are more than just pretty faces.
To the people who violated our bodies – no means no.
To the people who questioned our dedication to the things we were involved in – you didn’t see our sleepless nights and three championship trophies.
To the person who believed that our socio-economic status would define us – you do not need to be a millionaire to succeed.
To the lady on the bus who told me my peers and I would go to jail because of the high school we attended – we are still free.
To the politicians and corporations that refuse to address gun violence because it might cost them money- life has no price.
To the people who assume that our names are too ghetto to be qualified – our names have taken us farther than you could have imagined.
To the leaders who thought it was okay to make decisions that forced us to go to classes without textbooks – it is far from okay.
To the person who told us we only got into college because we were minorities – the color of one’s skin does not determine intelligence.
To the people that talked poorly about us in the newspaper – you taught us how to be fearless.
To the people who thought it was okay to experiment with our education – the math of 5 principals in 4 years just doesn’t add up.
To the people who want to privatize education – public education is the reason we succeeded.
To the politicians who choose unqualified people to affect our lives because you feel loyal to your party – you did not take a vow to serve a party. You
took a vow to serve the people.
To the person who believes my classmates and I are dangerous – we are human.
To the people who told me my friends and I are not beautiful – black is beautiful.
To those who believed that my peers and I would drop out – looks like you were wrong.
To everyone who voted for hate – love wins.
I could go on for hours talking about the people who defined us as something other than successful. But today is not solely about the obstacles that were placed in front of us. Today is about the truth. The fact that there were several times people underestimated us and we were able to prove them wrong. We stand here and take our diplomas not only as an act of defiance, but also as an act of gratitude. Thankful for the adults that cared, thankful for the teacher that spent hours educating us, thankful for the parents, family members, counselors, friends, politicians, and mentors that believed we could make it to this moment.
We could not have done this without you because it takes a village to raise a child. Despite the fact that our education was treated like an experiment, lacked in resources, and was marked by the presence of people who stopped believing we were capable, we did it. In 6 years we were capable of going from a 51 percent graduation rate to a 91 percent graduation rate. Today we acknowledge the fact that our country is not equal and that we have it harder than many other people. We acknowledge that, despite this inequality, we beat the odds. We did it, and now we have the chance to not only reach our own dreams, but also to help others reach theirs.
If we were able to overcome all of these obstacles, then there is nothing that can stop us. No one that can stop us, no dream that we can’t reach, and no adversity that we cannot overcome, because in the end, they said we couldn’t, so we did, and when they say we won’t, we will. Thank you and congratulations to the class of 2017.P
The NEA posted a handy explanation of the differences among current voucher programs.
Learn to understand Betsy DeVos’s euphemisms.
School vouchers are actually unpopular, which is why their advocates call them by another term.
“Voucher devotees like DeVos know this, which is why the term “school voucher” has been ditched in favor of more appealing terms.
“Take for example this line from DeVos’ speech to the AFC. Praising Indiana’s large-scale voucher program, she promised to “empower states and give leaders like Eric Holcomb the flexibility and opportunity to enhance choices Indiana provides its students.”
“In that one sentence alone, DeVos offers up four favorite euphemisms used to rebrand voucher legislation: “empower,” “flexibility,” “opportunity” and, of course, “choice.”
Confused about the difference between a “tax credit” voucher program and an “education savings account”? Read about it in this brief post.
Now that we live in the new gig economy, where kids in their 20s become instant multimillionaires by disrupting every industry, here come the hawkers of (de)personalized learning to replace teachers with smart (but not cheap) machines. These machines never need pensions or health care. They don’t care about tenure or due process.
Jennifer Berkshire (once known as EduShyster) and historian of education Jack Schneider survey the plan to disrupt American education.
“Podcast: My Teacher is an Algorithm
“Silicon Valley billionaires want to replace teachers with technology, and their big money cause is attracting some strange bedfellows.
“Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg is in. So is Reed Hastings from Netflix. In fact, it’s hard to find a Silicon Valley billionaire who doesn’t want to disrupt public education by replacing teachers with algorithms. In the latest episode of the Have You Heard podcast, co-hosts Jennifer Berkshire and Jack Schneider talk to Common Sense Media’s Bill Fitzgerald about how so-called “personalized learning” is actually a misnomer. Learning by algorithm, says Fitzgerald, isn’t particularly personal, or even human. And the closed learning systems of which Zuckerberg et al are so enthusiastic about give adults far too much opportunity to limit the content of what kids are exposed to—one reason why fans of religious education, including Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, are all over this trend. Don’t be fooled by Silicon Valley’s talk of equity and civil rights as part of its sales pitch for personalized learning, says Fitzgerald. Automating the learning experiences of the most vulnerable students will only exacerbate the country’s stark educational inequities. You can hear the entire episode here.”
Peter Greene explains the hoax at the heart of “personalized learning.”
The appeal is that it is customized just for you. The reality is that it is a standardized algorithm that adjusts to your responses but doesn’t you from Adam or Eve.
The Brand X that we’re supposed to be escaping, the view of education that Personalized Learning is supposed to alter, the toxin for which Personalized Learning is the alleged antidote is an education model in which all students get on the same car of the same train and ride the same tracks to the same destination at the same time. That’s not what’s actually going on in public schools these days, but let’s set that aside for the moment.
Real personalized learning would tear up the tracks, park the train, offer every student a good pair of hiking shoes or maybe a four-wheeler, maybe even a hoverboard, plus a map of the territory (probably in the form of an actual teacher), then let the student pick a destination and a path and manner of traveling.
But techno-personalized learning keeps the track and the train. In the most basic version, we keep one train and one track and the “personalization” is that students get on at different station. Maybe they occasionally get to catch a helicopter that zips them ahead a couple of stops.
But personalized? No.
Diane Ravitch's blog 