A regular reader pointed out that I mistakenly posted the same Peter Greene column twice–on the branded classroom.
I had a senior moment!
To make up for it, I am posting Peter’s wonderful new review of the XQ extravaganza.
He points out that the show was like a Jerry Lewis telethon to “save” public schools. But public schools are not a charity: they are “a civic institution, a civic duty, a civic obligation.”
He writes:
“Charity is optional for the giver. Only give what you feel you can afford when you feel you can afford it. Charitable giving makes you feel good precisely because you didn’t have to do it. And you can give what you feel like giving (pro tip– for disasters like Harvey and Irma, send money, not shit that volunteers have to that may or may not be any use). You could send money, but you could also volunteer to put on a show or, you know, send thoughts and prayers. If you have better things to spend your money on, well then, the charity will just have to wait. Shouldn’t be a problem because…
“Charity is optional for the receiver. Sure, the thinking goes, it would be nice if they had a little more money to work with, but if that money doesn’t come in, they’ll scrape by somehow. You know how resourceful those poor folks are.
“Too much charity is bad. Wouldn’t want to make people dependent. Besides, this kind of support isn’t really sustainable, so we’d better not overdo it.
“Charity has to be earned. Of course, we only give charity to people who show they deserve it by displaying proper character or proper goals or proper deference with their betters who have the money. Or they can deserve it by having a really sad story. Undercover Boss is infuriating because in every episode we hear a sad story about someone who can barely support their struggling family/sick child/aging parent on the shitty wages and benefits that the company pays, so in almost every episode, the boss makes things better for that one employee, not asking if perhaps his company’s shitty wages and benefits might be hard on Every Other Employee!
“Charter schools are frequently pitched as charities, and charteristas like that favorite reformster chorus “Well, we saved that one kid from terrible public schools” while steadfastly refusing to talk about the 600 students still in that “terrible public school” or the obligation, as members of the civic body, to help that public school. Because…
“I gave at the office. Charity allows you to pretend that you’ve fulfilled any obligation you had to deal with the issue. Send the check in, then check out. Cash and dash. Drive-by do-gooding….
“Treating schools for poor kids (because, really, are we talking about any others) as charities let’s people glide by the whole idea that they have any kind of obligation to educate all children, including Those Peoples’ Children in That Part of Town. It allows a bunch of people to say, “Well, since I’ve given some support to a miracle school filled with hero teachers, my work is done. And I feel great about it.”
“When the critical mass of Americans (or at least a critical mass of people in power) decide to commit to doing something, they do it. There were no bake sales for the Apollo program or car washes to support the war in Afghanistan. We just did it, price tag be damned. When I contemplate the XQ telethon, I come back to the same old depressing conclusion– one of the fundamental reasons we don’t solve the problems of public education is that we don’t really want to. We just want to pretend we’re kind of trying while making sure the business is not too expensive. Please don’t tax me for the real amount of equitable public education for all– but I will drop a couple of dollars in the collection plate, and my friend here will do a nice song and dance. Now we’ve done our part– please go away and don’t bother us about this for a year or so.”
Diane Ravitch's blog 
I believe Mr. Greene has captured the essence of school “choice”.
LikeLike
Right on. Public Schools are necessary, not a frill. This is like someone asking: WHY should I invest in RENEWABLE ENERGY. Duh… hurricanes like Harvey, Irma, not to mention tornadoes, earthquakes, tsunamis.
Just “praying” won’t help. Charities won’t help.
Public schools “matter” … for the health and welfare of country.
LikeLike
I don’t see Greene’s point. The reformistas want to fund schools via a tax revenue stream, not charity. Reformistas just think charters use tax money more wisely than public schools. I agree that schools could use more money, but I also understand the reformers’ skepticism that this will make a dramatic difference. It hasn’t in the past. What they don’t realize is that it may be impossible to make dramatic differences. There have been many educational utopianists like Powell-Jobs since Rousseau –their experiments are a catalogue of failure that she ought to read. We ought to set our sights on making steady, incremental improvements to the public system over the long-haul, not great leaps forward. This quest for dramatic improvements leads us to squander precious time and resources. Here’s a more fruitful use of money: Powell-Jobs could use her money to give the best biology teachers in America a five-year paid sabbatical to put together a set of utterly awesome lessons in sequence and put them in the public domain (yes, it could take five years to create, test, hone and perfect these lessons –this is slow work. The callow interns at LearnZillion and similar outfits cannot equal the work of seasoned vets). And then fund two-week sabbaticals for all the other biology teachers in America to attend institutes to learn to teach these finely-crafted lessons.
LikeLike
I think Gates, Alice Walton, DeVos, etc. personally see their “contributions” as charity rather than as we rightfully see their intent, as investments for personal gain—whether it be in stature (some false legacy) or actual profits.
LikeLike
I think Greene made his point pretty clearly: “…Strauss caught a note that I missed– the the XQstravaganza was not so much a Bass-o-matic pitch as it was a compressed Jerry Lewis Labor Day telethon. It did portray public education (well, at least education for the poor) as a charity.”
LikeLike
Peter Greene is a terrific blogger. So glad to have been introduced to his work through your site!
One quibble: “When the critical mass of Americans (or at least a critical mass of people in power) decide to commit to doing something, they do it.”
The chances that a “critical mass” of those in power will fully commit to public education–and all that this entails–is slim to nil in the current political environment.
As with Medicare for All, such a commitment will only come from a “critical mass” of Americans themselves.
I see what Arizona public school advocates are doing with the “NoProp305” movement as a model for the future.
LikeLike
“The chances that a “critical mass” of those in power will fully commit to public education–and all that this entails–is slim to nil in the current political environment.”
You’re not really quibbling at all. Greene went on to say, “…one of the fundamental reasons we don’t solve the problems of public education is that we don’t really want to.”
LikeLike
Reblogged this on David R. Taylor-Thoughts on Education.
LikeLike
If you watched something other than the news about the hurricane, you may have seen all or part of the “Entertainment Industry Foundation
Presents: XQ Super School Live” effort to rebrand the idea of high school, treating it as a charity in need of celebrity backing and entertainment value for students and teachers.
Branding is in.
Here in river city we have an outfit called the Brandery. It is known as an ”accelerator” a place where entrepreneurs convene, get access to marketing talent, learn about the skill sets they need from “elite” mentors (also called rock-star mentors) from “world-class companies such as Procter & Gamble, dunnhumby, and Kroger. The Brandery training program is four months long. It offers $50K for a 6% equity stake in each startup, a year of free office space and other monetized benefits, including low cost housing in a building with other upstarts. The premise is simple: If you are “consumer-focused you must be brand-focused.”
DeVos and others in Congress want schools to treat students as customers. For school accountability, ESSA now allows the equivalent of customer satisfaction surveys, called school climate surveys, with branded versions like Panorama attracting high profile investors seeking profits from data. These investors include Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan’s Startup:Education. and Google Ventures.
Surveys are also branded and marketed by the non-profit schoolclimate.org. The non-profit offers at least seven branded and trademarked products and slogans which, according to the Terms of Service, I am not supposed to mention: “All trademarks, service marks, trade names and trade dress, whether registered or unregistered that appear on the Site, including, but not limited to, “—” “—”, “—”, “—”,”—”, “—” and “—” are proprietary to NSCC or their respective owners (collectively the “Marks”). You may not display or reproduce the Marks other than with the prior written consent of NSCC, and you may not remove or otherwise modify any trademark notices from any Content received through the Site.” This website also has a privacy policy announcing that it collects personally identifiable information, http://www.schoolclimate.org/programs/csci.php
Getting your branding right is more important than ever, especially if you are a non-profit like school climate.org, where you are gathering data, and have a privacy policy that allows you to collect “personally identifiable information” as soon as you choose to use its services or products.
On the radio today I heard about Brandutainment. Here is how it is marketing itself.
Brandutainment is “An Alternative Branding Method to the Traditional Noise in the Form of Solution Driven Content.”
“Unlike traditional Brand Integration, instead of plugging the product or brand into the programming or content, we wrap the storyline around your brand and product, while positioning it as a solution to a lifestyle challenge.
Brandutainment allows for an introduction of the product to the consumer in a non-interruptive way, while they are tuned into the program and interested in being educated about it, while being entertained and engaged with your brand. Some call it Social Media on TV, we call it a Brand New World!”
ENTERTAIN— Attract interest and create a pleasurable experience with programming that triggers emotion, thought, and BRAND Interest.
EDUCATE—Develop knowledge of a BRAND through the application of skill, character, instruction, and teaching consumers how to better their lives.
ENGAGE—The promise of a BRAND to draw in, involve, attract attention and occupy a place in the consumers’ mind under the power of the BRAND
Consider a related operation called BRANDUSELL™
This is “A Multi-Media Integrated Direct Response Campaign That Supports Branding and Selling Simultaneously.”
We believe that selling to a market that doesn’t know your brand is a “cold sell,” that’s why we integrate our Brandutainment method into our Direct Response initiatives for a successful ROI maximized formula, which we call Brelling.
Brelling is the combination of Brand education and entertainment supported by an aggressive Direct Sell multi-channel campaign, on-air and on-line to drive direct leads and purchase.
And one more: BRANDULIFT™
“Creating Consumer Swarming Affect Through Continuity Using On-Air, Online and On the Ground Interactions.
On-Air—Develop trust in consumers’ minds through continuity in educational programming supported by spot messaging and BRAND promotion.
Online—Interact with consumers through targeted communities, special interest clubs and media channels, while engaging them with your BRAND.
In a fascinating article in the Harvard Business Review (March 2016) Douglas Holt offers a look a traditional branding strategies and “Branding in the Age of Social Media.” I recommend it as a foil for thinking about the narratives about public education, and how this generation is learning to think about themselves and issues in their lives. I am still thinking this through for myself. It is hard work for me, perhaps because I am not a digital native or fan of Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat and the like.
LikeLike