During this past two decades of “reform,” there has been a concerted effort to minimize or eliminate democratic control of public schools. Egged on by No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top, states and districts initiated state takeovers of entire school districts, which typically failed, and mayoral control, which substituted the singular judgment of the mayor for elected school boards. John Chubb and Terry Moe wrote a book in 1990, “Politics, Markets, and America’s Schools,” in which they argued that school choice was a panacea, and that democracy was the most essential obstacle to achieving that nirvana.
In this article, posted at Valerie Strauss’s “Answer Sheet,” Carol Burris and I argue that governance matters, and that democratic governance is a fundamental tenet of public education.
We have learned from the repeated errors of state takeovers and mayoral control, as well as charter school failures and voucher scams, that democratic accountability is essential to public education. The schools belong to the public, and they must not be handed off to grifters, celebrities, religious groups, or corporate charter chains.
Governance matters.
This is our article:
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Governance matters. As we from the South say, ‘nuff said.
This. This right here. People need to know from where public education comes. Yep, democratic governance is a foundational building block of society, is not safe from attack, and requires constant participation. Reed Hastings’ attempts to overthrow democratically elected school boards is like Elon Musk’s attempt to save a soccer team trapped in a cave all by himself with an unwieldy invention, and calling his heroic opposition a “pedo”. Billionaires full of themselves.
You can always tell a truly excellent piece of writing when you read it and go, of course, that just makes so much sense. There it is, like my hand held right in front of me. It’s obvious.
But, of course, far too few issues these days seem easy to clarify…to really see. Of course, the forces that try to delude, obfuscate and outright lie have found a home in some of the highest positions of power in our nation. Add to that the avalanche of facts, data, analysis and prediction that we get snowed under on a daily basis and even the most thoughtful citizen has a hard time sorting it all out. (All the easier to make citizens into just consumers. But, as you point out, these are NOT the same roles.in a democratic society.)
Thanks to you both, Diane and Carol along with Valerie for all your hard work.
YES.
Great piece – thanks.
I have a question: Due to our current president and dangerously, ever-increasing debt, when the economy falls apart and we are in a very serious recession, will politicians increase their push for charters because we cannot afford our schools?
This is a serious question: Does the fight against charters increase or decrease during economic troubles? I’m asking cause it is going to happen soon and I want to know what to prepare for.
Thanks!
I am guessing that should the economy itself tank and the President not then immediately attach a massive funding bailout tied heavily to teacher/school blame (good old RttT) much of what has happened to schools since 2008 would not re-occur. Opportunists require money to lure them into the game.
I am not convinced that the billionaires who are spending millions on various charter projects are doing so to make even more money. Based on the thinking described in Anand Giridharadas book, Winners Take All, their motive might well be misguided idealism. In one of the opening chapters of the book Mr. Giridharadas quotes from a book titled Philanthocapitalism: How the Rich Can Save the World written by Matthew Bishop and Michael Green in 2008:
“Today’s philanthrocapitalists see a world full of big problems that they, and perhaps only they, must put right. Surely, they say, we can save the lives of millions of children who die each year in poor countries from poverty or diseases that have been eradicated in the rich world. And back home in the United States or Europe, it is we who must make our education systems work for every child.”
A couple of paragraphs later, Mr. Giridharadas offers Mr. Bishop and Mr. Green’s description of philanthrocapitalists as wealthy individuals who view themselves as:
“…”hyperagents” who have the capacity to do some essential things far better than anyone else.They do not face elections every few years or suffer the tyranny of shareholder demands… like CEOs…Nor do they have to devote vast amounts of time and resources to raising money like most heads of NGOs. That frees them up to think long term, to go against conventional wisdom, to take up ideas too risky for government, to deploy substantial resources quickly when the situation demands it.”
Given this way of thinking, it may be that the billionaires who are underwriting “reform” are acting out of the misguided belief that they alone have the capacity “…to do some essential things” far better than anyone else and that they believe they are spending their money “…to make our education systems work for every child”. That is, they may believe they are making the world a better place by imposing their “enlightened views” on those elected officials who presumably do NOT have the ability to do “some essential things” far better than anyone else… and if that is the case, hubris, not greed, is the motivating force for the billionaires who want to undercut democracy in the name of “reform”.
Either way, democracy loses in the end…
“Based on the thinking described in Anand Giridharadas book, Winners Take All, their motive might well be misguided idealism.”
I no longer think the motive matters. One has to ask why they promote antidemocratic systems and structures so enthusiastically. I know they think it’s “better”- but they think everything they promote is “better”- that’s the problem.
I feel like the whole ed reform “movement” attitude was summed up in one DeVos visit I read. She visited an Alabama public school. The principal at the school said he had 65 short term substitutes and couldn’t find teachers. DeVos and Co didn’t want to talk about that. Instead they chose to focus on a small program donated by an Ivy league university. He’s talking about wages and employees and they’re talking about some charitable gesture by wealthy and powerful people. It’s a complete disconnect. They’re of no practical use to any public school, anywhere and they absolutely dominate government.
It’s funny because ed reformers could have chosen all kinds of governance models- there aren’t only two choices, elected school boards and appointed corporate-like boards. There’s lots of choices.
One can look at municipal water systems and see the variety of governance models available- there’s a lot of democratic models.
But they chose appointed boards that have NO mechanism for local input. They chose the LEAST democratic model one can find. They deliberately and carefully rejected not just elected school boards but all the other democratic governance models.
That’s the influence of the billionaires that fund “the movement”. They didn’t want any public voice or input. They still don’t. They shut down any dissent as “defending the status quo”.
Ed reformers themselves call portfolio districts “charter lite”. The singular and exclusive focus is on charter schools. All public schools are evaluated in terms of how they compare to charters. Public schools have no inherent value in this “movement”- they’re not measured on their own merit, they’re measured according to how closely they adhere to movement ideological goals.
One can see it in their state rankings of education too. The single factor is how closely the state adheres to ed reform market dogma. Follow along lockstep, get an “A”.
This is an excellent article that can only be written by those with a deep, global understanding of the issues. I read through the forty or so comments as well. There was only one pro-charter post in the comments. The public needs to understand that there is a billionaire, corporate assault on our public schools. If we do not defend them by voting, it could have dire consequences for future generations. The public needs to understand that the stakes are high, and we need their active support.
“KIEV, Ukraine —In the spring of 2015, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko was desperate for Mark Zuckerberg’s help. His government had been urging Facebook to stop the Kremlin’s spreading of misinformation on the social network to foment distrust in his new administration and to promote support of Russia’s invasion and occupation of parts of Ukraine.
To get Zuckerberg’s attention, the president posted a question for a town hall meeting at Facebook’s Silicon Valley headquarters. There, a moderator read it aloud.
“Mark, will you establish a Facebook office in Ukraine?” the moderator said, chuckling, according to a video of the assembly. The room of young employees rippled with laughter. But the government’s suggestion was serious: It believed that a Kiev office, staffed with people familiar with Ukraine’s political situation, could help solve Facebook’s high-level ignorance about Russian information warfare.”
This is who ed reformers would put in charge of 50 million public school students- billionaires who are both ignorant and also too lazy to learn anything about the places they parachute into.
He had to beg this, arrogant, clueless and unresponsive corporation to learn something – they refused. The whole population of his country suffered and there’s no recourse. In order to petition Mark Zuckerberg you have to beg him like a supplicant at a corporate meeting.
They’re “disrupting” all right- in the most arrogant and irresponsible manner possible, and ed reformers want them to direct education policy for 50 million children. Reckless. We’ll all pay for it.
Public schools are signing on to another ed tech marketing scheme:
https://www.innovateedunyc.org/our-team
I really wish they would stop “pledging” to follow every ed reform gimmick and sales pitch that comes down the pike. We’re not hiring and paying them to follow orders from Mark Zuckerberg.
They’re jamming ed tech into schools because it’s a huge potential market and they’re “reaching out” to public schools because public schools are BY FAR the biggest share of the market.
Please don’t just swallow this. Look at the backers- it is literally the same 5 billionaires.
“The schools belong to the public, and they must not be handed off to grifters, celebrities, religious groups, or corporate charter chains. Governance matters.”
AMEN, SISTERS!
For billionaire charter and voucher supporters democracy is not a guiding principle, it’s an instrument to be utilized or dispensed with as suits their direct self-interest and/or world view– one in which equity is not an overarching goal. I’ve come to view Trump’s ideology, which they support even if they are fond of him, as “predatory prey.” It’s a dystopian idea that must be rejected by organizing and voting.
“Those who push the portfolio model point to Denver and New Orleans as examples of success…” Just ask the growing number of anti-school-reform activists in Denver these days how successful the invasive school-closing neighborhood-dividing portfolio model has been…