The National Education Policy Center produces a series of podcasts about current issues.
In this one, Christopher Saldaña interviews historian Jack Schneider and journalist Jennifer Berkshire about their new book A Wolf at the Schoolhouse Door: The Dismantling of Public Education and the Future of School. Schneider and Berkshire have produced a podcast called Have You Heard? and they are skilled interviewers and discussants of their work.
The podcast raises important issues about the assault on public education and what comes next.
In A Wolf at the Schoolhouse Door, the authors discuss the political actors who have advocated for market-oriented policies in order to privatize public schools. They explain that the goal of the book is to examine powerful but less well-known state-level groups who have sought to influence and shape the governance of schools, educational policy, and educational practice. The authors argue that it is these state-level interest groups that have consistently and meticulously undermined the public-ness of public schools.
According to Schneider and Berkshire, the desire to make individual choices about education private, as opposed to collective, is at the heart of the privatization agenda. They argue that advocates of privatization seek to narrow the purpose of schooling to the accumulation of human capital for individual gain. Within this approach to schooling, parents decide where their child should learn, what they should learn, and how they should be taught. Like a market for cars or groceries, parents as consumers – not the larger public – determine what are successful schools. The authors explain this approach strips away the democratic purpose of schools. Where democratic schooling is designed to ensure all children receive equal educational opportunities and do so in an environment that integrates students of different backgrounds, a system that relies purely on parental choice – such as universal school vouchers – is designed to segregate students solely by parental preference.
Schneider and Berkshire see signs of hope in the collective movements organized by teachers unions and communities. In their view, if public schools are to survive and thrive, they require a well-organized collective to identify and push back against the contradictions inherent in market-oriented policies. They recommend that readers and listeners familiarize themselves with the groups advocating for privatization and consider how these groups work to influence policy in order to develop long-term strategies that successfully oppose privatization.
Ed reform has been REALLY busy in Ohio. They’ve successfully lobbied for still more funding for charters and also accomplished a huge voucher expansion.
Nothing at all accomplished for public school students except a demand that we take standardized tests this spring.
There’s really two sides to the ed reform lobby pushing privatization. There’s charters and vouchers and then there’s the neglect of public schools that comes along with ed reform-dominated governance.
They simply don’t serve students in public schools. Ed reformers work for the privatized systems they envision and hope to achieve. Public schools and public school students won’t be part of the system they promote, so therefore are politically expendable and can be safely either actively harmed or ignored.
I can’t remember the last time the State of Ohio did anything positive for students in public schools. Every legislative session is completely dominated by a list of ed reform demands on vouchers and charters. Public schools just languish. We can’t even get the people we’re PAYING in state government to do some work on their behalf. They contribute nothing.
Having spent some time in my life observing academics in their native habitats, I’ve noticed that professors who are public intellectuals rarely tout the work of their peers in their own areas of specialty. Though there are exceptions, most are too consumed by academic jealousy and protectiveness about their areas of specialization to do so. I just wanted to point out that Diane Ravitch, a specialist on the subject of the attempted privatization of US education, among other things, is the exact opposite of such a person. When she encounters great work in her field, she shares it and sings its praises, even if she has a new book out on the subject. That’s noble and inspiring. It shouldn’t be unusual and so remarkable, but it is. Thank you, DIane!
That’s a really interesting observation, Bob. The physicians and researchers I work with fit the model of Diane. They hungrily promote each others’ ideas and are upfront about having opinions that may not agree with their colleagues while acknowledging that there is no rock-solid consensus. They realize collaboration will ultimately benefit their patients. Indeed, I have a program tomorrow featuring six experts who will discuss the most important scientific meeting of the year and studies by others they found interesting, not their own. The few experts I have met who fit the negative model are generally isolated, left behind, and focused on profit-making. Never realized this until your remark above.
This may help explain why there has been more progress made in this field of cancer than in any other in the past 23 years. As I reflect a bit more, the negative model you describe does exist in other types of cancer with much higher incidence rates.
This is truly wonderful to read, Greg. I wish it were the case in the humanities. Ofc, there are exceptions to the sad rule.
Do the billionaire privatizers really care that much about education and the children? Or is it all about their devotion to the libertarian cult? I’m thinking that in most cases, it is the latter plus the buck$$$$ to be made with privatization (and the side “benefit” of the complete de-unionization of the schools). Added to this witch’s brew of privatization are the uber religious types who are under the delusion that the public schools are a hot bed of godlessness, socialism and libtard indoctrination centers.
It’s been really interesting to watch the US Department of Education focus change under Biden.
Here’s how Biden approaches “school choice”
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/schoolchoice/intro.asp
It’s a link to actual stats on “choice” schools instead of the cheerleading and marketing of charters and vouchers and ideologically-based bashing of public schools we saw in Bush, then Obama, then Trump.
That ed reformers perceive this neutral approach as “anti-choice” just shows us how much of an echo chamber ed reform has become. They are so accustomed to having the Department of Education run by people from within their echo chamber they don’t even recognize what “agnostic” actually looks like.
The NCES misstates the origin of ‘school choice.’ It didn’t start in the ’60s. It started in response to the Brown vs. Bd of Education decision. There is no mention that the hidden agenda of choice systems is segregation. This article from In the Public Interest does a better job explaining one of the main objectives in so-called choice.https://www.inthepublicinterest.org/school-choice-is-a-dog-whistle-for-resegregation/
Read here about the history of school choice. Tweet it. Share it with your friends.
https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2021/01/14/the-dark-history-of-school-choice/
https://bobshepherdonline.wordpress.com/2020/01/06/stopping-by-school-on-a-disruptive-afternoon/
Yes! While neo-liberals are pursuing their individual goals. they sell out the collective ones like education as a common good that is part of a democratic system of governance.
I look at the neoliberal compromise with DeVosian thinking, and I see players who did not just believe in making education an individual consumer product instead of a collective effort to build a democratic citizenry, but who made their own election to public office an effort to accumulate personal wealth. Clinton was the first man to get rich from being president. He described how he accomplished it after he left office. His goals were very often personal. It became a model that Bush and Trump attempted to emulate and Obama successfully enacted. Neoliberals don’t believe in ideas; rather, they use ideas as the means toward selfish ends.
I browsed google, wondering if there was any difference at all between neoliberalism and the current version of American libertarianism. What I found was stylistic, not substantive. The thin line of difference appears to be that neoliberals recognize the inequitable effect, but are confident they can tweak policy to improve things. Libertarians have no confidence that govt can make improvements, & don’t care.
I would urge everyone who lives in an ed reform dominated state to go look at the legislative record in your state.
Look for anything they promote or pass that benefits any student in any public school. 90% of what they accomplish isn’t even relevant to public school students, unless those students transfer to a charter or private school.
If you’re hiring or electing these folks you’re not going to get better public schools. You’re going to get their ideological agenda, which doesn’t include public schools. You’ll see whole legislative sessions that revolve completely around expanding, funding and promoting charters and vouchers. Only AFTER the ed reform lobbies list of demands on charters and vouchers is met do lawmakers turn to the unfashionable “public school sector” and whole years can go by where public school students are barely mentioned.
It’s amazing really. They’re supposedly a “public education movement” but they exclude 85 to 90% of students because our students attend public schools, which don’t conform with the “market based” philosophy. They simply don’t do any work at all on our behalf and there are THOUSANDS of ed reformers on public payrolls.
It was amusing to watch Democratic ed reformers all embrace and promote vouchers.
For two decades they all assured us they opposed vouchers but when the ed reform echo chamber backed vouchers they all quietly got on board.
They now sell Jeb Bush’s education agenda as “progressive” – I mean, for goodness sakes. Is there no shame at just bamboozling their voters like this? What is “progressive” about gutting public schools to fund private schools?
Were there Democrat ed reformers embracing vouchers? I know a few may have, but I thought most of the Dems kept trying to distinguish between “non-profit charters” and other kinds of reforms. I happen to think that distinction is misleading, so it never impresses me when dems say that they “only support non-profit charters”, but I did think that most Dems did not support vouchers.
Can anyone in ed reform describe a meaningful distinction between Jeb Bush and Arne Duncan on education?
The agenda is identical.
I actually credit DeVos. At least she was openly hostile to public schools so voters knew where she stood. She actually had the courage of her anti-public school convictions and took the political hit for them. These people want to abolish public schools yet not be accountable to voters for doing it. They’re hoping we don’t notice they return no value to public schools and continue to employ them, forever.
One lives in Florida and the other in Chicago. That’s the only thing that comes to mind.
Excellent question.
Bottom line is that Republicans like Jeb Bush and Democrats like Obama and Duncan shared same agenda.
Posted at https://www.opednews.com/Quicklink/NEPC-Talks-Education-Disc-in-General_News-Education_Education-Vouchers_Educational-Crisis_Public-Education-210129-916.html#comment784307 with links ot the book, too.
Really surprised to see the use of the word “discussants” which appears in searches, but not in the most revealing search of all.https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=discussant I wonder why you chose this word. I’ve never seen it before.