Greed Capitalism, Civil Democracy, and Public Education

Extreme polarization in American politics has become the norm, and it’s wreaking havoc on public education.

The old labels of conservative and liberal must be set aside. “Conservatives” are intent on conserving nothing. These so-called conservatives—at least the most ardent of the tribe—are actively working toward resegregation of U.S. society not only along racial and ethnic lines but also along economic lines. The destruction of public education is one way they are trying to achieve it. This objective can best be characterized as an iteration of greed capitalism. The philosophy is not “I’ve got mine, you get yours” but rather, “I’ve got mine and now I want yours.”

Greed capitalism is rooted in fear, and there’s been plenty of that to go around. Although the 1990s brought nearly a decade of growth and prosperity, that happy time was disturbed as the world moved with mythic anxiety toward the turn of the century. Y2K was a boogeyman. Much of his boogeyness was steeped in a deep distrust of technology. The Digital Age didn’t arrive like the rosy-fingered dawn. It raced in with bells, sirens, and flashing lights. If you were content to live in some prior misremembered Golden Age, say, the Fifties, such a clamor represented a threat that, for all its subsequent banality, seemed all too real to many people at the time. New technology then and still today raises the fear of change.

And then, of course, there was the all-too-real assault on U.S. sovereignty of the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Given a political hysteria already stoked by other forms of fear, it was no surprise that overreaction was the order of the day. Two ill-considered, illegal, and largely unnecessary wars torpedoed prosperity and plunged the country into massive debt, while policies favoring greed capitalism set America up for the economic knockdown of 2008, just when the country ought to have been recovering from its excess of imperialism.

So-called liberals experienced a fleeting resurgence in Barack Obama’s politics of hope, which were a reaction to the then-dominant politics of fear. But the 21st century’s not-so-great depression put some holes in hope, and the election—and reelection—of a black-identified President, of course, fueled the poorly concealed racism inherent in greed capitalism.

Today’s liberals would have been middle-of-the-road conservatives in those golden Fifties. A virulently radical rightwing cadre under the big tent of putative conservatism has dragged the entire body politic to the right. If there are any ardent leftists remaining, they are plowing their organic fields well away from the fray. If true, honest-to-Eisenhower conservatism has been subverted by the radicalism of greed, then true FDR liberalism has been subverted by apathy and, ironically, a reemergent sense of hopelessness.

The American Founders, by and large, well understood the dangers of absolute democracy, such as strict adherence to majority rule. A tyranny of the majority has always been a real threat. Democracy in the New World could succeed only on the basis of a social contract: government for the common good. Of the people, by the people, for the people—accent on for. This is the essence of our civil democracy—not socialism, as rightwing critics accuse.

A cornerstone of the common good has been, since near the beginning of our nationhood, public education. Truly public education is premised on notions of equity and equality. The common school is a reification of the common good, providing everyone the opportunity to achieve success and prosperity to the extent of his or her abilities and efforts. In attending to the common good, the Founders were focused on the notion often expressed in the cliché about a rising tide lifting all boats. When all prosper, the nation prospers. When prosperity is privileged, the nation falters.

Rightists give a wink and a nod to “democracy,” “Christianity,” and other wholesome notions and, in so doing, have hoodwinked a substantial segment of the population into believing that what’s good for the rich is good for everyone. Gold-enthroned televangelists have nothing on these purveyors of the greed-is-good philosophy, for whom there is no common good. Common is for commoners. Greed capitalists are creating an aristocracy of wealth. In 21st century American politics money rules wherever good people have been fooled into voting against their own best interests, something you'll never catch a greed capitalist doing.

So where does that put public schools? Smack in the middle. They are the red flag at the center of the rope in the socioeconomic and political tug of war, pulled this way and that. Adherents of the Founders’ vision of democracy tempered by social conscience are fighting to retain public education as the means by which the American dream can be realistically offered to everyone—no exceptions.

Greed capitalists and their dupes are pulling hard in the opposite direction, using vouchers, charters, and “choice” sound-good rhetoric (and accompanying legislation) to ensure a permanent, and growing, economic underclass—serfs for the aristocracy. The gulf between the wealthy and the impoverished in the United States is astonishingly large in comparison to other nations in the developed world. America has now become a shining example not of democracy realized, but of democracy imperiled.

Those who believe in the American Founders’ vision of a social contract, of the common good, of a land of opportunity must grasp their end of the rope and tug with increased fervor. Make no mistake, the opportunists of greed are doing just that from the opposite direction. The battle to keep universal public education public is a battle to save American democracy.

Time to Grade the School Board?

The following, written with co-authors Phil and Joan Harris, appeared as a guest column in the Bloomington, Indiana, Herald-Times, on October 9, 2013.

The 45th annual PDK/Gallup Poll of the Public’s Attitudes Toward the Public Schools was released recently. The annual poll is one way of “grading” our nation’s public education system according to the public it serves. A majority of the public (58%), for example, rejects using student test scores to evaluate teachers, and even more (78%) aren’t convinced that increased testing helps school performance. The poll is a thoughtful, well-researched, respected mechanism for gauging what the public thinks is right and wrong about America’s schools. Too bad we don’t have a localized tool to do the same.

Indiana instituted an A-to-F grading system for schools that proved to be corruptible. Even before the Tony Bennett grade-changing scandal, the best that could be said of this “system” is that it fails to say anything meaningful about the quality of public education. It is simplistic and mischaracterizes school quality.

The A-F scheme merely tells us what we already know—and ignore—about the effects of poverty on education. Researchers have identified common poverty-related factors that significantly affect children’s health and learning, and thus limit what schools can accomplish. Factors include inadequate medical, dental, and vision care; food insecurity; and substandard living environments. These and related factors correlate to many poverty-induced problems that children bring to school and manifest in issues such as attention disorders, absenteeism, linguistic delays, and bad behavior.

Given what we know and ignore about the influence of poverty on student academic growth and graduation rates, the A-F scheme has the effect of holding down those whom it purports to lift up. “Failing” schools almost invariably have large numbers of students from impoverished backgrounds. Such schools often are not failing but merely fighting an uphill battle that cannot be easily won.

Let’s admit, then, that grading schools in this way is really about labeling communities and keeping the poor in their place. Ask any realtor whether an F school is likely to encourage higher home prices. The effect of A-F labeling—not actually evaluating—schools simply stamps “POOR” on the neighborhood and perpetuates problems.

What can we do? Maybe it’s time we evaluated our local school trustees. We might choose to evaluate them simplistically, the way the A-F system does schools. We could use superficial factors, such as meeting attendance, number of school visits, minutes spent with administrators, and so forth. Or we might model our evaluation on what we have learned really matters in public education:

• Does the school board evaluate this community’s schools based on this community’s values, needs, and circumstances, rather than generalized, simplistic state criteria?
• Are school board meetings truly open, and are community members encouraged to participate meaningfully? Do our school trustees really listen and respond?
• Do our school trustees work with education experts to understand programs and projects fully in order to allocate public dollars where they are needed and will achieve real results?
• Is professional knowledge and public input the driving force behind school board decisions? Do school trustees set politics aside?
• How is our school board working to change bad education policies—national, state, or local—that negatively affect our children and their teachers?
• What is our school board doing to mitigate the effects of poverty in the schooling of our children? Are our school trustees honestly working to level the education playing field?

These are tough evaluation questions. They are not yes-no, check-the-box questions that are easy to answer but tell us nothing we don’t already know. We, the public, want real answers. The only way to get them is to ask real questions.

A to F: Failing Our Schools

The best that can be said of awarding A to F grades to schools is that this so-called system consistently fails to say anything meaningful about the quality of public education. It is simplistic and vastly mischaracterizes school quality. A lot worse can be said, too.

The claim, still on view on the Indiana Department of Education website, that this spurious system is a “model [that] holds schools and corporations to higher standards and provides a more accurate picture of their performance by incorporating student academic growth and graduation rates, as well as college and career readiness, as measures of success” is sheer nonsense.

For the most part, the A-F scheme merely reifies what we already know—and ignore—about the effects of poverty on education. Researcher David Berliner*, for example, identifies common poverty-related factors that significantly affect children’s health and learning, and thus limit what schools can accomplish: 1) low birth weight and nongenetic prenatal influences; 2) inadequate medical, dental, and vision care, often because of little or no medical insurance; 3) food insecurity; 4) environmental pollutants related to substandard living environments; 5) family relations and family stress; and 6) neighborhood characteristics. These factors correlate to many poverty-induced physical, sociological, and psychological problems that children bring to school and manifest in issues such as attention disorders, absenteeism, linguistic delays, and bad behavior.

Given what we know and ignore about the influence of poverty on “student academic growth and graduation rates,” the A-F scheme is draconian, having the effect not of improving schools but, to the contrary, holding down those whom it aims to lift up. So-called failing schools are almost invariably those with large numbers of students from impoverished backgrounds. Ask any realtor whether an F school is likely to encourage higher home prices. Go ahead. Ask. The effect of labeling—not actually assessing the quality of—schools as “failing” simply stamps “Poor” on the neighborhood. And that’s the way the corporatist bureaucrats want to keep it.

This is important stuff: the manipulation of public education to serve the ends of corporatist greed and societal stratification under the guise of “improving” education. Indeed it was important enough for Indiana’ previous schools superintendent to falsify the grade given to a supporter’s charter school, changing it from a mediocre (and thus unacceptable) C to an A. What are friends for if they won’t lie for you, even if it results in a subsequent scandal and job loss?

Let’s admit that grading schools is really about labeling communities and ensuring that privileged enclaves remain exclusive and about keeping the poor in their place.

*David C. Berliner. “Poverty and Potential: Out-of-School Factors and School Success.” National Education Policy Center, March 9, 2009.

Common Core: 7. Does the Common Core Serve the Common Good

The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) aim to ensure that, according to their developers, “our communities will be best positioned to compete successfully in the global economy.” This is a corporate imperative, not a student-centered one. Many parents and educators and a growing number of states are questioning whether CCSS will best serve all of our children and whether, in fact, CCSS is detrimental to the common good of our republic. There is solid evidence that America already competes very successfully in the global economy, a success presumably attributable to U.S. schools present and past.

The one-size-fits-all curriculum philosophy has already been tried and found wanting at various times over the past century. Three additional, interrelated factors now merit attention as the public becomes increasing informed about the Common Core and how it will affect not only schools and children but also the public at large. These factors are costs, technology, and corporatization.

Regarding cost: In Indiana, for example, according to the IDOE website, the state spends more than $46 million annually on various standardized tests and claims that testing takes only 4.5 to 6.25 hours out of students’ annual learning time. These claims are, at best, misleading because they fail to include local-level direct and indirect costs (staff time, logistical support, and so on) as well as the massive amounts of learning time specifically directed toward teaching the narrow skills that will be assessed.

Multiply the costs in dollars and hours by a factor of 10 or more and a truer picture of CCSS in combination with existing high-stakes standardized testing will likely emerge. The Common Core cookie-cutter curriculum makes no allowance for individual differences, including the effects of students’ socioeconomic status (SES). Consequently CCSS will increase learning disparities rather than level the academic playing field. It’s not really one-size-fits-all, it’s one-size-fits-none—and a wastefully expensive size at that.

Regarding technology: The two organizations designing Common Core assessments, set to begin in 2014-15, recently released the technology requirements that schools will need to meet in order to test students by using computers. Among the requirements are moving from Windows XP (used by more than half of schools today) to Windows 7; upgrading computers to at least one gigabyte of internal memory; making sure screens used for assessment are no smaller than 9.5 inches with at least 1024 x 768 resolution; ensuring that testing sites operate on a secure browser; and providing 5 to 10 kilobytes per second of bandwidth per student. Set aside the techno-speak and the bottom line is that many schools are going to need to make significant investments in technology upgrades and new equipment in order to meet the CCSS assessment requirements.

While schools would benefit from technology upgrades in ways apart from administering new standardized tests, the big questions involve costs. Who pays? How much? A number of states have questioned CCSS participation on this basis. For example, Indiana State Senator Scott Schneider filed Senate Bill 193 in January to withdraw Indiana from the Common Core, citing in part the “veil of secrecy” behind which CCSS was adopted without sound estimates of the costs involved.

At a hearing on the bill in January, former Texas Commissioner of Education Robert Scott also testified before Indiana legislators, “These standards have not been piloted anywhere to show that they lead to better student performance” (in Education Week, February 11, 2013). Texas is among the states that have not adopted the Common Core.

Are American taxpayers really ready to shell out millions to implement an unproven program?

Regarding corporatization: Consider the focus on global competitiveness and the massive amounts of taxpayer money pouring into corporations, from those that develop and administer tests to those that run charter, take-over, and private schools using public money. CCSS fits into an overarching goal by certain policymakers to corporatize American education. It is little wonder that growing numbers of parents, educators, and lawmakers are urging caution or a step back from the edge of this particular precipice.

Common Core: 4. Aren't We Already "Globally Competitive"?

CCSS leaders want a national curriculum so that all students in the future “will be best positioned to compete successfully in the global economy.” The underlying message is that students—and, by extension, the United States—are not able to do so now, a conclusion that has little foundation. Let’s look at this conclusion from two perspectives.

First, critics of education often point to disparities between the performance of U.S. students and their counterparts in Europe and elsewhere on international achievement tests, such as PISA, which is administered in more than fifty countries. The lower U.S. ranking, say critics, is evidence that American students are not “globally competitive.”

However, there is a strong correlation between student achievement and family background, with socioeconomic status being a key factor in student achievement as measured by standardized tests of all sorts. Students disadvantaged by poverty do predictably poorer, as a group, on measures of academic achievement. Schools universally, not only in the United States, are relatively powerless to change this fundamental dynamic. When PISA results are controlled for SES, the ranking of U.S. students is considerably higher.

Finland, for example, is often cited for ranking far above the United States in student achievement as measured by PISA. However, in Finland only 1 in 25 students lives in poverty compared to 1 in 5 in the United States, according to Duke University professor Helen F. Ladd (in Education and Poverty: Confronting the Evidence, Working Paper Series SAN11-01, November 4, 2011).

The Common Core standards do not take into account the effects of SES on teaching and learning. CCSS is top-down policy, and as Ladd points out, “while education policy makers have direct control over school quality, they have less control over educational outcomes because of the role that context—and particularly the family background of the students—plays in shaping educational outcomes.” Adopting the Common Core is likely not to make any difference in American students’ ability to be “globally competitive” for this reason.

Second, there is little evidence that America is not already globally competitive. Put aside the rhetoric of politicians, pundits, and policy wonks who decry our so-called failing schools, and the cold evidence is that the goal of becoming globally competitive by promoting a top-down, “rigorous” curriculum is largely disingenuous. By the numbers the United States is far from being a poor global competitor. Internationally known scholar Yong Zhou (http://zhaolearning.com) runs the numbers this way, drawing on a variety of authoritative sources:

• Japan, which was expected to overtake the U.S. because of its superior education in the 1980s, has lost its #2 status in terms of size of economy. Its GDP is about 1/3 of America’s. Its per capita GDP is about $10,000 less than that in the U.S.

• The U.S. is the 6th wealthiest country in the world in 2011 in terms of per capita GDP. It is still the largest economy in the world.

• The U.S. ranked 5th out of 142 countries in Global Competitiveness in 2012 and 4th in 2011.

• The U.S. ranked 2nd out 82 countries in Global Creativity, behind only Sweden in 2011.

• The U.S. ranked 1st in the number of patents filed or granted by major international patent offices in 2008, with 14,399 filings, compared to 473 filings from China, which supposedly has a superior education.

Comments Zhao, “Obviously America’s poor education told by the numbers has not ruined its national security and economy.”

The key factor that the Common Core leaders have failed to take into account is poverty and how SES affects teaching and learning. Ladd, cited earlier, suggests that “strategies designed to address the educational needs of low income children will cost money, could be complex and undoubtedly will need to differ from place to place depending on the local context.”

The Common Core State Standards contain no provision for responding to “local context.” Such rigidity will ill serve students everywhere.