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.

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.

Four Pillars of Learning

I have posted a link to this document elsewhere, but some readers have had difficulty accessing it. Therefore, I am including the document, which I wrote in November 2011, here in its entirety in spite of the rather long length.

The public schools of the United States were founded on a principle best articulated by an American founder, Thomas Jefferson: “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.” Thus the central aim of public schools is learning writ large, which embodies two ideals. First, all students should have access to education that allows them to learn, to the best of their abilities, the knowledge and understandings essential to living fully. Second, all students should learn how to learn and be encouraged to be lifelong learners, for the world is ever changing and so is the knowledge needed to thrive not merely in the present but also in the future. The achievement of these aims will ensure our democratic future as a nation as well as the freedom of our students to become their best selves.

Imagine learning as the architectural pediment of education. Learning stands upon four pillars, all of which are essential supports: the community, students, parents, and educators. These are the four pillars of the public schools.

The Community

Public education is an expression of our democratic community. While students, parents, and educators compose the direct participants in schooling, members of the community who have no direct involvement in the public schools also belong to the fabric of learning. Indeed, they can be characterized as the “public” in “public education.” Thus the community must have a voice in forming the schools as learning enterprises. This understanding upholds the democratic values of our civil society. Ultimately, the public schools must be seen as permeable institutions. That is, students, parents, and even educators are transient participants in the schools, but they are permanent members of the community. Members of the community must realize their stake in promulgating successful learning institutions, regardless of whether they are not yet directly involved in public education, are no longer directly involved, or never have been or ever will be directly involved. What happens in schools affects the health of the society as well as its individual members. And, from a closer perspective, communities often are judged by the schools they provide, and thus a community’s economic wellbeing may be affected accordingly. In the interest of upholding the common good of our democracy, the community must be integral to learning.

Students

Students arrive at the schoolhouse door from backgrounds that are culturally, socially, racially, ethnically, and economically diverse. They come with needs, interests, and talents that are equally varied. But through all of this variety runs a common thread: the desire to learn. No one who has ever seen a child take his or her first steps can doubt that children possess an inborn desire to learn—to explore the world around them and within them. The challenge for our public schools is to tap this desire in order to allow and encourage learning that is both broad and deep—learning that extends beyond prescriptive curricula and tests that narrow the boundaries of learning rather than expand them. The greatest service that schools can do is to broaden the learning horizons of their students beyond so-called basics, such as reading and mathematics. Students’ interests and aptitudes, coupled with the demands of living in a culture wherein all talents are essential to our national wellbeing, argue for a broad curriculum that honors all areas of study. Not least among these areas is civic education—that is, learning how our democracy has been achieved and how to keep it healthy.

Parents

Parents, like their students, are extraordinarily varied. But whether rich or poor, single or married, gay or straight, natural or adoptive, they share a common aim: to ensure that their children have access to learning in a safe, secure setting—learning that will enable their children to achieve their goals in life, from the general to the particular, from the personal to the societal. That parents should be partners in their children’s learning must not be merely a platitude. Parenthood also is a process of learning, because no child comes with an instruction book. Thus schools can best serve all students by meaningfully involving all parents in the learning endeavor. Meaningful involvement goes beyond the annual open house; it means finding ways for engagement that span a continuum to allow for as much or as little involvement as parents desire and can manage, bearing in mind that for many working parents time is a fraught commodity.

Educators

Parents are their children’s first teachers. After parents, the adults with whom most children interact for the greatest amount of time are their teachers. Indeed, particularly during the elementary school years, a child may be with a teacher for more of the waking day than he or she is with a parent. Therefore it is essential for teachers—and, by extension, all educators, from counselors and principals to curriculum planners and superintendents—to be cognizant of children’s needs, interests, and desires and of their parents’ aspirations for them. But awareness is insufficient, for educators also must act. Such action on behalf of students and learning may require educators to stand firm against countercurrents that would balkanize schooling rather than view public education as directed toward learning fully and holistically. Educators must value all subject matter and all learners—understanding that all individuals, collectively, comprise the totality of our society and thus contribute to the common good. Neglecting any aspect of learning or any learner diminishes the whole and ill serves our democracy.

The community, students, parents, and educators are the four pillars of learning. They support the public schools equally. None may be left out, or the pediment will fall. This is not a utopian view of public education. Rather it is a realistic vantage point for understanding the nature of learning in the pursuit of preserving our democracy. It also is a vantage point for considering new approaches to schools and learning. For instance, why should disciplines prevail as a primary mode of organization if cultural and social tools might compose a more effective frame of reference for learning? Are the current uses of time—seat time, school year, daily schedule—sufficiently sensitive to learning dynamics, or are there better ways to structure learning time? These are not questions for educators alone to ponder but may benefit from thoughtful attention by all community members, including the most junior and the least involved.

Another of the American founders, John Adams, said it this way: “Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have a right...and a desire to know.” In the architecture of learning, “the people” comprises all members of the community.