StickWithANose

I’m a big proponent of what I would term as quasi-decentralization by which I mean a school system with national standards but local control in the best ways to achieve those standards. This is the kind of system used by Finland with great success. So, I’ve been watching with great interest the growing trend of teacher-run schools discussed in this NY Times article. I don’t have enough information about the schools discussed in the article to draw any conclusions as to their efficacy or potential as a model. However, what I find interesting is that organizations that are the most prominent advocates of the quasi-privatization of public schooling who claim that they are interested in creating a dynamic education sector of experimentation and innovation are the biggest critics of these as of yet untested experiments.

Driving the establishment of teacher-run schools is the idea that teachers who have a sense of ownership of their schools will be happier and more motivated.

But some educators and parents question whether such schools are the solution for urban districts, which typically have large concentrations of poor students and struggle with low test scores and discipline problems.

They say that most teachers have neither the time nor the expertise to deal with the inner workings of a school, like paying bills, conducting fire drills and refereeing faculty disputes.

“Ever try to plan a vacation with a large extended family? That’s what it’s going to be like,” said Michael J. Petrilli, a vice president of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, an education policy group in Washington. “It’s a good idea in theory, but there are just a handful of teachers who can pull it off.”

The Fordham Foundation is one of the biggest funders of educational hacks such as Terry Moe and Caroline Hoxby who never met a school choice or charter proposal they wouldn’t shill for using the language of experimentation and innovation. Yet, without a shred of evidence, Petrilli is dismissing just the kind of experimentation that his organization supposedly advocates. What gives? Of course, the answer is that the Fordham foundation isn’t interested in a dynamic education sector as much as it is interested in a privatized education sector in which private interests tap public funds for private profit. What this one little quote offers us is a peek behind the current of rhetoric employed by today’s intrepid reformers and what we find there is avarice and greed… not a concern for education.