StickWithANose

With regard to education policy, I’m reaching the point of saturation and despair. The same old characters are pitching the same old policies, and the same old media personalities repeat the same old slogans and message frames without ever bothering to do their job. However, looking around at the rest of Bananamerica doesn’t instill much hope either. The nation’s political structure is dysfunctional, and the individuals sitting in positions of power are, for the most part, bought-off prostitutes and largely ignorant of the ‘issues’ they deal with on a day-to-day basis. American culture is becoming increasingly mean-spirited, narcissistic, and fragmented into affinity groups seeking to protect their own at the expense of the un-deserving ‘others’ with nary a thought of the degree of interdependence that make modern societies function. In short, as I try to make a positive contribution to public discourse through this blog, I’m finding it increasingly difficult to find things to write about. It all appears to be little more than a spectacle obscuring the criminal foundation upon which the nation is built.

The point of this long-winded rant is to introduce the only item that I read this morning that I think should be more widely disseminated. Love him or hate him, Matt Taibbi is perhaps the only journalist that has done due diligence in documenting the degree to which the financialization of the American economy is both a reflection of and determinant in the decline of a once promising nation into a bloated banana republic on the brink of collapse. The closing lines of his latest piece on foreclosure fraud sums up the large scale problems facing the nation across the board, and it is well worth your time.

Why don’t the banks want us to see the paperwork on all these mortgages? Because the documents represent a death sentence for them. According to the rules of the mortgage trusts, a lender like Bank of America, which controls all the Countrywide loans, is required by law to buy back from investors every faulty loan the crooks at Countrywide ever issued. Think about what that would do to Bank of America’s bottom line the next time you wonder why they’re trying so hard to rush these loans into someone else’s hands.

When you meet people who are losing their homes in this foreclosure crisis, they almost all have the same look of deep shame and anguish. Nowhere else on the planet is it such a crime to be down on your luck, even if you were put there by some of the world’s richest banks, which continue to rake in record profits purely because they got a big fat handout from the government. That’s why one banker CEO after another keeps going on TV to explain that despite their own deceptive loans and fraudulent paperwork, the real problem is these deadbeat homeowners who won’t pay their fucking bills. And that’s why most people in this country are so ready to buy that explanation. Because in America, it’s far more shameful to owe money than it is to steal it.

And it doesn’t look very healthy right now… The sad part is that it doesn’t look like we’re capable at this point of doing anything about it.

I give up. No blogging today… I’ll let Ed give you the real lowdown on the mandate for change expressed by the American voter.

1. Social Security reform that guarantees my current level of benefits, alters someone else’s, and cuts everyone’s Social Security taxes to boot.

2. A world-class national infrastructure that can be built and maintained without tax dollars.

3. A balanced budget that doesn’t sacrifice any of the government programs – especially the sacred military-industrial complex and the various old age benefits – that we like.

4. Clean air without pollution controls, clean water with a neutered and underfunded EPA, and businesses that do socially responsible things without any regulation whatsoever.

5. Consumer goods at Made in China prices that create high-paying jobs in America.

6. Giant trucks and SUVs that drive like Formula One race cars, look cool, fit into small parking spaces, cost under $18,000, and get the fuel economy of a Toyota Prius.

7. Complete freedom and complete security at the same time.

8. An America that acts like a swaggering, sociopathic asshole on the global stage yet is beloved by all the nations of the world.

9. Wars against every enemy, real or imagined, all of the time, with no U.S. casualties and no effect on the budget.

10. Incredibly rich and rewarding professional lives while supporting our employers’ right to do whatever they want to us without recourse.

Do read on…

I frequently make the case that much of what drives education policy at the national level these days is good old fashioned public looting in which private interests seek profit by gaining access to what they see as a bottomless pit of capital… public treasuries. However, as should be apparent to any conscious being living in the US, this phenomenon is not unique to education and the charterization of urban public schooling. It has always been the case that trends in education policy are inextricably linked to larger trends in political economy. For example, one cannot understand the post-Sputnik era education reforms without studying the larger issues associated with the Cold War. When Nikita Khrushchev said “We will bury you”, he wasn’t talking about weapons; he was talking about economics. The USSR experienced tremendous economic growth in the post-WWII era. The Education Defense Act of 1958 was just as much about economic power as it was about military and scientific dominance.

My point is that to understand the on-going disaster that is American education policy you must situate it within the larger structural context in which it is playing out. To that end, I would point you toward this New Geography article entitled “The Privatization-Industrial Complex“. While I disagree with the framing of a supposed golden age of privatization as being all about efficiency, the article does a pretty good job of fleshing out the profit-seeking mechanism that is chipping away at the nation’s infrastructure, including education.

[Privatization schemes] are driven not by efficiencies but by an investment banker mindset focus on money and narrow parameters of the asset operations. They also provide enormous temptation to elected officials to grab the money now even at the expense of future generations. They are also rife with potential conflicts of interest and incentive problems.

One major source of conflict comes with the professional advisors that drive the deals. Since long term leases involve so much money and are so complex, they require millions of dollars of services from investment banks, lawyers, financial advisors, etc. Unlike for typical government transactions such as issuing bonds or contracting out services like printing, building maintenance, or call centers, for which cities have some experience, the vast majority of cities have little in house expertise for complex financial transactions.

Thus local officials are at the mercy of these out of town experts to give them the best advice they need to defend the public’s interest. But what advice can we expect from these firms, who have a stake on highly leveraged deals? The people in the firm may be technically competent and possess the highest levels of personal integrity, but still are prisoners of a structural conflict of interest in promoting privatization transactions…

If you make money on privatization transactions, then no deals means no money. So obviously these firms have every reason in the world to promote privatization and see deals go through regardless of whether any particular deal is good or not. This doesn’t mean they are crooks, it’s just the reality. These firms now form of the core of the “privatization-industrial complex” with an incentive to cheerlead for leading public assets because that’s how they make their money. They need deal flow, the more transactions the better.

Do read on…

I hate it when I actually agree with Frederick Hess, but intellectual honesty compels me. While he is certainly fighting a rear-guard action to preserve the gains the Oligarchs have achieved under the Obama administration, Hess’ assessment of the most likely trajectory for education policy in the near future is correct: More of the same with no federal funding. [Note: This is by no means an endorsement of the Village narrative of austerity being peddled here. However, since it is the commonsensical idea emerging from Obama's "course correction", this narrative will be driving the policy bus for the next two years at least... probably longer.]

The alarming truth is that, as bad as the current situation seems, there is little daylight ahead as we look to the next five years–which makes it all the more worrisome that educators are relying on haphazard tactics, like erratically cutting bus services or asking parents to supply paper towels, to deal with the budget crunch. This Outlook will explain why the bleak situation is unlikely to brighten anytime soon and suggest a more comprehensive reform strategy, including reevaluating cost structures and addressing systemic inefficiencies.

In this case, “systemic inefficiencies” is MBA-speak for sound pedagogical practice, and it is clear that private money from the Oligarchs will provide at the very least adequate funding for more innovative policies to cut “cost structures” and address “systemic inefficiencies”. The sad reality educators must now face is that the ‘starve the beast‘ method of political economy will continue to reap huge benefits for a very narrow class of people for the foreseeable future, including those seeking to suckle up to public treasuries for private gain.

Considering how similar our two nations are it is always interesting to me to see how differently the Canadians view the world in comparison to the US. Watching our political discourse sink into madness and our democracy devolve further into a corporatist racket, I often wonder what our northern neighbors must think of all this. Today, the Globe and Mail offers us a peek into how the Canadian political class views the 800 pound gorilla on its southern border.

The U.S. political system makes coalitions virtually impossible, and the polarization of right and left is a further barrier to reform. Canada, by contrast, doesn’t go in for polarization. We prefer the mushy, pragmatic middle. All our federal governments rule from the centre, give or take a centimetre or two, which is why we’re witnessing the curious sight of Michael Ignatieff trying to attack the Conservatives for waste and reckless spending. Despite the petty bickering of Question Period, our political consensus runs deep, and the two main parties basically agree on every major economic matter.

But America’s problems go far deeper than its ideological divides. The question is not whether Democrats or Republicans will ultimately prevail, but whether the political culture can evolve enough to tackle fundamental institutional reforms. These reforms are essential if the U.S. is to fight its way back to prosperity amidst the global economic upheaval. It won’t be easy. As the astute thinker Walter Russell Mead argues, the U.S. will have to dramatically reduce the size and cost of its government and legal, health and education systems, while finding ways to make them more productive. It will have to do these things while people worry they’ll never again be as well off as they were before.

In yesterday’s post, I expressed my own take on the mid-term election as being more of the same without the federal dollars. In other words, I don’t see any big shifts on the horizon. It is safe to say that others do not necessarily share my view. In the name of furthering public discourse, I offer you two different takes for your thoughtful consideration…

Anne Geiger sees the possibility of a two-tiered policy in which some school districts will achieve greater flexibility and a doubling down of charters and accountability in urban districts.

So, while the majority of school districts may find this new political era as a way to achieve the flexibility they’ve been yearning for, these urban school districts may see a doubling down to keep things as they are.

Considering its very “right wing” approach to education policy, I thought that it would be interesting to see how our corporate friends over at the Quick and the Ed interpret the mid-terms. According to Rob Manwarring, the most important result appears to be the Republican sweep of the nations governorships which he believes will lead to teacher layoffs and pension reform.

The change in the political dynamic will mean that more of these budget shortfalls will be addressed with budget reductions instead of additional revenues. And, since K-12 education is the biggest budget line item in almost every state, it is likely that education cuts will be coming soon. Basically because state budgets have not recovered, the jobs that the stimulus funding and edu-jobs funding spared temporarily will be lost in this next round of cuts. Some of these jobs may never be coming back as districts strive to replace labor with technology including the expanded use of virtual education. Knowing that budget reductions are coming, education policymakers should focus on teacher seniority policies to ensure that these layoffs do not come at the expense of those schools with the least experienced staff.

My response? Well, I see Anne’s take as being possible but not plausible. While the modern Republican party has embraced the ideology of de-centralization it has rarely practiced it. There’s a lot of money to be made in charters and there is a lot of money behind the education reform juggernaut. That lobby will wield its magic over both parties with relative ease. As for Manwarring, I’d say that his overall take is correct, and that this will play nicely with the charterization and union-busting policies he’s paid to endorse.

Considering the breathless coverage on its website, Education Week appears to be in full glee mode over the Republican tide that swept over the House of Representatives and governor mansions last night. While Ed Week goes out of its way to celebrate all of the “fresh faces” that will be coming to power in 2011, a bit of reality smuggled itself into the spectacle.

The election played out amid an unprecedented flow of federal emergency education spending to the states. Much of that money arrived courtesy of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, commonly known as the federal stimulus, which provided $100 billion in education funding. This summer, Congress supplemented that aid with an additional $10 billion through the Education Jobs Fund, a measure designed to stave off thousands of layoffs in the nation’s schools.

One stimulus-funded effort, the Race to the Top program, appears to have had a major influence on state education agendas. Eleven states, plus the District of Columbia, won grants through the $4 billion federal competition, which was designed to promote innovation in schools. Additionally, 34 states approved new education laws or policies during the course of the competition, federal officials say. Many of those changes, such as expanding charter schools and creating new models to evaluate and pay teachers, are popular among Democrats and Republicans at the federal and state level.

In the paper I presented over the weekend [printed version comes out sometime this month], I trace the convergence in education policy among the two political parties in the late 1990’s. It is safe to say that one element of the “Obama Agenda” that appears to safe from the Scooter Store revolutionaries is his horrific education policy. Additional funding will likely dry up, but the recipe of charters, assessment and accountability will continue to be the only item on the menu.

[PROGRAMMING NOTE] I’m just now plugging back in from this past weekend. I’ll be back in regular post mode by the end of the week.

As Larry Cuban and countless other educational historians have noted, there has been a common thread running throughout public debate over public schooling since its creation over a century ago… There has always been well-organized groups seeking to reform the institution, and they have sought to do so by fostering a common belief that public schooling is in “crisis”. More often than not, each new “crisis” proved to be ephemeral and largely manufactured to advance a previously existing political agenda, however it has also been a highly effective method for pushing reform.

Today, we find ourselves being bombarded yet again with the discourse of crisis by a well-financed group of intrepid reformers pushing, this time, a corporatist agenda of quasi-privatization and high-stakes assessment. But what is the nature of this new “crisis”? And is it real or manufactured? I would argue that we are indeed in a period of crisis, but the nature of that crisis bears little resemblence to the discourse of “crisis” dominating today’s public debate. In fact, I’d argue that the real crisis facing public schooling is to be found in the purveyors of this new discourse of “crisis” and reform. I’ll be returning to the nature of this new era of “crisis” in the coming weeks, but I’d like to start off the conversation by pointing toward Tom Hoffman’s place. Look’s like Tom beat me to the punch, and he has done so in a thoughtful and concise manner…

Compared to other reasonably prosperous and developed countries on internationally administered tests, aggregate US results are middling. However, compared to other countries, the US primary and secondary education system is highly decentralized, segregated, inequitably funded and operates within the context of high and growing income inequality.

When individual states like Massachusetts, Vermont and New Hampshire are compared to other countries, they rank near the top. To the extent that students in high income districts can be compared to other countries, they compare well, too.

While Singapore and Finland, exotic locales to most Americans, are the most cited examples of high performing countries, Canada is also consistently at the top. The most straightforward and accessible education reform lesson derived from international comparisons for Americans would be to become more like Canada.

There is not so much a crisis as a chronic problem of educating poor and minority youth in America, particularly concentrated in segregated schools. There is no existing model in the world for doing this right: nobody has overcome our level of income inequality, inadequate access to health care, high level of incarceration, etc. No other country of comparable wealth considers these conditions tolerable, no other country’s schools successfully dig a sub-set of their students out of such a deep hole.

Do read on…

Think tanks are marketing machines. Their sole function is to communicate and cement “common sense” understandings of socio-political reality that do the bidding of their corporate masters, and they do so across media via both digital and traditional routes. The key to their success is self-referentiality. In the relatively closed system of think tanks and expert pundity, ideas are shuffled back and forth across media outlets in a faux conversational style that might appear to be an organic exchange of ideas among expert pundits but is, in fact, well orchestrated and rationally organized for maximum effect.

What follows is a simple example of the pundit shuffle in action.

Step 1) One think tank hack with zero experience or specialized training in education uses a research article identifying a need in Pre-K education for a broader “range of professional development activities and supports targeted toward teachers’ interactions with children” to publish a thinly veiled advertisement for a Pre-K standardized assessment “product” designed to measure the effectiveness of Pre-school programs.

Step 2) Communicate Cognitive Tag: We need better/more Pre-K assessment.

Step 3) Second think tank hack with zero experience or specialized training in education links to previous hack quoting the exact paragraph that introduces the new “product”.

Step 4) Communicate Cognitive Tag: We need better/more Pre-K assessment.

Step 5) Third think tank hack with zero experience or specialized training in education links to the first hack referencing the new “product”.

Step 6) Communicate Cognitive Tag: We need better/more Pre-K assessment.

Step 7) Profit… in the sense that a common sense idea has been introduced into public discourse via a traditional media outlet and has gained some modicrum of epistemic validity by being referenced by other “bloggers” AND [whether by design or simple 'peer effects'] a new “product” has been introduced to the very narrow demographic of individuals who read Education Week and follow issues related to education policy.

This is how “common sense” is constructed in the 21st century. It is not unique to education and schooling as it is operative across the political landscape from taxes to “entitlement reform”, and it is one of the ways in which our flailing democracy is being purchased. [Cue the Lee Greenwood music - Montage of happy children and the elderly in front of flowing American flags - Fade to black]