Tough Choices or Wrong Choices

"The education system is merely a support for the political system we choose." - Vicky Davis

In 2007 the National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE) produced a report entitled Tough Choices or Tough Times. In it, they outlined a view for the American education system as the supplier of workers for the 21st century in a global economy.  From her blog Channeling Reality, Davis summarizes the the findings of the report below:

Problems in the Current System

• Teachers are recruited from the lower strata of the intellectual talent pool

• Waste in the system, allowing students to fail in lower grades and paying for remediation in later years when costs are higher

• System is inherently inefficient.  “Standards have helped but only moderately relative to cost” over 30 years

• Growing inequality in family income as a contributing factor in growing disparities in student achievement

• Failure to motivate students to achieve

• Teacher compensation rewards longevity rather than performance

• Testing system measures rote learning and does not measure creativity, innovative thinking, and analytical abilities

• People who have the responsibility for education do not have the power.  Power is in the hands of those who do not have the responsibility.

• Students must be prepared to continue learning for their lifetimes because of the tumultuous nature of the global economy. 

• Education system must be changed to allow adults to continue education and training throughout their lifetimes for the same reason stated above. 

Proposed Changes

• Reduce secondary education to age 16 (10^th grade) at which time, a board examination is given and a decision is made regarding the path of the student - college prep, or vocation.  Board examination is on a syllabus provided by the Board.   Implicit in the description is that students could choose to end their educational stint at this point theoretically without penalty later in life.   Guarantees for higher education for good performance in lower grades.

• The reduction of school years will save $60 billion annually to be divided as follows:
   
  • Recruiting teachers from the top strata of the intellectual talent pool and paying them according to private sector standards
  • Establishing “full-service” preschools for 3 and 4 year olds for early childhood education and social-health services.   
  • Increasing resources for “disadvantaged students” to allow them to succeed to international standards

• Change teacher compensation from a backloaded system of pension and health benefits to cash up front with a benefit structure the same as the private sector (i.e. 401k’s).  Proposed teacher pay would increase to a median $95,000 for a beginning teacher in a system the same as the current system - moving up to $110,000 for a teacher willing to work the same schedule and hours as a private sector professional.  

• Privatization of the schools (Management Contract Schools) while continuing public funding.  State maintenance of a licensed teacher registry from which the Contract schools could hire teachers.  The teachers would be state employees and would be paid by the state - but would be managed by the school management contractors.  

• Current requirements for teachers would be scrapped.  States would create a new agency (Teacher Development Agency) to develop teachers - charged with recruiting, training and certifying teachers.  They would also be responsible for maintaining a registry of certified, licensed teachers. 

• Develop standards, assessments and curriculum that reflect today’s needs and tomorrow’s requirements.  Set standards with corresponding assessments and then develop curriculum to meet those standards.

• Eliminate local school board ownership of schools.  Unstated - but de facto sell the schools to the Contract Management groups.  Local school boards would become data collectors for the state (essentially IT operations) and the case managers for social services (i.e. medical, mental, etc) to students and parents of students - BUT… schools would be free to contract for services elsewhere if they so choose.

• Create “high performance” schools.  “High Performance” is a code phrase that has a very specific meaning that is too long to describe here.  Essentially, it is schools that are oriented towards a system of supply chain management to produce workers as opposed to an education system for citizens with work being a secondary or peripheral goal.   

• Schools would be funded according to a per-pupil, weighted formula with the discretion for how the funds are expended being given to the Contract managers as long as the Contractors meet the standards for performance. 

• Schools would be required to be affiliated with a “helping organization” - profit or non-profit.  Presumably this means Foundations like the Bill Gates Foundation or the Carnegie Foundation - which have become front organizations to promote and integrate the UNESCO social agenda into the school curriculum.   

• Universal preschool with social services for 3 and 4 year-olds. 

• State level-funding on a per pupil basis to eliminate the quality differences between wealthy districts and poor districts.  And of course…. Mo Money… $19 billion additional as an estimate. 

• All-inclusive social services including funds to screen and diagnose students for their medical, dental, optical, audiological, mental health services.  Tutors, counselors and mentors will be provided.  Schools will be open from early morning till late at night to serve the needs of students outside of classroom requirements.   They state that this proposal applies to “disadvantaged” students but it would have to be available in all schools because by definition, the schools are public and they take all comers. 

• Create personal education accounts for each child when born with a $500 government credit with additional amounts added over time.  Additional amounts could be added over time by basically anybody - government, individuals through salary deductions, parents, the state, etc.

• Create regional competitiveness authorities.  The regional authority would be responsible to coordinate and plan the educational programs for children to correspond with the economic development of the communities within the region.  Noteworthy clarification on these authorities:  

“We settled on the word “authorities” to describe these new bodies because we wanted to convey the idea that they need to be more than debating societies.  They need to be able to raise and spend money needed to develop their regions over time.  If these new bodies are as successful as we think they will be, the federal government should consider lifting many of the restrictions on the separate programs they will administer and permitting them to combine the funds from these programs in ways that are more likely to lead to both strong economic growth and strong job growth, especially for the most vulnerable people in the country."

 

Synthesis

The underlying message in this report is a threat - either change the education system or your economy will be destroyed by global competition.   The logical fallacy is that there is nothing in the plan that changes the fact that an engineer in India makes $7,500 per year and an American engineer makes $45,000 per year.  Equilibrium in wages will never be reached because of the population differences.  What they are attempting to do is to manage our decline in wage and living standards by holding out the hope that somehow the education system will fix a structurally flawed economic system.  

The idea behind the “regional competitiveness authority” is to establish planners for the economy of the region coupled with the planning of the workforce training to correspond to the planned economic activity.  Central planning of the economy and workforce is the hallmark of the communist system.   There is no way to weasel around the fact that this proposal for ‘education reform’ is a major step towards the ‘transformation’ of the United States to a communist system.   Our capitalist economic system has morphed into a communist political system and the education reforms are designed to support that political system. 

The amount of money they are promising for teacher salaries is absurd.  It’s bribery to get the buy-in from teachers for the plan.  It’s simply not going to happen.  The funding for the schools will be on a per-pupil formula with the Contract Managers being able to spend the money in whatever way they choose.  It’s a sure bet that they will choose not to spend the money on teachers but rather, the money will be spent on software and technology to replace teachers.  Furthermore, in a system of global competition and ‘free trade’, teachers can be imported who will work for much less money than is currently being paid today - let alone the outrageous salaries stated in the report.  It is fundamentally dishonest to imply that somehow teachers will be exempt from low wage, imported competition for jobs.   The teachers who are selected to be the Contract Managers of the schools will be highly paid for sure, but they will simply be ‘fronts’ for the real management of the schools which will be the “helping organizations”.

The report mentions “high performance schools” but does not elaborate on what that means.  Obviously the hope is that decision makers will assume the plain meaning of the phrase but that would be a wrong assumption.  The term “high performance schools” comes from a Labor Department document titled, “Learning a Living”.   When that term is used, they are talking about vocational training in schools beginning with pre-K through the end - whether that’s grade 10 or 12.  The entire curriculum is skills based, work-focused.  Assignments emphasize work-oriented lessons.  In other words, it is a skills training system for workers as opposed to an academically oriented educational system to develop well-rounded citizens with a 21^st century knowledge base. 

The emphasis in the report aims high - college for all, extra resources for the “disadvantaged”, more math, science, literature, the arts and technology, but that picture is completely at odds with the realities of a global economy dominated by multinational corporations.  The reality is that there will be few opportunities for good jobs in the global economic system and it will be a buyer’s market with corporations shopping for the highest quality, least cost employees from the global pool of available and desperate workers.  

 

This report says that the goal is to produce workers who are creative and innovative but those qualities can’t be taught in a school.  That’s a fundamental mistake that all communist countries have made.  Those qualities emerge in individuals when the economic system provides the opportunities for individuals to make his or her ideas and dreams a reality.  In a global economy dominated by multinationals with central planners for the regional economies and “high performance” (vocational schools), the weight of the infrastructure is too great and the risks to future earnings will inhibit innovation and creativity.  In a planned economic system, kowtowing to the regional authorities is the way to get ahead - not initiative.

Although unstated, this plan attempts to nationalize the curriculum through the imposition of standards and assessments.  By definition the goal of standards is to produce cookie cutter results.  When a corporation produces a product like cookies, standards are very important to produce uniform results.  Since it is not possible to produce uniform results with people, the system of “assessments” is being implemented to compensate for over and under achievement and abilities to give the appearance of a uniform product (person).  Assessments are not objective measurements of accomplishment.  They are subjective measurements that include the degree of acceptance of social conditioning, personal characteristics and work habits, and attitude.  A smart kid who sees through this system for what it is and rebels could potentially have his life ruined forever by the power of the “assessment” to override academic achievement and inherent abilities.   In the world of uniformity that this system is designed to create, a rebel is an unwelcome intrusion - not a gem in the rough. 

Clearly, the education system must change.  Our economy will no longer support the expensive,  labor-intensive, bureaucratic system we have today that doesn’t produce the desired result of educated people.   But the tough choice that America must make is not the education system but the political system we want to leave as our legacy for future generations.  The decisions made on the education system will simply solidify the decision on the political system.  

We have come a long way towards this vision with almost no input from the public who is supplying the "capital" for this economic system. Isn't it time we had the discussion about which political system we want our education system to support?

  

Paper and Ink, Brick and Mortar - Make way for digital delivery

Last week CEOs from technology companies and text book publishers met with senior officials from the DOEd and FCC to talk about the digital revolution in education.  Also present at the table was the LEAD (Leading Education by Advancing Digital) commission, whose goal is to harness technology as a catalyst to education reform.  The four members of LEAD are:

• Columbia University President Lee Bollinger- A liberal bastion in higher education

• Co-Founder of TPG Capital James Coulter- Private equity funds management company because, as Tim McGraw head of McGraw-Hill Financial stated recently, "The growth outlook is really quite healthy for the education business and we expect that to continue." 

• Former Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings-  Her consulting company leverages the many public private partnerships she has forged along with the insider experience of the many former capitol hill experts she employs to drive public policy nationwide. Seeing as how, as Secretary of Ed under George Bush, she was a leading proponent of No Child Left Behind, we must question whether her ability to affect national policy is really all that desirable.

• Common Sense Media Founder and CEO Jim Steyer- perhaps a reasonable member, but he may have drunk the kool aid too."The great news is that technology provides us with an opportunity to leapfrog decades of simply maintaining the status quo and to truly revolutionize education in this country quickly, which is exactly what’s needed to remain economically competitive in today’s global economy."

Key quotes from this meeting:

Duncan said "We need your expertise, your leadership, to figure out how every single child has access to content 24/7. I see amazing pockets, islands of success, but it's on the margins. The question is, can we get to scale as a country?" IMPLEMENTATION ON A MASSIVE SCALE THROUGH GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION

James Coulter, "Our goal with this commission is to help policy makers to more swiftly and effectively integrate digital learning into our national curriculum.”  SPEED WITHOUT CONSIDERATION

FCC Chairman Genachowski said, "I’m confident the LEAD Commission’s blueprint will chart a course to ensure that education technology will help prepare students to compete in the 21st century global economy.” GLOBAL FOCUS, SCHOOL TO WORK PROGRAMMING

One of the digital companies represented at the meeting was McGraw-Hill who plans to push for learning programs related to vocational training online and is working on making more learning material and textbooks available across various digital platforms. The company is looking to strike joint ventures with companies to impart skills learning in India and skills training in China. Having perfected such programs in these massive markets, it will be very easy to bring such digital training to America.  And with government's focus on providing 21st century global workers, and businesses like Margaret Spelling's working to push such policies nationally, McGraw-Hill will have a ready made entree to the American market.

That's what all of this is about.  The government helping private business create new markets by making their products mandatory.

LEAD's goal is to produce a blueprint by the end of the year, based on input from teachers, parents, local government and school officials, students, and ed-tech industry leaders, which will include:

• a fact base of current efforts, trends, cost implications, and other obstacles regarding technology adoption in schools; Note they are not evaluating its effectiveness or desirability
• an examination of how tech-driven transformation in other sectors could be carried over to education;  Education is not a business model and applications in other sectors do not necessarily translate to correct application to education.
• the types of policies and funding vehicles that may be needed to ensure that school systems can successfully incorporate technology. It is unclear who is funding the LEAD report or what deals have already been struck to ensure compliance with the policy and funding recommendations developed in the report.

If these people have their way, what will the future classroom look like? It may be much smaller as many students may choose to stay home and work on-line on their own. It will be staffed by less experienced teachers because the software will adapt and challenge each individual student in a way that a teacher never could. The interim, and most immediate step, will be what techsperts are calling "blended learning" where children spend part of their classroom time on computers doing endless worksheets.

From Schools Matter blog

Now Vander Ark is leveraging his connections from 7 years as check delivery boy for the Gates Foundation to shape the education agenda in ways that will pay a handsome return on Bill and Melinda's beneficence over the years.  It's called blended learning, and it represents a poisonous mixture of bad pedagogy and big business; it is gaining footholds in the poorest schools (or in KIPP schools that pretend to be poor) where resistance is the weakest and resources are in shortest supply.  And yes, it does involve computers and computer software and computerized assessments, with the added value of cutting the teaching staff by as much as half while potentially doubling class size.  More tech aides and fewer teachers.


The way it works is to have children taught in shifts, and while one shift has the attention of a flesh and blood teacher, the other shift of children is de-minded by an endless stream of digital worksheets handed out by an indefatigable bank of endlessly-cheerful computers.  In the example of the KIPP kindergarten (a scary prospect, indeed), children are plugged in for half their time in school.  Note, too, that the KIPP "school leader" claims a lack of funds as his rationale, even though KIPP, Inc. has a stash of corporate cash in the hundreds of millions an unlimited stream just for the asking.  The fact is that these most vulnerable children are guinea pigs in an unproven experiment intended to benefit corporate bottom lines, not children.  Note, too, that these children are particularly sensitive to the learned helplessness treatments that are applied during Kipp-notizing summer sessions to maintain total compliance, with or without supervision.

 Like so many things coming out of Washington these days, this seems to be rushing something through that sounds good, but has great potential for unintended consequences.  It attempts to push a business sector that should be able to market itself quite effectively without DC mandates. It shows the trap laid by establishing power bases (like DOEd) in Washington. They cannot resist the temptation to use their power and "make a difference."

Community Education - It's Not Just For Pottery and Dance Classes

Springfield MO is testing a pilot  program for a community school.  This is not continuing education for adults, this is a full service community center housed in the public school. Their integrated focus is on academics, youth development, family support, health and social services and community development.  The belief is that such an approach leads to improved student learning, stronger families and healthier communities. Community schools combine various departments like Mental Health, Social Services and possibly family court services (as is done in St. Louis) to offer a range of supports and opportunities such as workshops for parents, and after-school programs for students - before, during and after school, and on weekends.

21st Century Community schools have been around since the 90s. The idea for them is a lot older and sprang from the 60s generation when communal living was experiencing a surge.  Arne Duncan, who is the former CEO of Chicago Public Schools, was a supporter of "schools as centers of community life".  Since his appointment to the post of Secretary of Education, community schools have become part of the national education agenda.

They are promoted to the community who benefits from access to school resources such as: teachers, computer labs, gymnasiums and classrooms. They offer an afterschool program model that provides services to students attending high-poverty, low-performing schools such as academic enrichment activities that can help students meet state and local achievement standards. Other programs like drug and violence prevention programs, literacy, counseling programs, art, music, and recreation programs, technology education programs, and character education programs all are designed to reinforce and complement the regular academic program and are available to students and parents.

[Springfield Associate Superintendent] Ben Hackenwerth said the community school strategy is to provide a holistic approach to students’ education and development. Such a school provides additional support and activities to help students succeed academically and stay on track to graduate.
“This is all about student success,” he said. “Supporting the families, engaging the communities … that’s why we’re trying this.”

Springfield Superintendent Norm Ridder and the school board have expressed support for piloting this approach locally.

Missouri has held 6 grant competitions for these 21st century community schools. Last year, of the 52 grants received by the state, 36 were from schools and, of those, 19 were awarded.  In comparison, only 10 were received from community based/non-profit organizations, and two from faith based organizations.  Four community based groups and one faith based group received awards.  Awards totaled $9,225,447.

The vision of the school of the future is one size fits all, and we know that to make that happen that size is going to be very large. School will become the Walmart of family life.  You can go there to do any number of things, from learn to read and write, to avoid drugs and alcohol or seek treatment for drug and alcohol abuse. You can receive mental health counseling, parenting classes and participate in basketball games. Keep in mind that any treatment you get there, if not paid for by your insurance, will only be protected by FERPA regulations, not HIPPA.  That means that any mental health notes or medical diagnosis done by school staff will be part of your child's record and will be automatically included in the longitudinal database of information sent to Washington.

School will provide the food the family eats (by design as these programs are targeted to schools who have 40% or more on reduced price lunch programs) and teach the family values and character. And best of all, because these are 21st century schools which are focused on providing the workforce for the 21st century, they will ultimately offer courses to aid people throughout their working careers.  It's the school for a lifetime.

So why do I find myself thinking about the Eagle's song Hotel California?

Last thing I remember, I was
Running for the door
I had to find the passage back
To the place I was before
"Relax," said the night man,
"We are programmed to receive.
You can check-out any time you like,
But you can never leave!"


Read more about community schools history here