After reading the articles on Parent Trigger Laws and the critique of the Knowledge is Power Program I have come to two conclusions that I am sure other people in the class might have come to already. My first conclusion is that the politicians and third party organizations involved in the Charter School movement actually do have an ulterior motive. This ulterior motive is to institutionalize the Neo-Liberal thought throughout the American public. Both Scott Ellison and Abe Feuerstein mention this in some way or form in their articles.
Scott Ellison talks about the methods that KIPP uses in their charter school system that end up employing methods to mold the character of students using positive psychology. Ellison’s critique also mentions how KIPP adopts a radical individualist approach “in which structural barriers to academic achievement, such as poverty and cultural capital are noticeable absent” (563). This radical individualist approach is a theme that runs latent throughout charter school systems. Ellison claims that installing this type of thought in the charter school allows for students to adopt this approach which is always self-blaming and does not contribute outcomes of these students to the various environmental factors around them. How do they get away with institutionalizing this ideology? KIPP is able to control the environment within the school to an extreme extent, allowing for the Radical individualized approach to be justified in this way. KIPP is able to construct a curriculum that uses ” strict disciplinary regimes” (563) as well as a heavy emphasis on teacher centric instruction. These environmental conditions do not exist within the public school system, which is why I believe the Radical Individual approach would not fly in that setting.
Abe Feuerstein alludes to the same concept of molding the philosophy or the way of thinking of the public. Feuerstein mentions Harvey’s definition of neoliberalism: ” body of ideas and policies supportive of economic deregulation and the dismantling of the public sector based on the belief that competition and choice within a market framework is the best mechanism to enhance human well-being and economic efficiency” (2). Feuerstein looks at the Parent Trigger Laws and also sees this as a part of the charter school movement since these laws provide a mechanism to convert traditional public schools in charters. This draws political power away from the local government and constituencies and allows for the earlier mentioned radical individualistic values to be plugged into the school system.
In both articles, the idea that there is an ulterior motive looming over the charter school movement is present. I tend to lean towards this idea but I also believe that there are people who truly think that this methods are helping children from urban, low-socioeconomic backgrounds. If there weren’t people who believed in this then it would be a failure before the charter school movement even started. I would also say that because charter schools originally were created to help foster better learning environment for students from various backgrounds, this happy image is tied to the current charter school system which claims to do the same thing, but doesn’t really do the same thing. This could gain a lot of support from people just because of the historical connotation but no one is taking it for what it is anymore. If people are not exposed to research that displays the ulterior motive perspective, then why would they see charter schools as an entity having a negative impact on the public?
Comments
4 responses to “Ulterior Motive or Genuine Effort?”
Thanks for the good interpretation of these two pieces. I am truly torn about the promise of charter schools. The popularity of the movement speaks volumes about dissatisfaction with our current system and yet I fear that parents and students may be sold a product that doesn’t live up to the hype. KIPP as an example is certainly more complicated than it might first appear. Does the positive psychology pay off? Is it possible to make a realistic appraisal of the structural barriers that exist in society and still advance? Or, does success require blinding oneself to these real barriers and throwing oneslf fully into the jaws of capitalist competition despite the unequal playing field?
“Does success require blinding oneself to these real barriers and throwing oneslf fully into the jaws of capitalist competition despite the unequal playing field?”
While I do think that this fully depends on one’s definition of ‘success’, I think that those who emphasize a capitalistic philosophy rely on people to feel just that- to follow the lines of meritocracy despite the obvious dependencies. Capitalism seems to be the force of this time. We see that money and success go hand in hand and it makes it seem like the only option is to “work hard”. If you work hard, you will succeed. The legitimacy of this idea is debatable- meritocracy is sometimes referred to as a myth. At the same time, however, what else are people supposed to do? For people on the receiving end of ‘reform’, their choice remains the same. They have to work hard and assume that they will be less worse-off for it.
I don’t think it’s wrong to teach kids that working hard is key to escaping. When hard work doesn’t seem to be enough is when students hopefully start fighting against the system and speaking up. Telling them that the system works against them from the start might just keep them from trying in the first place. Give them that foundation of working hard, and then encourage them to fight when they are treated unfairly.
Aida, I disagree about the emphasis you put on ulterior motives for charter schools like KIPP. Look at KIPP specifically, it was created by two teachers who just wanted to make a difference. But I do agree when politics and third parties like corporations get involved, “This ulterior motive is to institutionalize the Neo-Liberal thought throughout the American public”.
The reason I say you can not blame charter schools for the result of, institutionalizing the Neo-Liberal thought is that I would like to believe that educators have the need to make a positive difference in childrens lives.
I think you have to see the institutionalize Neo-Liberal thought as a cycle that has existed long before charter schools. Just as factory workers have been paid less than their owners since the industrial revolution. I do feel that the neo liberal thought has made it’s way into education but these examples are few. Otherwise why would people like Bill Gates have a foundation and teams of people to vet programs before putting a great deal of money into them. The fact of the matter is we are a capitalist society and have a public that fears our turn to socialism. My conclusion and where I feel that Aida might agree with me is that our government needs to take back our schools. We have seen the age of education reform and our government should be embarrassed as I think they are now. But this is blinded when we bring up the studies that show america is falling behind the rest of the world in education. This another point of embarrassment but commonly used as a political talking point. Now is the time when our government should take responsibility for in’s education system. They do this by spending just as much money on education as we do our military and last, the government and politicians should take education as seriously as they do the economy and jobs. Otherwise the problem will never get fixed.