I started writing a secondary response to Aida’s last post, then I realized I had too much to say. While this topic may be controversial, I think that the fact that education is for real, individual children with unique needs and circumstances is often lost in data, policy analysis, hypothetical theories. My general idea is that private groups (with the influence of private-gain and political power) have become too intertwined with the education and future of students. I would like to hear other perspectives.
“Aida, I understand your point- “I also believe that there are people who truly think that this methods are helping children from urban, low-socioeconomic backgrounds”. I also think that the consequences of neoliberal intensions have effects on education and people’s lives on a wide spectrum. As we read here, the push for control of the public education system is fueled by slogans and promises (framing) of improvement to the greater public. Charter Management orgs are given more power in this way. What is overlooked, however, by both neoliberal advocates and consumers is that unfounded promises and experiments on innovated schooling can have detrimental effects on the actual academic performance of students. (ex. most charter schools actually do not outperform traditional public schools.)
If I can make a more tangible connection, while business-oriented initiatives at Bucknell University point to an increase in “diverse” student recruitment, the school’s ineffective support system for diverse/minority students can lead to no real or unique academic improvement for these students (oftentimes, this is what is promised). If I may play devil’s advocate, Bucknell’s attempt of increasing diversity is a tactic, a strategy “supportive of economic deregulation… based on the belief that competition and choice within a market framework is the best mechanism to enhance… economic efficiency”. There is a need to increase the diversity on campus because without it, Bucknell cannot compete with the market. Students will not want to attend a homogeneous school. Investors will turn away. Efforts to increase diversity, however dressed, can be defined as ineffective. Although there is an increase of untraditional students (the “diversity”), campus is not suited with the right resources. There is no Trio center, no other resources beyond “Multicultural Student Services”…
Just as we read for class, in neoliberal agendas, messages of improving our schools are scattered and acted upon but for ulterior motives- for increased control of the public education system. The basis of effectiveness may be off and the consequences of their actions may be overlooked, but their actions are impactful nonetheless. We should be analyzing the almost-instantaneous impact of neoliberal, big business agendas and the long-term effect they will have on real students. The push towards privatization of education gives too many children the short-end of the stick. Higher education institutions do the same thing when they make offers undeniable to students, and stop their initiatives there. The business intention, in this case, is not real change. The ‘innovation’ does not go on beyond the admissions process.”
Comments
14 responses to “Should business and students exist together?”
Melissa, I really appreciate these thoughts, what a powerful and insightful post! I think that the problem with business being involved in education is that their are a lot of people advocating from the wrong reasons. As with your example of Bucknell, I think some big business education supporters are pushing for reforms simply to make or save more money. To them, education is only a part of a whole agenda.
However, I don’t think this is true for all big business education supporters. I really do feel like some people do have the interests of those who are most important at heart. The fact is that education is a complicated problem that no one knows the best way to solve. Completely blaming business incentives or politicians for polluting the education system would be incorrect, since many are very smart people trying to advocate for what they see as best. All in all, my point is that perhaps the problem with current education reform is that there are too many voices trying to make one direct decision. This is resulting in a mixture of muddled, adverse effects.
I would have to disagree with McKenzie in respect to her comment stating that “The fact is that education is a complicated problem that no one knows the best way to solve”. There are many pawns in this game of educational policy but what is blatantly happening is the pushing out of the poor people through indirect policy. If the problem is, how to offer/providing equal, of quality education for all children living in the United States then the best way to solve this problem is by ensuring that there are proper social programs ensuring that poor children are being fed healthy food, living in stable homes, as well as attending schools that have top notch resources or at least to equal standards of other institutions. This would be the ideal solution. The only problem is that people don’t want to give up their privileges. Increasing taxes would assist public education to meet these standards, but there is a culture in the US of hating the idea of paying for government services. Also, treating teachers well with proper benefits and justified salaries would be another great step. All of these things have to play into the formula, not just one.
Melissa,
This is an interesting post. I think it is valuable to turn our critical analysis in the direction of Bucknell. I agree that the drive to diversify the student body may be undertaken in an effort to keep up with the competition. It also seems true based on my conversations with students that the support mechanisms for diverse students at Bucknell are not adequate. Are there other places that do this better? Probably. What political/economic/social forces have created better situations for students in other schools? This would be an interesting avenue to examine.
I think one of the main issues in the debate about educational reform is that most of the players come from very good schools, very good neighborhoods, and have had the benefits of some kind of privilege. So even though they might be doing what they think is best, they don’t necessarily understand or are unable to empathize with their programs’ impacts on students in impoverished areas. Geoffrey Canada is a reformer that I respect a ton because he came from Harlem, he has experienced educational reforms there first hand, so he understands what is needed. He knows how difficult it is to succeed there, and he knows what factors in his life were likely to pull him away from the successful life that he has now. So when I look at Michelle Rhee and her closing so many schools, thinking it’s no big deal, I wonder if she understands the impact that has on those families, those students, and those neighborhoods.
In response to Aida’s point about knowing the best way to solve education, I think we know the ultimate end goal, but the programs to reach that end goal are only the beginning. The funding and public support for those programs needs to come with a huge ideological shift in the American public’s stance on taxation, education, and equality. At the moment, people may say they believe in equality, but not enough people are willing to put their money where their mouth is. Not enough people care about those struggling beneath them. Too many care solely about their own economic prosperity, and the wellbeing of their families, over the needs of people who are living in terrible and oppressive situations.
I agree somewhat with Aida but not entirely. I do agree that many problems of American public school education does not necessarily stem from the public schools themselves. Not all students are going to school well-fed and with a good night’s sleep or a warm jacket. Some kids are at a disadvantage to learn before they even reach school each morning. This, I believe, is where the controversy lies. While the American dream is a large home with green grass, a white picket fence, and picture perfect family of four, the American culture does not support this. The culture/government will not provide all the tools–meals, housing, clothing, education, and a career–to achieve this dream. While it would be wonderful for everyone to achieve this dream, with the current resources it simply will not happen. One option is to increase government services. The second option is to change the dream.
To take Hannah’s comment a little farther (not necessarily what she thinks), it becomes an issue of “can we solve poverty?” rather than “can we solve educational inequality?” I think that is a huge issue that cannot be overlooked when considering how educational equality can be achieved. Unfortunately, not everyone can be happy with their situation. If government programs expand, than taxes go up which the middle and upper classes oppose. If increases in government programs are not made, then the lower class is unhappy. Either way, someone loses and right now it seems as if the lower class is losing. In the US, capitalism and the free market are huge parts of what makes this country different. Some level of social divide will remain as long as we continue to value market freedoms.
I totally agree with Bryson. In general, it would be great if everyone in America had a quality education and knew important basic skills (reading, basic math, etc). However, as long as jobs still exist that pay below a living wage, it won’t matter how great the education system is. If, as a PhD graduate, I go to work in a Walmart, I will still be making around $8 per hour. While an education broadens the availability of careers to a particular student, it does nothing overall to change the system of poverty in America (a direct implication of capitalist accumulation). Could our education system be improved, particularly in impoverished areas? Absolutely. But until there are no more people in poverty (because of a higher minimum wage, addition of government welfare programs, etc), there will always be students coming into schools without everything they need to succeed. I think that the state of education today is a more a result of capitalism, and less about the quality of teachers.
I really really enjoyed your comment Alex. I feel like this blog post went back and forth and I was not entirely sure where I was on the issue at present, but this really put it in perspective for me. Like Alex said, as long as jobs still exist that are at a low wage, the education system will not matter. While I think that sometimes the education world and business world may be a little too intertwined, the point about having a PhD and deciding to work at Walmart demonstrates how it does not matter what school you chose to go to, you will still get paid at a low hourly wage. I know that the point of this was to demonstrate how it is unfair for those who do not have necessarily the access to a high education to achieve the higher up jobs, it’s hard to think how our society could be organized in any other way. While there is always a goal to have diversity from all social classes present at all types of universities, the fact is still there is and will probably always be capitalism that dictates how these types of things work.
To expand on Hannah’s point, I agree that “Not all students are going to school well-fed and with a good night’s sleep or a warm jacket. Some kids are at a disadvantage to learn before they even reach school each morning.” I think that this is the real problem in the fact that this is being overlooked when talking about failing schools. Some students are already set up to fail because of what is going on in their home lives. Watching the documentary 180 Days really opened my eyes to this even more and provided me with a different outlook. Getting a first-hand look on the struggles that these children are facing outside of the classroom absolutely has an affect on their performance in the class room; this movie proved that. Teachers that serve as mentors and a support system are even more important for these kinds of students, not just teachers who can teach a good lesson. I completely agree with Alex in that “the state of education today is a more a result of capitalism, and less about the quality of teachers.” It is more about the quality of teachers as people, as supporters, as people who truly care about the lives and well-being of these students.
I really loved reading this thread and seeing all the additions people have made over the past couple of days. I think what hit home for me the most is when Hanna said, “The second option is to change the dream”. We live in a capitalist society and anyone who has read any of Karle Marx work knows that in a capital society there are going to be people on the bottom, people on the top and people in the middle. Do people really believe that more government services are going to make things better?
I ask this because after reading unequal childhoods by annette lareau I learned about the deep seeded issues that individuals have with race or because of others race. I am not trying to make a point, I am just having a difficult time wrapping my head around how we fix such a large issue. I always think to about when the time comes that whites are not the majority in this country any longer. Will things start to get better then? Maybe they will already be better.
To bring things back to education tho…
I do not think that government programs will fix the inequalities that we have in our social structure. That is why we must focus on fixing this problem through education. This government program above all others has the largest cast net over the american people. Not to mention it connects to american youth, the perfect time to inhibit racism and our social structure. This is harsh to say but I do not think that the governments focus can be on the poor. I believe that the government must focus on the poor youth. It is the law that children must attend some sort of schooling. To conclude, my point is that we can talk about government programs or higher taxes but the fact of the matter is american education has the only chance of resolving these many issues.
I would like to know what people think if they believe that education is not the avenue to fix many of America’s social inequalities?
This is a valid point Aida, and I think it is coming to the conclusion of how embedded neoliberal ideals are in the structures of education. The idea that schools need to be privatized and allowed the many different pawns to take place in the system. This also reflects how much capitalism has a role in our society. That to Aida’s point, like all other aspects of employment, class, and education there “needs” to be a lower-class/poor-class. Not everyone can achieve success and wealth in a capitalist system, and I think this is the problem we are seeing in education. Not every student is meant to do well and achieve that quality education. The structures of the system won’t allow it, and I think that is one of the biggest flaws.
With this statement, I consider my own journey to Bucknell. As a “diverse student,” I consider all of the avenues that have allowed me to get to college. I attended a top preforming charter schools, but lottery. I was then granted resources and support from teachers I had never had before. Higher expectations were made for me and I worked harder to achieve my dream of going to college. Although what most people don’t consider is all the work put into a high school graduate is quickly swept from under them when they attend university. I had the grades and drive to get in, but I was never taught how to play the college game. How to study, how to talk to adults/professors in a professional way, how to manage time and classes, and of course how to manage all of this on top of the two jobs I have to support myself at college. Although I attend the same classes and is expected to be just as prepared as any other student. I found this to be one interesting flaw in the system that seeks diversity in educational settings: what is expected of them once they “make it.”
To comment on your first point about where policy maker’s background comes form and their experience with the issues they must address, I thought about current issues with Teach For America. One of the biggest issues (because there seem to be many) is that most of the teachers recruited and them quickly trained over a few months, come from very different backgrounds than those of the students they are teaching. So if we expect policy makers to reflect the experiences and population from the issues they are addressing, could we say the same for teachers? What are the pros/cons of a teacher from a high-economic class teaching students from a very different class and culture?
Amanda I think you’re addressing some big issues that have been held in many debates, who has the largest impact on a student’s success? The teachers, the environment from which they come, the educational structure, etc.? You’re suggesting that teachers have a high-stake in whether or not a student can succeed, that if they are surrounded by supportive people, a student’s life can be drastically changed. I find this to be true in some circumstances, but as in the documentary your cited, teachers are chained to jump through the hoops of policy, red tape, and the educational structures just as much as anyone. We find that teachers have become susceptible to direct correlation between their teaching ability and standardized testing results. If it is true that any supportive teacher can positively affect a student, then what has our system done by linking teaching to numerical results? I find it to be hindering and can be a new obstacle in the success of students.