Posts Tagged ‘vicious cycle of poverty’

Liberty vs Compassion

July 21, 2014 Leave a comment

I read a recent Huffington Post essay titled “Koch High: How the Koch Brothers are Buying Their Way Into the  Minds of Public School Students” with a combination of revulsion, horror, and fascination. The extended article describes the evolution of the Young Entrepreneurs (YE) program, a program ostensibly designed to help disadvantaged teenagers learn and apply entrepreneurial skills but explicitly designed to counter the “left’s” efforts to “infiltrate” public schools.

I was revolted by the Young Entrepreneurs program because, at its root, it is brainwashing. Here are some paragraphs that support this assertion:

The focus on high school students is a key part of the Kochs’ long-term effort to create a libertarian-minded society from the ground up.

“We hope to develop students’ appreciation of liberty by improving free-market education,” the Koch associates wrote during the program’s initial planning stages. “Ultimately, we hope this will change the behavior of students who will apply these principles later on in life.”

“We are operating under the assumption that high-school students do not receive an education that gives them an understanding and an affinity toward free markets… Without the knowledge or affinity for free markets, students cannot appreciate the role that free markets play in laying the foundations for prosperity and freedom in society.”

The article details the kinds of recruiting and training conducted by the Koch brothers. The organization uses libertarian listservs to identify teachers who will be sympathetic to the training and provided an examples of the videos and “textbooks” (including ones written by the Koch brothers themselves) that were required reading. and offered examples of quiz questions like:

  • “If people who make very little money have modern conveniences, are they really poor?”
  • “True or False: International trade should be heavily regulated for the good of a country’s economy”

And the article is sprinkled with examples of Newspeak from the libertarians, two of which are highlighted in the following paragraph describing the YE curriculum:

Today, to teach its most controversial lessons, YE often relies on videos provided by the Charles Koch-chaired Institute for Humane Studies, which operates out of George Mason University in Virginia. The videos are produced and marketed under an institute arm called Learn Liberty, which offers dozens of educational videos on libertarian and conservative topics

Who could possibly oppose “Humane Studies” or a course that advocates “liberty”?

I reacted with horror because the underlying economics echo a prediction I made regarding the ultimate effects of the private-public partnerships now advocated and embraced by the President… and echoed statements I might have made as School superintendent in the 1990s when school-business partnerships seemed like an innocuous win-win opportunity. Here’s a description of how YE got its foothold in Kansas:

Kansas is a particularly ripe state for YE to target. In addition to serving as Koch Industries’ home base, the state has a public school system hungry for extra help: It’s so underfunded that a few months ago the state’s Supreme Court deemed school funding levels unconstitutionally low. (see earlier posts on this topic) 

(Topeka School superintendent) Singer saw YE as a welcome boon to the ailing school system — the latest in a long string of partnerships that turned to outsiders to increase school resources for free. He came across the organization when teachers involved in an entrepreneurial club brought YE materials to his attention.

“If you can generate revenue outside of taxation, that’s a positive thing,” said Singer… “We couldn’t have done what we did in Topeka, in giving opportunities for kids, had we not had our business partners.”

So… starve the schools of resources so that they cannot offer elective courses in, say, business education… or afford to operate after school clubs in, say, entrepreneurship and then provide stipends to teachers and “grants” to disadvantaged students to offset the programs formerly funded and overseen by the schools. The whole scheme puts superintendents and school boards in political peril if they refuse the “opportunity” to offer a program that describes “the benefits of the free enterprise system” and gives hard-working and diligent students an opportunity for success. But as this article indicates, if you accept the money you need to accept the  content of the curriculum… and Koch’s curriculum is far from “fair and balanced”.

I was fascinated with the Koch brother’s techniques in the same way that I am fascinated with the techniques of propagandists and advertisers. Like the technology corporations that gather information about us without our knowledge or explicit approval, the Koch brothers are developing ways of inculcating values into public schools and teenagers… and they are casting “liberty” as being more important than “compassion”. When a quiz includes a question like “If people who make very little money have modern conveniences, are they really poor?” they are feeding into the idea that you can’t claim to be poor if you have a flush toilet and a flat-screen television. They are, in effect, reinforcing the notion that the possession of “things” is sufficient and one should not feel compassion for those individuals who can afford “modern conveniences” because they have everything they need.

We need liberty and we need compassion. Liberty, to me, means the opportunity to understand the strengths and weaknesses of every form of economics and governance— and yes, capitalism and democracy have weaknesses as well as strengths… and one of the strengths when both are working in harmony is the provision of a sound infrastructure through taxes. Compassion, to me, means empathizing with and providing for those less fortunate, even if those less fortunate have “modern conveniences”.





Philadelphia and PA: Nothing Changes

July 19, 2014 1 comment

I read Meredith Broussard’s recent Atlantic article, “Why Poor Schools Can’t Win at Standardized Testing” and shook my head in exasperation: nothing changes in Philadelphia and Pennsylvania… and worse: the solution isn’t more tests or more penalties or more charter schools: it’s more carefully spent money.

Based on the information presented in the Atlantic article here’s what hasn’t changed in Philadelphia since I was a teacher at Shaw Junior High School:

  • There aren’t enough books
  • There aren’t enough administrators
  • There aren’t enough teachers
  • The central administration is overwhelmed with paperwork
  • Technology is outdated and under-supported
  • As measured by standardized tests, students are performing poorly

Here’s what is different:

  • The state controls the schools (and has for roughly two decades) because they can do a better job… but student performance has not improved one iota since the State takeover.
  • Many of the schools are operated by privatized charters, because the private sector can solve the problems better than the “government run” schools… but for-profit charters have not improved student performance even though they draw from the children of engaged parents. 
  • The per pupil spending gap is wider as compared to surrounding suburban school districts because “money can’t solve the problems”… even though parents and community members in the suburban districts willingly pay more for their better schools… oh.. and those schools DO have textbooks for each child and sophisticated data systems to monitor the allocation of resources and progress of each-and-every student.   
  • The central administration emphasizes the ineffectiveness of teachers instead of the needs of students. Mark Shedd and Matt Costanza, the Superintendents in the late 60s and early 1970s, spoke eloquently in defense of the hard work teachers were doing and the challenges they faced given the effects of poverty. Since then: it’s all about bad teaching. 

And… based on the information presented in the Atlantic article here’s what hasn’t changed in Pennsylvania since I was an administrator in suburban Philadelphia in the mid-1970s: economically disadvantaged students do poorly on standardized achievement tests and students in affluent districts do better and the test results are used to draw the conclusion that schools serving children raised in poverty are “failing” and schools serving children raised in affluence are “good”.

Broussard’s article presents the stark reality of public education in Philadelphia without judgment… and it’s not a pretty picture.


Highways: Another Victory for Anti-Government

July 18, 2014 Leave a comment

Today’s NYTimes had an article by Michael Shear describing Obama’s latest plan to address the crumbling infrastructure: private-public partnerships. This is a terrible idea. By taking this tack, the President is tacitly acknowledging that the Federal Government cannot provide the most basic of services any longer.  If your part of the country has billionaires or large corporations you will get good roads, predictable electrical services, safe drinking water, and adequate police protection. Otherwise, you better pay your local and State taxes or otherwise take your chances… But not to worry: your locality will be able to make lots of revenue if you allow fracking, are willing to compromise your local environment to allow large corporations to build factories manned by robots, or have any kind of extractable resources that can be obtained cheaply.

What does this mean for schools? Greater and greater differences between schools based on zip codes and less regulation and funding from all levels of government except the local level. After all, if we are going to fund roads based on user fees, why should we fund schools any differently?