By Kelli Kenealy
One of the main subjects we discussed this quarter is Venture Philanthropy in regards to the Neoliberal agenda. In the article “The Rise of Venture Philanthropy and Ongoing Neoliberal Assault on Public Education” by Kenneth Saltman (2009), Saltman describes the main agenda of neoliberals is to transform public education into a free market through for-profit and non-profit schools. The negative in the neoliberal agenda is that standards are dictated by donors and investors interest and do not take into consideration location, race or class issues. The Neoliberal agenda creates definitive class lines where the rich communities get richer (better education) and the poorer communities get poorer (education suffers due to lack of funding). By making schools into a “free market” and having them compete against one another for funding. The wealthier districts get more resources including but not limited to: Better educated teachers, lower class sizes, more specialized teachers, and better technology. Better teacher equate to better “scores” and pass rates on the standardize test which garner more funding. When a school falls behind, there funding is stripped until they can get back up to par (which is often determined by investors and non-educators based on their own interest).The neoliberal project thus creates classism in society and educational arena.
An example of the Neoliberal agenda is the No Child Left behind Initiative. No Child Left behind Act, in theory was created in the belief that every child in the United States deserves a better education than is being currently provided.The program punishes schools that do not perform well on standardize test and instead of looking at how the curriculum and support in the school can be better improved, the government cuts of funding. That is only the tip of the iceberg as far as problems with this program.
The NCLB act defines diversity in groups, not individuals. Every state is free to select their own grouping for diversity; this has benefited white suburban schools but virtually left children with English proficiency and in need of bilingual education, in a sense behind. Year after year the test stores and funding dollars prove the government is not doing anything to help, in fact some might argue they are making the gap of lack of distribution even wider. In 2006 the government put additional certification credentials for ESL and bi-lingual teachers. These additional credentials cost more time and more money while there wages have still remained low. Financing has consistently shown that NCLB has consistently reattributed funds to favor white suburban schools; this is due to political deals done at the state level (Lyons, 2001). If NCLB is not looked at and re-constructed soon the results could be catastrophic. We as a country will have an uneducated generation not able to survive economically.
Source Links:
Kenneth Saltman
James_J._Lyons
Tifanie Gleason Response to Kelli’s False Promises
I absolutely agree with Saltman’s article and Kelli’s response, however, for the sake of playing devil’s advocate, why is closing a school that is not functioning properly a bad thing? NCLB has a pretty bad reputation with educators. We look at it as some idea created by a bureaucrat who has never stepped foot inside a classroom (other than for his/her own experience as a student). We treat it like a dirty secret, something we don’t even want to talk about. Why? Because it has shut down our schools, relocated students and displaced thousands of educators and administrators. If we think about this the way the lawmakers do, it actually makes sense (humor me for a minute). As Saltman’s article presented, the negative agenda in Neoliberalism shows how rich communities have better education, therefore producing better students, while poorer communities have less advantages for education and produce not as good students. This shows how a free market is basically produced in the school systems today. However, if we look at just the facts of a poorly producing school, students do not care about being in class and receiving an education, teachers are less enthusiastic about teaching because students could not care less, parents do not care, everyone already expects nothing from the teachers, so a “why bother” attitude comes about. The same thought process comes from administrators. The thought that “nothing is expected from this school and no one else is putting forth effort, why should I” come into play. This is dangerous. Why a school in which teachers quit trying, students stopped caring and funding is poor because it is a poorer community remains open? Maybe these schools should be closed in order to relocate these students so that they can go to a better school with more funding and better opportunities. Maybe closing low productive schools and getting rid of teachers who quit trying is a good idea in this case. Is this completely a negative Neoliberal agenda, or is this simply a free-market economy at its finest?
