jammin's blog

Lots of parents talking on the playground this week about the new Illinois law that mandates a moment of silence in school.  Some folks seems deeply troubled, others not so much. The arguments seem to follow two courses of logic. Course #1: It is only a moment of silence, no big deal, as the law is worded in such a way that schools can't explicity tell students what they should be doing/thinking during this moment of silence. Course #2: a mandated "moment of silence" is a step down a slippery slope that threatens the separation of church and state in schools.  Some parents, mostly all church-going by the way, felt that the sponsorship of the law might have been a veiled attempt by social conservatives to get a religious foot into the door of schools. Certainly, in my children's school, the principal made it very clear that the moment of silence could be used for "prayer". 

So, should we be alarmed at this development? Ignore it and hope that it goes away? Should we shrug our shoulders and not worry? Should we be happy that the kids are being given a moment of personal reflection/religious time before their cramped school day?                           

In the past quarter century, business models have been slowly replacing human service bureaucracies in such areas as health care and education. The argument, for many, is that free market forces and competition inevitably results in higher quality services and more efficient operations. However, others will argue that business models create more problems than solutions, and if left to spin out of control, these models result in two-tiered system that can leave those less fortunate without services.

It is indeed hard for many Americans to even formulate ideas outside the free market box, so embedded are our concepts of competition, freedom, winning-at-all-costs, and fear of vulnerability and failure. We talk of church-goers, library patrons and elementary school parents as “consumers”, we design power-point presentations with ample data to illustrate how we are failing to deliver quality product and we use fear as a tool to ensure efficiency and compliance to orders.

But, on the other hand, there is much to be learned from good business management. Innovative ideas, for example, often are born out of the drive for profit and measured success. Wasteful spending, time mismanagement, entrenched bureaucracy and patronage systems are consistently challenged by business practices which privilege the bottom line over everything else.

In the end, it seems that many mistakes, especially those mistakes that result in tragedy, could be avoided if only we could achieve some kind of middle-ground. Just as we shouldn’t let market forces alone determine what is best for a patient or a student or, for that matter, the environment, we should also not allow health care, education or the EPA to sink into large, unaccountable, bureaucratic messes.

It just so happens, however, that our nation is currently experiencing a large-scale “corporate” overhaul in many areas (not just education and health care, but also the media, for example). And this overhaul is resulting in some very unfortunate consequences that could be avoided if there were some checks and balances.

It seems to me only realistic to allow that there may be multiple solutions for any one problem. To believe that the free market alone can solve social problems is like believing that a hug will solve them. It will take hugs and common sense together, and the willingness of people from different points of views, to draft a plan together to create workable solutions for our country.            

What can Unit 4 learn from school districts in other states? Well, over the summer I came across a timely article by Lynnell Hancock, a professor at Columbia University (http://nycpublicschoolparents.blogspot.com/2007/06/schools-out-great-examination-of.html). 

In this article, the author argues against the "corporate-style" school overhaul taking place in New York City under the guise of civil rights/social justice. According to the author, Chancellor (similar to a superintendent) Klein's "path to racial equity employs the efficient tools of business--top-down decisions...Instruction is "data-driven".  Academic results are "granular". It is a technocratic vision of education, in sync with big-moneyed foundations, at odds with most classroom teachers and many parents. "

The article goes on to question Klein's resistance to "shared decision-making" and his ramping up of testing initiatives including periodic assessments, popular with buisiness models. The article concludes that  this kind of reform is basically un-democratic, especially when mayors of big cities (this has already happened in Chicago) takes over the public schools from independently elected school boards. The author quotes former NYC school board member Irving Hammer, Jr: "Public schools are the cornerstone of our democracy, if we let them quietly slip through the public's hands, we are breaking the covenant of civic participation in this country."

Just how appropriate are business models in education? Most folks would agree that it is desirable that the business community be involved in the local public schools, but is there a place where we should draw the line?  Are there areas of agreement between left and right-leaning constituents? (The article was printed in The Nation, a solidly left-leaning publication) hmmmm....