Well, it might not be the sexiest way to start this article, but it might have got your attention. Lets talk more about the President and his goals for education below...
"It's really hard to see this as anything other than a Shock Doctrine-style deal, since it's a way to force cash-starved states and schools to change education policy and practice, regardless of what they might normally and democratically choose to do. And not only that--because the funds are limited, they could make the changes, and still not get a dime for doing so."
This is a direct quote from an article written by Paul Rosenberg, at Open Left. I hope he (you?) are all right with my sourcing you, http://openleft.com/... At the Open Left website (I hope I haven't violated any posting rules; if I have, someone please let me know).
In speaking about health care reform the President noted (as noted at the website, "Counter Punch"" ()
"In May and August, 2007 Obama stated his position on single payer:
"If you're starting from scratch, then a single-payer system'-a government-managed system like Canada's, which disconnects health insurance from employment-'would probably make sense. But we've got all these legacy systems in place, and managing the transition, as well as adjusting the culture to a different system, would be difficult to pull off. So we may need a system that's not so disruptive that people feel like suddenly what they've known for most of their lives is thrown by the wayside." (May, 2007)
" [W]hen we had a healthcare forum before I set up my healthcare plan here in Iowa there was a lot of resistance to a single-payer system. So what I believe is we should set up a series of choices....Over time it may be that we end up transitioning to such a system. For now, I just want to make sure every American is covered...I don't want to wait for that perfect system..." (August 2007 at an Iowa roundtable).
So, why doesn't this same logic apply when it comes to the education system? I mean, why is it that we can't change a system based on private profit at public expense and penalty, but can when it comes to the non-profit, publicly owned education system?
The Counter Punch article noted that the President in arguing against single payer used a number of arguments, such continued, noting the President listed 5 reasons against implementing single payer, "we’ve got all these legacy systems in place", and, it would be hard to "manage the transition" from public to private.
If you replace "legacy systems (really private insurance), with public school system, and "transition management" with closing public schools and replacing them with private, for-profit schools, the same agreements the President was prepared to use to argue against introducing single payer, can be used to counter his arguments in favor of Charter Schools.
I mean really, what is the difference? Isn't the Public School system one with a firmly established base with which the public is associated and users? Indeed, what about the existing infrastructure, and the cost estimated in the Billons of dollars that will be needed to address closing of Public Schools and opening of Charter Schools? Every argument the President has used against overhauling Health Care can equally apply to Public School system versus the Charter School movement.
I don't doubt that most readers of this blog know who Naomi Klein is, and are more than likely familiar with her "The Shock Doctrine". In it "Klein uses the term "disaster capitalism" to refer to the neo-liberal modus operandi of "waiting for a major crisis, then selling off pieces of the state to private players while citizens [are] still reeling from the shock, then quickly making the 'reforms' permanent.", from http://mutualist.blogspot.com/...
In the case of Barack Obama, I am not convinced his primary motivation is monetary. I think he honestly believes that competition, along with a force of innovation, which he seemingly appears to believe is not available in the public school system is at least in part driving his agenda in this area. I am not going to get into a more detailed analysis of his motivations as I can't read his mind, and wouldn't be so foolhardy as to say I could, deciphering his real intentions via some mystical power I would have to have to read the man's mind.
However, what I can say is I am not convinced he is approaching this issue with the same kind of consistent rigor that he arguably has in arguing against the single payer, and in lukewarm support at best of the Public Option. And I think this merits consideration, discussion and challenge.
Make no mistake about this, Public versus Charter argument is coming. I believe as a community we need to be more proactively prepared to make our case, and to fight those who wish to introduce competition into the education as the be all and end all.
I am not going to claim that Public Education is in not in need of review. In fact, that is what the real issue is; how do we fix what is broken without destroying things, and some people, along the way? But, my biggest fear is that a real consideration of what will happen to those who are left behind and outside the new Charter School system will not occur. My father, bless his soul, taught in the Public School system for 43 years. He and I often discussed what happened whenever a push to standardize and assess progress overcame any other priority. He said the result was always teachers "taught to the test, and the students suffered". That never surprised me. My father made one other observation though that I think is important. He often discussed the idea of what "were the basics". He said it varied from community to community and from era to era. And this is what I think is where the real pitfall may lie in the President's plans. I am not convinced that his plan is much more then that competition and forcing people to act responsibly will lead to success and improvement. He hasn't gone much further then that at any point so far.
Of course, it is reasonable to argue that I should wait and "let the President make his case". However, this time, I am not prepared to let him try and frame the discussion to fit his agenda, as it were. So, I tell you that I am skeptical of what lays ahead.
Am I concerned and worried, you know it. Why, mainly because we don't know what will happen to those who are left behind by reform, and what will happen? People say, "what about the children?". Well, indeed what about the children? Why not simply focus on what is broken, and leave in place what works. It would truly be folly to abandon something with a documented long history of overall success. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If the private health system needs to be improved but not replaced or subject to a system that allows people to "opt-out of it" that is, a Medicare like Public Option or Single Payer system, why shouldn't this logic also be applied to the public school system; why does the Public School system need to be replaced any more badly? This is the question to ask. Without answer, it is up to us to force one to come to the fore.