The Billionaires' War Against Public Education

[marmar]

The Billionaires' War Against Public Education

Monday, 08 July 2013 15:26
By Peter Dreier, Truthout | Op-Ed


Ever since the emergence of talking pictures, schools have been a major subject of both Hollywood movies and documentary films. One consistent theme of Hollywood portrayals of schools - from Blackboard Jungle (1955), Up the Down Staircase (1967) and Stand and Deliver (1988) to Mr. Holland's Opus (1995), October Sky (1999) and Freedom Writers (2007) - has been the idealistic teacher fighting to serve his and her students against overwhelming odds, including uncaring administrators, cynical colleagues, a stultifying required curriculum that crushes the spirit of teachers and students alike, dilapidated conditions, budget cuts, unruly and hostile students, or students suffering from the symptoms of poverty or neglect. The underlying message is that while occasionally a rare teacher can light a spark in a few students, our public schools are failing most of the students they are supposed to serve. Most documentaries about education - from Frederick Wiseman's High School (1968) to Bill Moyers' Children in America's Schools (1996) - paint a similarly grim picture.

Grim, but not hopeless. All these films hold out the prospect that change is possible if society is willing to honestly confront the social, economic, and bureaucratic conditions that have made public education less effective than it could and should be.

In contrast, the two most recent high-profile films about public education - the documentary Waiting for Superman (2010) and Hollywood's Won't Back Down (2012), starring Maggie Gyllenhaal and Viola Davis - portray our public schools as beyond reform and redemption.

Waiting for Superman - directed by Davis Guggenheim, who made An Inconvenient Truth about Al Gore's environmental crusade - portrays the public school system as a total failure. It follows several students as they attempt to get into a private charter school that is superior in every way. Guggenheim skillfully tells the stories of these children and their families so that we can't help but root for them to win the lottery and get into the charter schools that, we're led to believe, will unleash their potential rather than stifle their creativity. The film boils down the problems facing public education as simply one of bad teachers, whose jobs are protected by corrupt unions. The film demonizes teachers' unions as the destroyer of public schools, while celebrating charters as the panacea for what ails American education. It reduces most teachers and their union leaders to one-dimensional, cartoon-like figures. .....................(more)

The complete piece is at: http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/17455-go-public-finally-a-film-that-celebrates-public-schools

[cantbeserious]

1. The War Is Simple To Understand - Public Education Is To Be Monetized Like Most Public Services

eom

[xchrom]

2. du rec.

[Downwinder]

3. Good Morning, Miss Dove was released the same year

as Blackboard Jungle.

[byeya]

4. Selling off public commonwealth for private profit: Universal free public education

is one of the true success stories of the USA. I guess because it's such a success it draws the rich parasites and their stooges - I'm looking at you Rahm and you, Arne - who want to take over a good thing and pocket some more easy money.

It's true many public schools have been starved for resources like adequate staffing, libraries, art and music teachers, etc, but the concept and execution has been sound and a huge plus for the country.

Social Security is another example of a "bad example" for the capitalists: A huge program operating smoothly on no more than 1% over head. Good examples are a threat to the parasites. Why aren't most Democrats singing the praises of public schools and putting up a better fight against the giveaways?

[WinkyDink]

5. Isn't public education free in Europe? Aren't universities free in Europe?

[Igel]

6. Public education is free in the US, too.

But a lot of problems come along with government running the universities. It's easy to pick the facts that make "free" look so much better. After all, as a student or parent I'm getting something good at somebody else's expense, and who doesn't like free stuff?

You need to look at all the facts and now how it *might* play out, best-case scenario. but how it has played out in a lot of different situations.

I was admitted to grad school with no funding. I attended. I got some funding the next year, but mostly worked and scrimped with the occasional small loan. In most countries with free tuition my admission would be dependent on the amount of funding the dept. was given. If I got in, it's a free ride.

I saw students who were marginal after the first year. "Probation." In the US, they'd be allowed to attend and rack up debt. In some cases, they come off probation and do well. In other cases, they should cut their losses. In countries with free tuition, they'd have been defunded. Defunded means "unadmitted." The government needs value for what it's paying for. If there's a waiting list, remediation is a waste of money. Think of it as "academic means testing."

Speaking of which, there's usually just a test to get in. High stakes testing. It's hard to pass if you've been out of high school for a few years.

Where I went to grad school there was always this problem with dept. funding. Some depts. were swelling with students and the university put more money there. Adjuncts, TAs, ways to accommodate demand. Depts. would have faculty argue over how many students they could handle, mentor, could teachers have an overload or postpone sabbatical? Government-funding cuts through all that. The budget process for the country says how much money you get for each student and how much money each dept. gets. (Dept. funding)/(funding per student) gives you (number of students allowed). That's that. Next agenda item.

But worst of all is when the government has a budget cut or shift. Then you suddenly cut stipends, # of students, or you have to charge tuition. Other downsides is that the public views the schools as a service--industry has no need to support it any more than industry feels a need to support the DOE. Students tend not to be supportive any more than retirees like to attend the local Social Security office's away game with the office from the next town over or wear "I'm a Proud Houston SS Recipient" t-shirt.

And you have students whose grades drop and are there crying, "My mother's sick and my family relies on my stipend to make ends meet."

[byeya]

7. It's my understanding that for the most part, the answer is yes.

[liberal_at_heart]

8. "Why aren't most democrats singing the praises of public schools and putting up a better fight

against the giveaways?" As a mother with one recently graduated from high school and one entering high school in special education, that's what I would like to know. The Democratic Party has lost me over this very issue because they not only will not fight for public education. They go along with the giveaway. They go along with public policy like Race to the Top which is nothing more than a continuation of No Child Left Behind.

[Egalitarian Thug]

9. Beside the efforts of billionaires to steal our money, our school systems have two primary problems;

The way we fund them is beyond stupid, and the factory model that is nearly ubiquitous.

There is no mystery in how to effectively provide an excellent education to our kids, the rich have enjoyed the benefits of this knowledge for many generations and have consistently achieved generally excellent results.