After teacherken's excellent diary on the Wake County, NC decision to hire DC crony and educational neophyte General Tata to run its schools, I thought it might be time to share some of the information I have collected and to share my personal theory on why, exactly, these people™ are trying to destroy public education in the United States.
I believe that we have a perfect storm of reform-minded idiocy coupled with a complete lack of understanding about education's purpose. As a result, there isn't one reason that they™ would want to destroy education. There are three.
1: The influence of big business
This one cannot be overstated. The move to reform, particularly regarding charter schools, is sought by big businesses and a few influential hedge fund managers because it has both short- and long-term benefits for the business community. In the short term, charter schools are essentially a tax-dodge. The tax code allows businesses to use large chunks of money to drum up business (books, computers, facilities, et cetera are not free after all), claiming that they are investing in the community while actively undermining the cheaper and often more effective public education system in the process.
This feeds in to the long term goal to fully capture and capitalize on the multi-trillion dollar education marketplace; unfortunately, such a feat can only be done if there is no 'public option' outcompeting them. An additional long term benefit lies in the students themselves. By capturing the means to educate the populace, business will be able to limit the discourse (just like NCLB narrowed the definition of education) so that children will only be educated in a pro-business environment to be nothing more than cogs in the machine. Meanwhile, their own children can just go to private schools where they learn (and develop all the connections) to preside over a subdued and compliant workforce.
2: Social theory and wealth
It's almost an axiom in education that a student's social standing directly effects how they approach education. Poor students seem to think 'what you have' is the marker of success. Middle class students are more likely to think 'what you know' is more important. Wealthy students know that it's not what you have or what you know, it's 'who you know.'
Is it any surprise then that Eli Broad (rhymes with toad) and Bill Gates (the Third, don'tcha know) are so set on destroying the importance of advanced degrees and academic inquiry? Not only are they big-businessmen who would benefit directly from getting rid of public schools, but they also have lived lives in which what they knew was far less important than simply who they knew. Broad is an accountant with a bachelor degree from MSU who made his money in retail and financial services. He didn't need an advanced degree to retire in style with his enormous art collection when his company merged with AIG in 2001. Yes that AIG.
And Gates isn't much better. Yes, he's a genius, but in a country of some 308 million, there should be over 9,000 people at least as smart as Gates. Where are the rest of the genius billionaires? Anyways, Gates got where he was by not going to public schools, but to Lakewood where he could get access to technology most college students couldn't get their hands on. Then he went to Harvard, where he didn't study anything much.
He also met a bunch of like minded people. Paul Allen, Steve Ballmer, Tim Patterson and company were more important than the degree Gates never got. Despite popular thought, Gates didn't develop BASIC, didn't create DOS and didn't even create Windows. He did create a pancake-sorting algorithm, but that was about it. When it comes down to it, Gates didn't even need a bachelor degree to ride (and refine and market to be fair) other people's inventions to the top of the world. If Gates didn't even need to graduate and Broad only has a bachelors, is it any surprise they don't see the value in teachers having experience or advanced degrees?
3: They have no idea what they are doing
Seems simple, doesn't it. Some months ago, in an attempt to save her job, Michelle Rhee got together with a dozen or so other chancellors and superintendents to plead that what the country's educational system needed was more ham-handed leadership. Superintendents should be free to hire and fire (just you try teaching a controversial subject or an unpopular truth)! Teachers shouldn't have tenure! Or unions! Test scores equal education! There should be more charters! Fewer rules! And that will fix everything! Maybe it wasn't quite that hyperbolic, but it was close.
Policies like Rhee proposed are ludicrous on any real examination, (if charter schools are the answer why not just get rid of public education and replace it with charters?) but why would our 'leaders' think it's a good idea? Well, first and foremost half of the signers of Rhee's manifesto have less than five years experience as educators, meaning they couldn't have even earned tenure. This includes Rhee herself who only taught 3 years before thinking she was qualified to run it all and, apparently, be superman. Only seven have the doctorate you'd think would be required of an 'educational leader.' Five (possibly six) have never served in the classroom at all, but come at education from either law or business. Twelve of them are connected to Harvard, the Broad Academy, or both (which share the goal with W's new institute of putting businessmen in charge of school districts).
Then there's our leader. Arne Duncan. Good old Arne doesn't have a degree in education either. Instead he's known for running the one educational enterprise he was in charge of, the Ariel Education Initiative, into the ground and (spoiler alert) reopening it as a charter school. By the way, he got that job because he was friends with a banker. Seriously. After that he failed upwards and took over as CEO of Chicago Public Schools in 2001 just in time to close down a bunch of their schools and (surprise) turn them into charters. And now he's our Secretary of Education whose 'Race to the Top' program set aside $4 billion to convince states to (wait for it) expand charter schools. Wouldn't it be nice to have a teacher for Secretary of Education instead of a basketball player?
What we need is a public school system is insulated from commercial interests (and keeps our students from being seen as commodities), that rewards knowledge and experience in both our teachers and our students, that prepares our children for higher education (not the workforce, sorry) and that is lead by people who know what they are doing because they have actually done the work of educating our children. But that, I suppose, is only the opinion of someone who has actually served in the classroom and as such it doesn't matter one bit.