School Privatization (USD 259)

By Steve Woodman

June 2007 will probably mark the end of my 50 year career in USD 259 (Wichita Public Schools). What began in the autumn of 1957 in no way resembles the Public School experience of the 21st Century, but perhaps it should be reexamined for the clues as to what has gone wrong and right since the year of Sputnik and Little Rock’s Central High Crisis.

Both of these events were pivotal, and I vividly remember my teacher, (Mrs. Potter), my parents, and television commentators discussing the historical significance of each, with the public schools providing the backdrop of these twin dramas. With our post WWII world in trouble in outer space, as well as domestically it was assumed that public education was the surest and only way out the wilderness. True, we lagged behind the “Russkies” in space spectaculars as well as the Ghost of Abe Lincoln, on civil rights, but nobody in a position of authority from Eisenhower down to state Governors to BOE’s dreamt of blaming the public schools or jumping ship and dismantling our education systems. Today it seems amazing that when the going gets tough pundits imagine, that privatization (of course) in regards to schools will be a Panacea. How did it ever come to this point? The public institution I attended (Henry Schweiter) was a “typical” neighborhood school. It was within walking distance, had strong links to its community, parental involvement beyond dropping kids us off at the front door, and a blend of superb to average classroom instructors who were empowered and in charge of their young supplicants. We were often reminded that teachers weren’t always right but they were always in charge! They were, in effect, “angry gods” patrolling their universe and their dominion was a million hallways, classrooms, and playgrounds across the Nation.

In this context even wayward or “indifferent” parents acknowledged that college educated professionals were far better equipped to design curriculum, exercise authority, and control and socialize the next generation of taxpayers. Teachers of this era were generally underpaid, but regarded at or near the top of Career Polls in regards to respect and public admiration. The slow erosion of this image is generally linked to the 1960’s, but the truth is events from the 1970’s and 1980’s are probably more closely linked to today’s calls for volunteers, performance standards, privatization of choice, etc, etc, etc. With the historical context in mind let’s look back a generation ago to the fall of 1974 when my teaching career began.

As I entered the “Hallowed halls” of Hays High School rumblings were beginning to appear on the radar screens. The 1970’s ushered in computer technology, open classrooms, T.V. monitors in all classrooms, and an end to Corporal Punishment. In spite of this smorgasbord of “Reforms” the public schools were still viewed as the “Keepers of Knowledge” and purveyors of community standards, until a bombshell struck in the early 1980’s.

According to Glenn Elert, a prominent thinker and writer, “school choice wouldn’t be an issue today were it not for the Neoconservative interest in education during the Reagan/Bush years and its focus on choice as the preferred method of reform.” In short, A Nation At Risk stated in part “the foundations of our society are being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our future as a nation and a people.” While having a negligible initial impact on the public it did provide conservatives the opportunity to dust off economist Milton Friedman’s 1955 essay entitled “The Role of Government in Education.” He proposed a market driven school choice based on a number of ideological considerations. In Friedman’s plan:

Governments would require a minimum level of education which they could finance by giving parents vouchers redeemable for a specified maximum sum per child per year… Parents would then be free to spend this sum and any additional sum on purchasing educational services from an ‘approved’ institution of their own choice. The educational services could be rendered by private enterprises operated for profit, or by non-profit institutions of various kinds. The role of government would be limited to assuring that schools met certain minimum standards such as the inclusion of a minimum common content in their programs, much as it now inspects restaurants to assure that they maintain minimum sanitary standards.

Most professional educators and union officials considered NAR an alarmist report and scoffed at such a ridiculous voucher system, and in so doing set themselves up as a societal “whipping boy” by not seizing the moment to mount a counter offensive.

In subsequent years, other (more balanced) critiques, like the Carnegie Report were issued, but the national media, in typical ambulance chasing fashion seized on A Nation at Risk and wrote endlessly about books like Why Johnny Can’t Read. Movies like Nick Nolte’s Teachers featured a plot line of an urban high school being sued for fraud because a student had received a diploma that couldn’t read or write. In the course of the movie the superintendent, administrators, and staff were seen conspiring to cover up the truth, and being coached in the teachers lounge how to lie without committing perjury (AKA Watergate). Nice touch!!
All of this nicely dovetailed into conservative rhetorical flourishes and Reagan’s supply side economics (Son of trickle down). Isn’t competition grand? And wouldn’t a healthy dose be exactly what the “Doc” (Reagan) ordered! We’ll get these bloated teachers unions and lazy, so-called educators whipped into line Adam Smith style!! Again quoting Mr. Glenn Elert:“ the neo-cons claimed our new systems would be faster than a speeding superintendent, more powerful than a Democracy, and able to leap rising tides of mediocrity in a single bound.”

When politics and forced school busing were added to the mix a “witch’s brew” helped shattered the age old alliance or partnership that had existed between parents and teachers. A phone call from the school (pre 1983) used to be greeted with a frustrated “What in the hell has he done wrong this time?” –to a posture of disbelief and hostility (especially) amongst single moms’ “not my kid, he never lies!”

In this fertile ground of rising citizen concerns, fueled by a media frenzy, companies like Sylvin, Edison, EAI, and believe it or not, Burger King and Disney Studios promised to underwrite (for a fee) bold new programs and put the public schools out of business and out of their misery. Unfortunately, the customers (taxpayer) in this instance aren’t always right, and to compound an already complex endeavor (educating kids) these same companies lowered the level of debate to a series of investment transactions and cost benefit analyzes. To call education “a business” is vulgar, obscene, and just plain stupid. But in an effort to be ‘fair and balanced’ let’s examine the motivations and “record” of school for profit outfits like Edison and EAI.

According to Edison’s Front man, Chris Whittle “our efforts are not about privatization… not about vouchers or profit… [they’re about service].” In reaction, noted education professor John Kozel pointed out “Whittle insists he wants to improve education thru competition – I don’t believe it.” You don’t improve the public water (H2O) supply by selling Coca Cola. He is selling the idea that public schools can be used as a marketing place for commercial products.” Another view from writer Peter Cookson: “As every teacher knows schools, curriculum, and pedagogy are never neutral. Values are propagated thru textbooks, scheduling, seating arrangements and other unintentional mechanisms.” If corporations control schools corporate, values will be propagated. Unregulated for-profit schools would never engage in the kind of critical examination that might detail their own failings. The incentive to maximize profits is inherently at odds with the social responsibility of education.”

When confronted with these criticism companies like EAI (Education Alternatives) of Minnesota promise dramatic improvements in standardized test scores. The problem is the numbers simply DO NOT bear out these claims. In EAI run schools (Baltimore) the average reading achievement dropped from 31% to 27% and math achievement from 36% to 28%. Student-teacher classroom ratios rose from 1:19 to 1:25, at 27% of regular teachers, 50% of SPED and 63% of Para positions were eliminated. EAI not only failed to deliver academic improvement, they failed to do if responsibly. Despite a $500 per pupil increase and an additional 11% $400,000 of federal dollars earmarked for education disadvantaged remains unaccounted for. Can you say school choice? Other districts have experienced similar disillusionment. “The Wichita Kansas BOE hired then ultimately fired Edison after an 8 year exercise in futility.” Board members cited the following reasons fro ending the contract:

• Edison’s Failure to pay school utility bills
• Failure to schedule required visits by state officials to ensure accreditation
• Frequent turnover in Edison’s school supervision

“ They’re just not delivering on the promise, not just here but across the nation,” Said BOE member Chip Gramke.

As a final postscript the Edison project seems to be going the way of TYCO, ENRON, & WORLDCOM. Facing severe financial shortfalls Edison pulled the plug in Philadelphia. Several days before classes were scheduled to begin trucks arrived to take away most of the books, computers, lab supplies, and musical instruments the company had provided. Edison needed the cash!! At another meeting in Colorado springs with employees and principals, the no longer charismatic Chris Whittle announced “He had an ‘ingenious solution’ to the company’s financial problem.”
“Force each student to work an hour a day in the office without pay. We could have less adult staff. I think it’s an important concept for education and economics. In a school with 600 students this unpaid work would be equivalent to 75 adults on salary.” Once again I offer John Kozel in Rebuttal:

As parents scramble to get children into one of Whittle’s schools…they will, by necessity, view almost every parent as a rival. Instead of fighting for a system of excellence and equity for all, we will have taught them to advance their own kids whatever [the] cost to other people’s children. Strip away the fancy language and we are looking at a Social Darwinist scenario, a triage operation that will filter off the fortunate and leave the rest in schools where children of the ‘better’ parents do not need to see them.”