Both candidates’ education plans tout responsibility

Farahmandpur is a doctoral student and McLaren is a professor at
the Graduate School of Education and Information Studies.

By Ramin Farahmandpur and Peter
McLaren

During the 1980s and 1990s, both the Republican and the
Democratic Parties shifted to center-right of the political
spectrum. Al Gore’s vice presidential choice, Joseph
Lieberman, exemplifies this ideological shift. Since his
nomination, Lieberman has softened his previously unwavering
support for school vouchers and his opposition to affirmative
action. In addition, he has even altered his plans for the partial
privatization of Social Security.

What is there to guarantee that Lieberman will not modify his
position again if the Democrats succeed in winning the presidential
election? If anything, Cheney exemplifies a right-center position,
since he has considerably toned down his past ultra-conservative
voting record on social and economic issues.

For instance, in the 1980s Cheney voted against progressive
education programs such as the $1 billion Head Start program, which
primarily benefited poor children in public schools. But since his
nomination as George W. Bush’s running mate, Cheney has
stated he would not vote against Head Start.

The 2000 presidential election has, for the most part, focused
on family values, Social Security, gun control, increasing the
military budget and public education. George W. Bush, has called
for higher educational standards and increased accountability
(Farahmandpur & McLaren, “Bush’s
“˜tough love’ proposal raises troubling
ideas,”Daily Bruin, Viewpoint, Oct. 9).

  Illustration by GRACE HUANG/Daily Bruin In addition to
supporting voucher programs and charter schools, Bush’s
education reform plan emphasizes “character education”
(which is highly hypocritical of a candidate who promised a
campaign of issues, then conducted a campaign of smears, character
assassination and distortion).

Although there exist some serious ideological differences
between the Democrats and the Republicans (the rival factions of
the “Business Party”), both support similar education
policies that adhere to an airtight consensus on the primacy of
neoliberalism. This ideology has spawned social and economic
policies supporting big business: the increasing upward transfer of
wealth under the guise of entrepreneurship or “market
populism”; the downsizing of the labor force, the flexibility
of production, the weakening of the power of labor unions; the
reliance on a part-time, semi-skilled work force and the increasing
national acceptance of corporate interests and the wisdom of Wall
Street arbitrageurs.

Both candidates agree that public school funding must correspond
with significant improvements in the academic performance of
students. The Democrats addressed their education reform plans in
the 2000 Democratic National Platform Committee Report under a
section titled, “A Revolution in American Education.”
As with the similar Republican platform, Democrats call for
stricter accountability in education. The report also views
“quality education” as the main ingredient in the
increasingly knowledge-based economy.

We should remember that rhetoric of “personal
responsibility” has followed in the wake of severe spending
cuts on social programs and services for the poor, minorities and
women. Money formerly targeted for social programs and the building
of national infrastructure can be more easily invested in other,
more financially profitable “markets” if it is has
“the less government the better” slogan of personal
responsibility.

In the realm of school reform, the Republicans and Democrats
wish to hold everyone to the ethic of personal responsibility,
including teachers, parents, schools, school districts and the
state. Within this overarching view of personal responsibility,
diverse constituencies are held accountable for the academic
success of students.

In the low-wage, low-skill “New Economy,” Democrats
and Republicans alike seek to establish a flexible and contingent
teaching force that adheres to neo-liberal education policies (i.e.
back to the basics, standardized testing).

According to the 2000 Democratic National Platform Committee
Report:

“Those teachers who do not meet the highest quality
standards should not be allowed to sully the reputation of the
teaching profession. That’s why teachers who are not teaching
well should receive help in getting up to standards. At its best,
teaching is the job of a lifetime. But teaching contracts and
licenses should not be an automatic lifetime job guarantee.
That’s why we need regular evaluations to determine whether a
teacher’s license should be renewed. Democrats urge faster
but fair ways, with due process, to identify, help, and when
necessary, speedily remove low performing teachers.”

Powered by the new “laissez-faire” politics, a
growing trend in a number of public school districts across the
nation has been tying teachers’ salaries with merit pay and
performance-based pay.

Both merit and performance-based pay reward teachers on the
basis of their productivity (the ability to improve the academic
achievement of students), particularly in urban schools.

Although at first blush, it may appear an attractive incentive
to retain teachers, these measures are aimed at weakening
teachers’ unions and abolishing the tenure system
altogether.

These are not the only problems associated with merit and
performance-based pay. Abolishing the tenure system within the
teaching profession will allow school districts to refuse renewing
the teaching contracts of teachers who fail to improve their
students’ performance on standardized tests (that have little
academic merit other than sorting students in preparation for their
role in the new free market economy).

Moreover, in the absence of tenure and job security, merit pay
and performance-based pay forces teachers to compete against each
other in the job market. The neoliberal educational policies
supported by the Democrats allow school funding to be appropriated
from failing schools (i.e. inefficient schools with low
productivity) and given to schools that are recognized as
successful (i.e. schools with higher productivity and
efficiency).

According to the report:

“Consistently bad schools should be shut down. No excuses.
No exceptions. Every state and school district should identify
failing schools and turn them around with all necessary measures
and all necessary resources. Students in those schools should get
first priority in transferring to a better-performing public school
in the district and getting intensive after-school academic help to
make sure they are not left behind while their school is being
turned around. Failing schools that do not improve should be
quickly shut down and reopened with a new principle and new
teachers.”

Yet it remains unclear how penalizing poorly performing public
schools by taking away their funding will encourage them to
improve.

It is imperative that educators recognize that the neoliberal,
social and economic policies of the past two decades have been
responsible for a profound shift from a “politics of social
responsibility” to a “politics of personal
responsibility.”

The call for personal responsibility is aligned with severe cuts
in spending on social programs and services for the poor. The
stress on personal responsibility deflects attention from the
structural causes of unequal funding of public schools (i.e. school
funding raised through local property taxes).

The overall goal of the recent call for heightened personal
responsibility goes beyond concealing the increasing disparities
between wealthy schools and poor urban schools; it is designed to
mask the alarming imbalances within the social division of labor,
both nationally and worldwide.