Too Many Cooks in the Stakeholder Kitchen?

 

The concept of parent voice in public education has always been built into the structure of local control. Residents in each community vote for their school board members, who in turn  represent their constituents with the best interest of the children in mind. Yet some things have changed in our public schools and one red flag is the word "stakeholders".

Before those who believe in "education reform" laser focused on the "untapped market" of education, we didn't hear the term stakeholder applied to education. It is a business term, why would we? And yet, here we are. 

The screenshot from the article above is from 2014.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  Why would parents and community members give up their full role as the stakeholders in their schools to partners, such as businesses, corporations and politicians? Why would parents and community members give them any say at all? In this strategic plan example, it explicitly states that, "... key partnerships are essential to building a strong community presence, and that these partnerships should be strategic in nature and align with the district’s goals."  Doesn't each community already have a strong community presence? Our public schools serve existing communities - the people who live there and their children. It sure sounds like some will benefit from these partnerships, and it is doubtful that it will be the children.

Across the country, consulting firms have been hired to "assist" in the writing of strategic plans. It used to be that district administrators worked along side teachers to use their combined expertise to develop each school district's strategic plan, but those days are long gone. We never needed consultants to guide us before. And why do so many strategic plans sound so similar and aligned? Are the consulting firms simply giving the illusion of "stakeholder voice"?  Are they guiding the direction of these plans with the outcome in mind? If so, why? Aside from creating more ways to get our public school tax dollars into the pockets of business people, it is a way to standardize strategic plans and open the door even wider for more profiteering in the name of educating our children. Take a look at your school district's strategic plan. 

Do you see any of the buzz words below? Check out this book of ed reform jargon for even more.

Community/business school partnerships, Parental collaboration, Student voice, 21st century learners, strategic pathways, student driven schools, redefining success (elimination of grades), bold statements, transformation ideas, skills-based, students navigate their own learning, growth mindset, core competencies, school district brand, SMART goals, human capital (see my post on human capital here.)

Click here to read a strategic plan that serves as a solid example. Note that they are measuring pretty much everything in the strategic plan. The measurement for partnerships is having lots of 'em, and apparently how many "resources" are raised.

Another concern parents should be aware of is the quest to "differentiate for all students".

Differentiation is a vital and important part of the strategies teachers use to meet the needs of learners. There has been a push in recent years to chip away at or even attempt to eliminate gifted education programs due to their lack of diversity. It is true that there is a large under representation of Black and Brown students, and sometimes girls of all races are few and far between. That said, the tests used to identify giftedness are often criticized over their racial bias. How about we address the way we determine/measure giftedness and not throw away the baby with the bath water. Differentiation is also extremely important for students with learning differences. States address these needs through special education and IEPs that require teachers to make accommodations and/or modifications so special education students can access the curriculum. Many school districts have allowed special education needs to be left unmet, as law firms make the decisions that were once the purview of administration. Could it be that the lawyers and corporate-minded leaders don't know what is best for children?

Do you trust the corporate model to put the learning needs of children over profit? Differentiating for all students could very well be left to algorithms, often known to be as discriminatory, if not more than than systems themselves. 

To protect our children we need to look beyond the 21st century jargon and sleek strategic plans. This isn't about politics, this isn't about liberals or conservatives, this is about our children. In order to protect our children and their public schools, we all need to come together and open our eyes wide. We are well on our way to being fully manipulated by jargon, sleek strategic plans, and corporate marketing techniques. Many of us don't even see it happening right under our noses. And it certainly stinks.