¶ … Ravich discusses the privatization of public schooling. What does she mean by privatization? And what does Ravich say is the main problem of today's education industry? Do you agree? In one sense, Ravich appears to pull back the layers of politicization of education by arguing that it is not the schools that are failing but rather our society, with its complete disregard for poverty and social equality especially in urban areas. It is her contention that by failing to address these issues, society sets the standard for schools: essentially, she argues that no one can be educated properly if they are living in poverty. But what does she mean by this? For example, schools in Zimbabwe in the 1960s were privately run by landowning families, who provided education for the impoverished children. These schools were successful because the families who ran the schools cared about the service they were providing and were free to provide an education in the manner that they saw fit to best provide. Does Ravich suggest that by privatizing education the effect is harmful because it takes away from accountability? Or that in America privatization is so often linked to profits rather than quality that it is dangerous to believe that by simply shelling out millions and billions of taxpayer dollars that the problem of education can be solved so long as the "right" minds and business partners get involved? Is this not a purely bureaucratic solution to a problem that has already been bureaucratized to death?

In chapter 2, Ravich describes the failures of the Bush Administration's No Child Left Behind policy. The failure was due to incentives being given to schools that "passed" their children, which led to schools fudging test scores and faking results as well as the rise of "charter schools" and the "entrepreneurial opportunities" of privatization -- "after-school tutoring companies, etc. (Ravich, p. 12). As more federal funds were poured into the education sector, more and more tests were being distributed, and an avalanche of data was poured down on everyone, even as "cheating scandals" spread like wildfire (p. 13). No Child Left Behind was replaced by the Obama Administration's Race to Top -- another program designed to pump money into a sector that, like the military industrial complex, was there solely for the sake of profit: just as manufacturers of weapons make money off of war, so too does the "charter school" empire make money off of stupidity. With this in mind, what do you think would be a good way to address the issue of education in America? What is Ravich's suggestion?

In chapter 3, Ravich criticizes persons like Bobby Jindal who say that money should follow the child (p. 21). Is this a fair criticism -- that just because someone profits from education that it necessarily means that that education will be bad? What about the aside that Ravich makes when she dismisses "creationism as science"? This is certainly a medieval view, but it remains one that many persons of faith still adhere to. Does this dismissal undermine the credibility of Ravich's argument or make her appear to be too liberal or progressive for conservative audiences who might otherwise agree with her that there is a problem with a great many of the education profiteers in America?

If much of modern America is divided between two extremes, a liberal extreme and a fundamentalist extreme, where might the two extremes meet, and is it even possible that the two meet? Is this a dream of a "free society" that is essentially authoritarian in nature?

Middle Part

On page 113, Ravich recounts the story of the public shaming of the teacher who taught English as a foreign language learners and who was considered an excellent teacher by the principal of the school, but who received low test grades because her students were not proficient in English (because they did not know it), and so therefore she was hounded by reporters when the New York Post put her picture in the paper and described her as the "worst" teacher in the city.

How is this an example of one of the most significant underlying problems in American society? Is it not eerily similar to something that might have come straight out of Orwell's 1984 -- the eye of Big Brother demolishing the reputation of anyone who actually dares to help individuals in a unique way without regard to the "parameters" dictated from above? How does this relate to the unique problem that exists between bureaucratic oversight and...

145). But what can be said of these so-called conservatives if they are not acting fiscally responsible and are in fact substantially taking bribes in the form of political campaign contributions so that they will support the initiatives of Big Government in the education sector and the privatization through the profiteers of education policy? Are they true or false conservatives? Conservatives in America used to stand for fiscal responsibility and small government, but today's conservatives resemble more and more the type of Big Government spokespeople described so vividly by Orwell in Animal Farm and 1984. Does it not seem to you that the major problem in American society is that it has become increasingly Orwellian, that is, totalitarian and authoritative? There is no real choice, no real education (except party line indoctrination), and no real ability to act outside the mainstream (for a profit if necessary) because even that is challenged by Ravich. Do you not think that there is sometimes the possibility that non-mainstream or alternative educational providers who do not work with public administrators might be of value to a society mired in education waste land?
Why did Rhee believe in test schools with so much faith? Ravich shows earlier in the book that test scores are not a good indicator of actual learning, as they are so often influenced by kickbacks and incentives and teachers are pressed to spend more and more time on getting students to "pass the test" than actually learn anything of value or comprehend concepts that they will later be able to apply in the real world. Thus, what could possibly explain Rhee's devotion to the measure of test scores? Do you think she was acting out of ignorance or that she was rather merely a tool of the profiteers looking to install a puppet in public policy who could steer the Department of Education towards their own agenda?

Another thing to consider alongside this question is the notion that state-run education and corporate profiteering seem to go hand-in-hand, so why is it that Ravich believes that the solution to the problem of profiteering, which the state clearly colludes in, can be solved by giving more power to the state? Is this even her argument?

Third Part

At the beginning of chapter 26, Ravich proposes her fifth solution to the problem of education in America, which is to "ban for-profit charters and charter chains and ensure that charter schools collaborate with public schools to support better education for all children" -- but does this not smack of monopolization of education policy, the exact same thing that Ravich is criticizing as a problem: just because a school is public does not mean that it too is not operating for a profit (everyone involved is getting paid -- just from tax payer dollars instead of from student tuition). In short, why does where the money comes from make such a difference? Is it not rather that who is in charge, setting the curriculum, hiring the teachers, and giving the lessons the major significant factor in education policy, and has it not been shown that state-run education is ambivalent to the actual needs of students in American society? Why would Ravich advocate further monopolization of education by the State?

Ravich indicates that charters are bad because they are for-profit schools and she suggests that by taking the profit out of education, it will solve the problem but does not this solution seem myopic? Profiteering is a problem, certainly, but just because a teacher profits from running a school does not necessarily make him or her out to be the problem -- not if he or she is a good teacher. Therefore, what is one way to counter Ravich's argument in this instance? Do you, in fact, even believe it should be countered? Perhaps you agree with her? If so, why?

As part of the overall plan of a solution, Ravich stresses on page 224 that "reformers" often miss the mark when they discuss poverty, citing that is "just an excuse" and "not destiny" -- while Ravich argues that poverty is a reality and must be dealt with before education can actually begin to take place. Ravich argues that poverty is the social problem that underlies the education problem. What is the connection between poverty and profiteering? Is…