Impact of Privatization/Marketization on Teacher Preparation & the Teaching Profession

The Forum on the Future of Public Education presents:

The Impact of Privatization/Marketization on Teacher Preparation & the Teaching Profession

April 13-14

Alice Campbell Alumni Center

Detailed Schedule Below

Research Presented By:

Tina Trujillo, University of California, Berkley
Tina Trujillo, Ph.D. is an Assistant Professor at UC Berkeley’s Graduate School of Education. She earned her Ph.D. in Education from UCLA and her M.A. in Education from the University of Colorado, Boulder. She uses tools from political science and critical policy studies to study the political dimensions of urban district reform, the instructional and democratic consequences of high-stakes accountability policies for students of color and English Learners, and trends in urban educational leadership. Her work is published in a range of journals, including American Educational Research Journal, Teachers College Record, Journal of Educational Administration, and Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis.

Deron Boyles, Georgia State University
Deron Boyles, Ph.D. is Professor of Philosophy of Education in the Department of Educational Policy Studies at Georgia State University. His research interests include school commercialism, epistemology, critical pedagogy, and the philosophy of John Dewey. His work has been published in such journals as Philosophy of Education, Social Epistemology, Journal of Thought, Education & Culture, Philosophical Studies in Education, Inter-American Journal of Philosophy, Educational Foundations, Journal of Curriculum Theory, History of Education Quarterly, Educational Studies, and Educational Theory. His first book, American Education and Corporations: The Free Market Goes to School won the Critics’ Choice Award from AESA in 2000. He is editor of two books, Schools or Markets?: Commercialism, Privatization, and School-Business Partnerships (2005), and The Corporate Assault on Youth:  Commercialism, Exploitation, and the End of Innocence (2008). Boyles received his Ph.D. from Vanderbilt University in 1991, is a Fellow in the Philosophy of Education Society, Past-President of the American Educational Studies Association, and Past-President of the John Dewey Society. 

Carmen Montecinos, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso
Carmen Montecinos, Ph.D., obtained an undergraduate degree in psychology from Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, and a master's and doctorate in educational psychology from Southern Illinois University-Carbondale.  She is currently a professor of psychology at Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso, Chile, teaching undergraduate and doctoral level courses in educational psychology and research methods. Since 2008 she has been a Senior Researcher at the Centro de Investigación Avanzada en Educación (CIAE-Universidad de Chile).  Her research focuses on workplace learning in initial teacher education, school improvement and educational policy.  Her most recent publications include: School Administrators and University Practicum Supervisors as Boundary Brokers for Initial Teacher Education in Chile (in press); A goal orientation analysis of teachers’ motivations to participate in the school self-assessment processes of a quality assurance system in Chile (2014); Master teachers as professional developers: Managing conflicting versions of professionalism (2014).   Her current research project examines situated learning among novice school principals (Grant FONDECYT Nº 1140906) with Ahumada L., Leiva, V., & Galdames, S. (co- PI).

Anthony Cody, Living in Dialogue
Anthony Cody taught middle school science in Oakland for 18 years, and served as a science coach for another six years before retiring in 2011. He was among Oakland's first National Board certified teachers and helped to organize the 2011 Save Our Schools march in Washington, DC. In 2013 he co-founded the Network for Public Education. He hosts the widely read blog, Living in Dialogue, and now lives in Mendocino County, California. 

Adrienne Dixson, University of Illinois, UC
Adrienne Dixson, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor in the Department of Education Policy, Organization and Leadership at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.  Her research interests focus on how issues of race, class and gender intersect and impact educational equity in urban schooling contexts. Her research is located within two theoretical frameworks: Critical Race Theory and Black feminist theories. Most recently, she is interested in how educational equity is mediated by school reform policies in the urban south.  Dixson received her Ph.D. in Multicultural Education from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, an M.A. in Educational Studies from the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, and a B.A. in Music Theory and Composition from Youngstown State University.

Beth Sondel, North Carolina State University
Beth Sondel, Ph.D. is an Assistant Professor at North Carolina State University.  Her research partners critical theory with qualitative research to interrogate the potential for public schools to perpetuate and/or interrupt social inequalities. More specifically, Sondel looks at the effects of privatization and market-based reform on the social justice and democratic purposes of schooling. Recently, she has addressed these issues through qualitative case studies and critical policy network analyses of Teach For America's role in promoting and implementing market-based reform in New Orleans and elsewhere.  Sondel received her Ph.D. in Curriculum and Instruction-Curriculum Theory and Design from the University of Wisconsin, a M.Ed. in Education Policy and Management Studies from the Harvard Graduate School of Education, and a B.A. in Cultural Anthropology from the University of Wisconsin.

Greg Harmon, Dominican University
Greg Harman has been an Assistant Professor in the School of Education at Dominican University for five years.  He teaches history, philosophy, psychology, and social studies methods.  He directs the social studies teaching programs and also works with Dominican's alternative preparation program with Teach For America (TFA), serving as the academic advisor for all the secondary TFA teachers in Chicago. Before coming to Dominican, he was an instructor at Elmhurst College, and prior to that, was a social studies teacher in the Twin Cities area.  His research interests are in education as dialogue and skepticism regarding the essentialist standards regime.  He earned his Ed.D. from Hamline University, his M.Ed. from North Carolina State University, and a BA from Johns Hopkins University.

Chris Tienken, Seton Hall University

Christopher Tienken, Ed.D., is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Education Leadership, Management, and Policy at Seton Hall University. Tienken's research interests include school reform issues such as Neo-liberal influences in education policy-making, the influence of curriculum design and development on student achievement, and the use of high-stakes standardized tests as decision-making tools to determine school quality and student learning. He was awarded the Kappa Delta Pi Truman Kelley Award for Outstanding Scholarship in 2013 and received the National Staff Development Council award for Best Research in 2008. His new book, with co-author Don Orlich is titled, The School Reform Landscape: Fraud, Myth, and Lies. Tienken has ongoing research collaborations with colleagues at the Universita` degli Studi Roma Tre, Rome, (University of Rome) Italy, the University of Catania, Sicily, and he was named as a visiting scholar at both universities.

Suzanne Wilson, National Council for Teacher Quality
Suzanne M. Wilson, Ph.D. is a Neag Endowed Professor of Teacher Education at the University of Connecticut in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction.  Her undergraduate degree is in history and American Studies from Brown University; she also has a M.S. in Statistics and a Ph.D. in Education from Stanford University.  She was a University Distinguished Professor in the Department of Teacher Education at Michigan State University, where she served on the faculty for 26 years.  Wilson also served as the first director of the Teacher Assessment Project (PI, Lee Shulman), which developed prototype assessments for the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. While at MSU, Wilson collaborated on the National Center for Research on Teacher Education/Teacher Learning, the Educational Policy and Practice Study, and the National Partnership for Excellence and Accountability in Teaching.  She has written on teacher knowledge, curriculum reform, educational policy, and teacher learning. Her current work concerns exploring measures of teaching and teachers for teacher education and education research, as well as a study of the contemporary and jurisdictional battles over who should control teacher preparation and licensure.  Wilson serves on multiple advisory boards; she is also a member of the National Research Council’s Board on Science Education and the National Academy of Education.

Event Hosted By:

Christopher Lubienski, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Christopher Lubienski is a Professor of education policy, and the Director of the Forum on the Future of Public Education at the University of Illinois.  He is also a fellow with the National Education Policy Center at the University of Colorado and Sir Walter Murdoch Visiting Professor at Murdoch University in Western Australia.  He is convener and co-director of the World Education Research Association’s International Research Network on “marketization and privatization in education.” His research focuses on education policy, reform, and the political economy of education, with a particular concern for issues of equity and access.  His current work examines organizational responses to competitive conditions in local education markets, including geo-spatial analyses of charter schools in post-Katrina New Orleans, and research on innovation in education markets for the OECD.  After earning a PhD in education policy and social analysis at Michigan State University, Lubienski held post-doctoral fellowships with the National Academy of Education and with the Advanced Studies Program at Brown University.  He was recently named a Fulbright Senior Scholar for New Zealand, where he studies school policies and student enrollment patterns.  He is lead PI of a multi-year project on intermediary organizations’ ability to influence the use of research evidence in the policymaking process (with Elizabeth DeBray and Janelle Scott).  He has authored both theoretical and empirical journal articles on questions of innovation and achievement in school choice systems, including peer-reviewed articles in the American Journal of Education, the Oxford Review of Education, the American Educational Research Journal, Educational Policy, and the Congressional Quarterly Researcher.  His work has been featured in news media, including the New York Times, Washington Post, La Liberacion, Time Magazine, the Wall Street Journal, the Times Education Supplement, and Business Week.  In addition to School Choice Policies and Outcomes: Empirical and Philosophical Perspectives (with Walter Feinberg, SUNY Press, 2008), Lubienski recently published The Charter School Experiment: Expectations, Evidence, and Implications (with Peter Weitzel, Harvard Education Press).  His new book, The Public School Advantage: Why Public Schools Outperform Private Schools (with Sarah Theule Lubienski, University of Chicago Press), won the 2015 PROSE Award for Education Theory from the American Publishers Awards for Professional and Scholarly Excellence. 

T. Jameson Brewer, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
T. Jameson Brewer is an advanced Ph.D. student of educational policy studies and Associate Director of the Forum on the Future of Public Education at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He earned a M.S. in Social Foundations of Education from Georgia State University, a B.S.Ed. in Secondary Education from Valdosta State University, and is a former high school history teacher from Atlanta Public Schools.  His research focuses on the impact(s) of privatization/marketization of public schools by way of charters, vouchers, and Teach For America. His work has been published in Educational Studies, Critical Education, the Peabody Journal of Education, Education Policy Analysis Archives, the International Journal of Play, the National Educational Policy Center, Harvard University’s Scholars Strategy Network, Education Week, and the Progressive Magazine’s Public School Shakedown.  He is co-Editor of the forthcoming book Teach For America Counter Narratives: Alumni Speak Up and Speak Out (Peter Lang, 2015).

Send Questions/Comments to Jameson Brewer (tbrewer2@illinois.edu)

Conference Schedule

Monday, April 13, 2015:
9:00a: Introductions
9:30a: Paper 1 (Tienken)
10:30a: Discussion
11:00a: Paper 2 (Trujillo)
12:00p: Discussion
12:30p: Break
2:00p: Paper 3 (Wilson)
3:00p: Discussion
3:30p: Paper 4 (Boyles)
4:30p: Discussion
5:00p: Paper 5 (Sondel)
6:00p: Discussion

Tuesday, April 14, 2015:
9:00a: Introductions
9:30a: Paper 6 (Dixson)
10:30a: Discussion
11:00a: Paper 7 (Montesinos)
12:00p: Discussion
12:30p: Break
2:00p: Paper 8 (Cody)
3:00p: Discussion
3:30p: Paper 9 (Harmon)
4:30p: Discussion

Stop Acting Surprised Over Higher Education Budget Cuts from Tea-Party Associated Governors, It is What They Do

Recently, the media and internet has been blowing up over the higher education [HE] budget cuts proposed by Tea-Party associated governors:  Scott Walker (WI), Bobby Jindal (LA), Doug Ducey (AZ), and Bruce Rauner (IL).  However, these cuts should not be surprising to anyone as these governors ran on platforms clearly indicating they would be balancing budgets without generating additional revenue through increased taxes.  Obviously, sans raising taxes the only action to balance budgets is to cut spending.  Generally, HE is an easy to slash because costs will shift to students who have access to student loans.  Together these governors’ solutions are indicating that public HE is not a social priority.  This blog surveys the four governors and explains why people must stop being “surprised” when a Tea Party governor eviscerates HE revenue.

First, Walker  and Jindal are discussed together because of the perceived motive for their budget cuts, a desire for a 2016 presidential run.  Both have proposed $300 million dollar budget cuts to their respective HE systems.  Walker’s cuts equal to 13% of the Wisconsin system and is dispersed over the course of two years.  In comparison, Jindal’s are far more drastic cutting one-third of LSU system’s revenue in a single year.   Jindal’s attack on Louisiana’s HE system is long standing; since 2008, his policies have resulted in the reduction of $700 million to public HE.  Showing little care or understanding for how his actions affect LSU, when asked about the cost of tuition to attend LSU he stated, “It’s certainly well under $10,000 when you look at fees and housing.”   Actually, it is double.   Jindal’s proposed $300 million cuts are so extreme that even Republicans in his state are standing against him.  Although Jindal is not making friends at home, he does not need them. Like Walker, to fulfill his goals he now needs friends in Iowa.   Unlike Jindal, we do not have a long standing trend to examine the effects of Walker’s proposals.  However, before showing interest in a presidential bid Wisconsin’s system has held national average tuition.   Presumably, Wisconsin should expect this trend to change due to Walker’s newly adopted “Go Big and Go Bold” attitude; which was unveiled during a trip to Iowa.  

While not as extreme as the previous two, Ducey is looking to remove $75 million (10%) from HE in 2016.  Similarly to Louisiana, Arizona has experienced continued decreases in appropriations.  His predecessor Governor Jan Brewer , a Tea Party associate cut HE budgets just as harsh as Louisiana until her exit when she proposed a no-growth budget.  Although new to the governorship, Ducey came out strong as his proposed cuts for 2016 will be one of the largest single cuts for the AZ system.  With another Tea Party governor in office, the public institutions in Arizona should brace for continued declines.

Unlike the other governors in this list, Rauner’s net worth puts him near the billionaire class; therefore, he was less reliant on external funds to create the pathway towards governorship. Of the $65.3 million spent on his campaign 42% ($27.6 million) was self-injected money.   While Rauner may not “owe” external financiers, increased reports are suggesting that Rauner holds deep financial and ideological links to groups associated with the Tea Party, which may not align with the “moderate” platform touted during the election.  Aligning more closely with Tea Party ideology and trends, Rauner recently unleashed a budget proposal that introduces a massive 31% ($387m) cut in HE.  While universities were expecting double digit cuts, 30% was surprising even to university presidents - ISU’s Deitz, “Frankly, I’m in a bit of shock… [A 31% cut] was never talked about anywhere.”    However, in November 2014 it was reported that Rauner was eyeing a 30% cut to higher education; unfortunately people were not paying attention. 

These policies leave higher education vulnerable, so we should expect: (1) higher tuition and fees, (2) students across all SES to take out more student loans, (3) more parent plus loans, and (4) more out-of-state and international student enrollments, and (5) expect more cuts.  Additionally, we must stop acting surprised when Tea Party associated governors enact policies that gut HE as there is evidence that this is their mode of operation. 

Undoubtedly, there is a Tea Party agenda against publicly supported HE.  Knowing the Tea Party agenda to defund most governmental processes associated to the social good, let us not act shocked when the shell game hits HE. It should be expected and institutions need to stop wasting time being “shocked.”  Learn to fight or prepare to be state-based, not state-supported, institutions.   

by Dan Collier

Daniel A. Collier is a PhD student at the University of Illinois Champaign-Urbana in the Education Organization and Leadership program. Daniel specializes in Higher Education research where through an evaluative research specialization he focuses on how policies and politics affect higher education.

The Forum on the Future of Public Education strives to bring the best empirical evidence to policymakers and the public. The Forum draws on a network of premier scholars to create, interpret, and disseminate credible information on key questions facing P-20 education.

Schools Are Racing to Adopt Digital Tools Without Solid Evidence that they Boost Student Achievement

Cross Post from the Scholars Strategy Network.

At all levels from kindergarten to twelfth grade, American schools are making huge investments in digital education – with proponents often touting digital tools as a way to close achievement gaps and improve learning opportunities for economically and academically disadvantaged students. Digital instruction – using computers, netbooks, or handheld devices – is rapidly spreading in classrooms and supplemental areas of instruction. Big money is in play: One estimate values the U.S. school market for education software and digital content at nearly $8 billion. Advances in technology allow digital tools to offer the promise of broad access at low cost, competing with face-to-face methods of instruction for shrinking funds. But with schools inundated with new digital tools, little attention has been paid to whether teachers, parents, and students are putting them to effective use.

Who Decides?

Schools themselves often are not the ones who decide to purchase digital devices and software. In Texas, for example, the Texas Education Agency typically makes decisions about technology purchases and also determines the level of funding available for making effective use of the new purchases. In Los Angeles Unified School District, a contract to facilitate the largest-ever distribution of computing devices to public school students was beset by problems, including an incomplete curriculum software package purchased at considerable expense. As was the case in Los Angeles, school-level staff members are seldom consulted about the technologies they really need or are prepared to use, yet principals and teachers are left to grapple with the practical challenges. Often with little support, they have to figure out how to get the right digital tools to appropriate groups of students, how to integrate electronic formats into the regular curriculum, and how to use tools and programs effectively to improve the performance of students who are lagging in academic achievement. Needless to say, the problems are not always readily resolved.

Research on the Impact of Digital Tools

Digital educational tools used well can be an important asset for American schools, but the modest research accomplished to date suggests that the deployment of digital tools can exacerbate achievement gaps and create a new kind of digital divide in which inadequately resourced schools serving students from lower-income families cannot take full advantage of the new technological potential. Some studies of digital instruction have found no significant effects on student learning, while others suggest positive effects when these tools are deployed in favorable circumstances. Relevant favorable factors include regular interaction between teachers and students, real-time data feedback for teachers, and consistent access to the new technology by all students.

Our recent work and the limited evidence accumulated by various scholars show that there is enormous variability in how digital instructional programs are rolled out, accessed, and supported both during and outside of the regular school day. The quality of educational programming using these tools depends on a lot more than the technologies and software purchased by a state or local educational agency. But, unfortunately, initial purchases are often not followed up by the gathering of transparent, accountable evidence about how the new platforms are used and to what effect. Educators are expending substantial resources and instructional time on the deployment of digital educational tools, and we need to know much more about the supports and training needed to get good academic results.

We have studied tutoring programs in large urban school districts that are conducted outside of regular school hours. Our research examined differences in both implementation and impact between providers of supplemental educational services using digital tools and those not relying on digital tools at all. Using a standardized observation instrument, we were able to examine the quality of instruction in both non-digital and digital tutorial settings. For instance, digital sessions were relatively lacking in – and did little to improve – intellectual rigor and advanced thinking skills. Often the questions presented to students were simply “digitized worksheets” that did not require students to actually use technology to apply, evaluate, or create concepts. In general, our analyses found that digital tools do not regularly add value to instruction, even when the technology is readily accessible and working well (which often is not the case). In addition, drawing upon large samples of student test score data, we also estimated impact of these tutoring services on student achievement.

Human Instructors are Crucial

From our own and others’ research, we know that the role of the instructor is vital for quality education. Tellingly, when the supplemental educational service providers we studied combined face-to-face tutoring with the use of online software, tutors were able to reword problems for particular students. Students who got such face-to-face digitally supported instruction realized significantly larger gains in math compared to those tutored entirely using only software.

In our study, English language learners and students with disabilities were significantly less likely than other students to benefit from the optimal combination of personal interaction and online programs. These students face major educational challenges, yet they were subjected to less effective forms of online tutoring.

More generally, our field research illuminates the challenges involved in making new digital educational tools work well for all students. As digital programming continues to expand in classrooms and associated school services, we urgently need rigorous, independent evaluations to better inform federal, state and local decisions – especially when it comes to using digital formats to help disabled and underprivileged students who have the most to gain, and lose, in the new learning environment.

by Patricia Burch

Patricia Burch is committed to improving quality and equitable access in public education. The focus of her current research is how the policies and practices of various sectors, in particular business and education, intersect in low-income communities. As an educator, parent and citizen, Burch is interested in building an informed and respectful dialogue to counter commercialism of public schools.

The Forum on the Future of Public Education strives to bring the best empirical evidence to policymakers and the public. The Forum draws on a network of premier scholars to create, interpret, and disseminate credible information on key questions facing P-20 education.