Talking School Reform With The Mayor

I have posted here pretty regularly on a range of issues having to do with secondary and higher education in the United States. This past week I read a truly impressive book by Diane Ravitch entitled The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice Are Undermining Education (Basic Books, 2010). The book is impressive for a number of reasons. Not the least of those reasons is that in it Ravitch rightly indicates what evidence exists regarding both school choice and high stakes testing does not support those trendy reforms. At best, the evidence for specific proposals within those broad rubrics is mixed; more often it is not even mixed. Simply reviewing that evidence would not in itself be remarkable but for the fact that for many years Ravitch herself advocated the choice and testing policies she is now calling into question. In a sense then she has changed her mind and she is saying that frankly and in public. How refreshing and how rare to hear an intellectual do that?

The second reason the book is impressive is that Ravitch consistently stresses the implications of particular reforms proposed for public education for democratic politics. This is clearest in her discussion of the inflated claims made for "mayoral control" schemes and in her (to my mind) withering criticism of the well-endowed foundations that are wielding so much power in debates about education. But the theme appears throughout the book in an understated manner. It is all the more powerful for that tone.

Finally, the book is impressive for the variety of positions Ravitch affirms. She speaks out for teachers and their unions and she speaks out for community schools. She speaks out for the importance of a solid curriculum in schools - even as she acknowledges that devising one is difficult. She speaks out generally for constructive interventions when they are called for and repudiates "punitive" strategies. More generally, she speaks out for the importance of public education in a democracy. So, while I do not always agree with her particular recommendations - I think, for instance, that she is a bit to sanguine about the virtues of community and I have experienced first-hand the downside of Catholic School systems - I found the reasoned, non-dogmatic way she advances her views remarkable given the vituperative, high decibel way too many discussions of education reform take place. This approach come through too in her contributions to the joint blog Ravitch keeps with another writer on matters of education whom I very much admire - Deborah Meier.

It turns out, of course, that speaking frankly about the shortcomings of policies backed by the wealthy and powerful often will make those supporters cranky. So, predictably enough, Michael Bloomberg (Mayor of NYC, backer of mayoral control and various punitive and ineffectual education reform strategies) apparently has taken exception to Ravitch's book. The folks at Salon.com report that a prominent writer at one of Bloomberg's publications has produced an intemperate attack on Ravitch. It surely rings hollow to read at the end of the piece that the opinions the author expresses are "his own." He might as well have been taking dictation from the Mayor. In that sense the reporter at Salon.com is being way to charitable in saying there is only the appearance of impropriety here.
__________
P.S.: You can find the proximate cause of Bloomberg's pique here in Ravitch's recent Op-Ed at The New York Times.

Elections in Exotic Places (5)

Burgos, Spain: People vote during Spain's regional and
municipal elections. Photograph © I Lopez/AP

Democracy & Markets

I recommend this missive from economist Dani Rodrik. Here are some of the good bits:

Well-functioning markets are always embedded within broader mechanisms of collective governance. That is why the world’s wealthier economies, those with the most productive market systems, also have large public sectors.

Once we recognize that markets require rules, we must next ask who writes those rules. Economists who denigrate the value of democracy sometimes talk as if the alternative to democratic governance is decision-making by high-minded Platonic philosopher-kings – ideally economists!

But this scenario is neither relevant nor desirable. For one thing, the lower the political system’s transparency, representativeness, and accountability, the more likely it is that special interests will hijack the rules. Of course, democracies can be captured too. But they are still our best safeguard against arbitrary rule.

Worse still, as Jack & I point out here, the economists neglect how their own models of technocratic rule (the modern day form Platonic guardians would take) in fact highlight the inevitability of distributive politics and the ubiquitous opportunity for corruption. If politics is unavoidable, democratic politics is indeed what we need.

Government 101

France, bureaucracy, Picardie, 2006. Pascale Hoornaert (b. 1952) works
for eight hours a week as town clerk in Ancienville (population 78), Aisne
department, Pidardie region. She holds the same position in two other
villages nearby, working a total of 31 hours per week. Monthly salary:
1,025 euro (US$ 1,348). Photograph © Jan Banning.

Lee, New Hampshire (population 4,145) Board of Selectmen, January 27, 2003
(L to R) Dwight Barney (Chairman), Joseph Ford, Richard Wellington.
Photograph © Paul Shambroom.

At The Guardian today there is this short notice of quite interesting work by Dutch photographer Jan Banning that consists of portraits of bureaucrats at work in eight different countries ("Bolivia, China, France, India, Liberia, Russia, the United States, and Yemen"). Banning suggests his "photography has a conceptual, typological approach reminding of August Sander’s ‘Menschen des 20 Jahrhunderts’ (‘People of the Twentieth Century’)." Put aside that by declaring the work "conceptual" he risks setting off yet another round of whining by Guardian photography critic Sean O'Hagan.* What strikes me about these portraits is less the comparison to Sander, than the series called "Meetings" that American photographer Paul Shambroom did several years ago. Shambroom toured the U.S. photographing local government 'in action.'

In Banning's images it is interesting to note the context; nearly all of the officials work under the watchful eye of the heroic or the powerful (Gandhi, Mao, Putin ...), often surrounded by the trappings of legitimacy. It is interesting to contrast these banal scenarios with the many images of disgruntled citizens manning the barricades or with photos of famous elected officials. Politics only appears glamorous.
____________
* For my previous (mostly) dissents from O'Hagan's various complaints look here.

Is a Reality Based Politics Possible?

One of the things progressives often wonder is why average working Americans don't repudiate Republican political-economic policies that privilege the wealthy. One clear reason is that average Americans somehow do not manage to align either their assessments of, say, the actual distribution of wealth or the ideal distribution that they would like to see with what is, in fact, the distribution of wealth in the U.S.; the result is that there is a massive disconnect between motivation, assessment of possibilities and actuality. Is it possible to surmount that predicament? That is the first step in any hope for progressive politics. The second step would be to recognize that the data reported here suggest that the average American hardly is an egalitarian.

Asked & Answered, Or What I Learned in History Class

Reading around on some photo-related blogs today, I realized that two apparently different questions prompt pretty much the same answer.

Q: What are unions good for (besides, weekends, vacations, minimum wage and working hours standards, of course)?
A: They help keep companies from killing employees (for the historically challenged - look here).

Q: What is photojournalism good for?
A: It helps keep companies from killing employees (same episode, slightly different lesson).

As I've pointed out here before, while critics like Sontag complain that photography has grown up hand-in-hand with war, it has grown up hand-in-hand with democracy too. Sometimes it is a good thing to remind ourselves of that.

The Assault on Lara Logan Should Not Be Marginal to Our Reflections on the Flowering of Democracy

Photojournalism is a dangerous occupation. But as is typically the case, the dangers are not evenly distributed. There are two forthright essays at The New York Times on the dangers that beset women journalists. You can find them here and here. The women who've written these essays - Kim Barker and Sarina Tavernise - were prompted to do so by the vicious attack on correspondent Lara Logan by a mob of men in Tahrir Square last week. It goes without saying, I hope, that Logan has proven courageous in making public her own experience. In case it doesn't, I recommend this thoughtful comment. It is good news that she apparently is recovering from the physical harm she suffered.

Yet another response to Logan's experience appears here at npr. In it, Jane Arraf rightly holds up a mirror to those here in the west who are condemning the sorts of cultures that allegedly sustain attacks like the one Logan endured. Arraf's remarks are not, as conservatives will surely insist, about blaming the West; they are an invitation to learn something about ourselves instead of merely posing as cheerleaders. There is nothing wrong with celebrating the spread of democratic values. But there is nothing wrong either with acknowledging how partially and precariously they exist here at home.

Can Seeing Democratic Politics in the Cairo Streets CHange Stereotypes in the West?

Antigovernment Protesters that had been sleeping at the edge
of Tahir Square since the beginning of the uprising wave the
victory sign after hearing about the resignation of Mr. Mubarak
(11 February 2011). Photograph © Moises Saman/New York Times.

Men of Middle-Eastern extraction wearing the kaffiyeh celebrating success of pro-democracy protests. How can that be?

Democratic Revolution in Egypt: Thinking With Pictures

Egyptians celebrate in Tahrir Square after President Hosni Mubarak
resigned and handed power to the military, in Cairo, Egypt, Friday,
Feb. 11, 2011. Photograph © Khalil Hamra/AP.

On Twitter, Nevine Zaki circulated an image she says she
photographed Wednesday of Christians protecting Muslims
during prayer. Photograph © Nevine Zaki (3 February 2011).

Before the fall ... anti-Mubarak protesters wave Egyptian
flags at Cairo's Tahrir Square on 10 February 2011.
Photograph © Pedro Ugarte/AFP/Getty Images.

A general view shows the crowded Tahrir Square in Cairo on
February 10, 2011. Tens of thousands of Egyptian workers walked
out in mass nationwide strikes to demand wage increases and
show support for the widening revolt against Mubarak's regime.
Photograph © MARCO LONGARI/AFP/Getty Images.

So what is it that we learn from events in Egypt? Well, first there is the dissonance that many Americans must feel when watching dark skinned throngs, chanting in Arabic, engaged in protests for - democracy! After all, isn't it the case that we are supposed invariably to be suspicious of Muslims? But here are Muslims partaking in prayer during pro-democracy protests. Second, there is the observation that striking workers were an integral part of political events in Cairo. Strikes? Yikes, there is a notion. Finally, there is the largely - not entirely, but largely - non-violent character of the protests. Peaceful Muslims? How can that be? Islam in intimately related to Terrorism, no? Just wondering.

Follow Up: Oh yeah, I did neglect the obvious. Democracy here is not in voting booths or legislative assembly, but in the streets and the public square.

Elections in Exotic Places (3)

Conakry, Guinea: A Guinean woman holds her voting card as
she enters a polling station. Photograph Jerome Delay/AP.

I have been remiss in my effort to build a base of images from which to discuss the conventions that govern 'election photojournalism.' I made some desultory efforts early last summer [1] [2] [3]; consider this a renewed effort. For this installment I offer the image above, lifted from The Guardian.

I have been prompted to take up this task again by reports from Burma on the "elections" being orchestrated there today. You can find the reports here and here; notice that one of them is image-less. Granted, this particular casting and counting of votes hardly qualifies as an election. But does the absence of photographs mean it has not happened at all?

Why Not Rochester?

There is an extremely interesting interview here with a fellow named Ted Howard who has launched what he calls the Democracy Collaborative. This venture sees the intimate relationship between democracy and economic development and locates the contest to reinvigorate that relationship not in some far away land but in Cleveland. (Look here too.) The collaborative works with poor urban communities to help initiate and sustain work-owned cooperatives that do business with large employers (like Universities and Medical Centers). The aim is to generate jobs in the communities that are green, local, well-paying and not likely to be exported. As a by-product, of course, such businesses will enhance the municipal tax base. This is a model that should fit Rochester - and all the other economically depressed cities across Western and Central New York state - extremely well.

Philosophical Food Fight

"Armchair bullshit, masquerading as philosophy: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com
/2010/06/13/the-very-angry-tea-party/?hp
9:50 PM Jun 13th"
via web

jcohen570

That is the reply that Josh Cohen (Stanford) - advocate of democratic deliberation - Tweeted (of all things!) to this post written by J.M. Bernstein (New School) at The New York Times philosophy blog. In the initial post, Bernstein offered an analysis (inspired by Hegel and Freud) of the anger embodied among members of the "The Party" crowd. He followed up here. Philosopher Brian Leiter (Univ. of Chicago) seconds Cohen here. And there is a rambling commentary here at Mother Jones as well. Now, I hardly put myself out as a model of tolerance and civil exchange, and my own theoretical leanings actually tend to converge with Leiter and Cohen, however their replies to Bernstein are not a great advert for doing philosophy (or political theory, or politics) in public.

I think there is a real and important question about why the radical right has managed to coordinate opposition to Obama around a set of ludicrous claims - like his place of birth or the notion, all evidence to the contrary, that he is a "socialist." Sure, there are lots of media politics at play. And the Mother Jones piece reiterates the findings that (as I suggested here) "the 'tea party' crowd tend to be ... a bunch of old, economically well-off, white guys who are 'angry' and 'pessimistic' because they think the government is paying too much attention to the needs of the poor and minorities and not enough to the rich!" Of course, that is not the only demographic among the members of the tea party 'movement'; it takes all types, I suppose.

Having said all that, what happens when you talk sense to people? What happens when you point out that the sources of political polarization in American politics derive from rising inequality and right-wing political strategy [1]? What happens when you point out that the Bush tax cuts and duplicitous military adventurism combine to underwrite the vast bulk of our current and future budget deficits [2]? What happens when you point out that redistributive spending tends to go primarily to red states [3]? Well ... there is some reason to think that despite the fear, anger and frustration that inform too much of American politics, there is some indication [4] [5] [6] that lots of voters are pretty damned sensible. They prefer to trim the military budget and raise taxes on the wealthy rather than simply slash social spending!

How does this connect to our point of departure? Well, Cohen and Leiter might have simply suggested that matters may not be nearly so bleak as Bernstein suggests, that there is reason to believe that citizens can indeed sort things out pretty reasonably despite emotional vicissitudes. (I actually think that we can dispense with the Freud and Hegel in Bernstein's initial piece and agree nonetheless that part of what has been going on is that individualistic Americans have indeed been forced to confront their interdependence and their vulnerability.) What would've been wrong with that?