Education Reform in the Twenty-First Century

The Marketization of Teaching and Learning at a No-Excuses Charter School

Erinn Brooks

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2020
• Print ISBN:
  9783030611941
• eBook ISBN:
  9783030611958
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Management

This book explores how, why, and with what consequences one no-excuses charter network marketizes teaching and learning, through the author's 1000 hours of covert participant observation at a network charter school. In her research, Brooks found that the "AAG" (pseudonym) network re-conceptualized teaching by urging staff to envision their careers in corporate education rather than in classroom teaching. While some employees received a boost up the corporate ladder, others found themselves being pushed out of the organization. Despite AAG's equity-conscious discourse, administrators emphasized controlling student behavior as a central measure of teaching effectiveness. Brooks develops the concept of creative compliance to describe the most successful teachers' tactics for adhering to formal policies strategically, bending the rules in order to survive and advance in a workplace fraught with competition and insecurity.

© The Author(s) 2020

E. BrooksEducation Reform in the Twenty-First Centuryhttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-61195-8_1

Begin Abstract

1. Market-Centered Mania and Network Charter Schools

Erinn Brooks¹

(1)

Sociology, St. Norbert College, De Pere, WI, USA

Erinn Brooks

Email: [email protected]

End Abstract

President Donald Trump’s 2020 State of the Union address featured a special guest—Philadelphia fourth grader Janiyah Davis. When the President’s remarks turned to education, television cameras panned to her seat in the Gallery. He proclaimed,

The next step forward in building an inclusive society is making sure that every young American gets a great education and the opportunity to achieve the American Dream. Yet, for too long, countless American children have been trapped in failing government schools. To rescue these students, 18 states have created school choice in the form of Opportunity Scholarships. The programs are so popular that tens of thousands of students remain on a waiting list. (Trump, 2020)

As Trump motioned to Janiyah and her mother, he made a surprise announcement: an opportunity scholarship was now available, and she could use it to enroll in the school of her choice. Subsequent press coverage revealed that Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos would personally fund the scholarship, but Janiyah already attended a well-regarded charter school where she would likely stay (Richards, 2020). Despite the caveats, the made-for-TV moment played nicely because it drew on a familiar cultural script, alleging failure at “government” schools.

In the American popular imagination, public schools fail the nation’s children in a myriad of ways.¹ Politicians and philanthropists warn that US students are losing ground in an international competition for academic excellence and economic viability (Fabricant & Fine, 2015; Ravitch, 2013; Sanders, 2017). News media portray public schools—namely those that serve low-income children of color—as not only underperforming but also dangerous (Harper, 2015). Documentary films reveal footage of dilapidated infrastructure, impenetrable bureaucracy, and negligent teachers (Swalwell & Apple, 2011). As a result, everyday people tend to characterize public schools as low quality and in crisis, even when those same individuals report satisfaction with their own public schools (Berliner & Biddle, 1995; Swift, 2017).

An increasingly popular solution to the nation’s so-called crisis of school failure involves what I refer to as “market-centered reform.” Also called corporate education reform (Ravitch, 2013) or neoliberal reform (Bowles & Gintis, 1976), this approach promises that positive change will materialize just as soon as policymakers and administrators apply business principles to the world of schooling. In an education marketplace, they argue, schools would compete for students, and teachers would compete for jobs and raises (Buras, 2014; Fabricant & Fine, 2015; Hoxby, 2003; Lubienski & Lubienski, 2014; Renzulli & Roscigno, 2007). Market-centered reform touches all schools but is especially entrenched in the charter-school sector. Over the last two decades, many state laws have loosened restrictions on charters—publicly funded but privately run schools—with the aim of marketizing education. Approximately 3.1 million students attended a charter school in the 2017 academic year. This reflects a drastic increase over a relatively short period, given that fewer than a half million students attended charters in 2000 (Hussar et al., 2020).

The current Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, aims to expand school choice initiatives, which hinge on the proliferation of competing charter schools (Kaplan & Owings, 2018). Charters infuse the public-school landscape with competition, as they attract students (via open enrollment policies) who would otherwise attend traditional public schools (Archbald, 2004). On the ground, many charters implement business practices that transform the nature of teaching and schooling. This book critically examines market-centered education reform by unpacking everyday life at one charter school belonging to a for-profit network. I explore how, why, and with what consequences the network marketizes teaching and learning. This chapter provides a brief history of charter schooling and synthesizes existing research on market-centered reform in the charter sector. I illustrate that market-centered reformers selectively emulate business principles by centering accountability, competition, and scale. These principles inform organizational structures, employment policies, and labor processes, transforming the nature of schooling and the work of teaching. I conclude with an overview of the book.

1.1 A Brief History of Charter Schools

1.1.1 Types of Charter Schools

Charter schools emerged in the early 1990s as a middle ground between the public and private education spheres. Charters are publicly funded but privately run schools, which can employ a for-profit or nonprofit status. Technically classified as public, charters are free and open to all students. Some seek out grant monies or private contributions, but all charters receive government funding calculated on the basis of student enrollment numbers (Green, Baker, & Oluwole, 2008; Vergari, 2007). Any group of citizens can apply for a charter. These groups often include some combination of parents, teachers, business leaders, and reformers. If local boards approve their plans, the groups receive state and federal funds, which they use to design and manage schools as they see fit (Kena et al., 2014). Charter schools enjoy operational autonomy historically reserved for private schools alone. While they must report student enrollment and achievement data to the state, charters can design curriculum and culture, not to mention operational and managerial policies, independent of school boards and teachers’ unions (Bulkley & Wohlstetter, 2004; Gawlik, 2007).

Following the emergence of the first charter school in 1991, charters appeared in 42 states. They now account for 7% of all public schools—up from only 2% in 2000 (Hussar et al., 2020). Advocates initially saw charters as experimental school environments, where educators could test out innovative techniques (Kahlenberg & Potter, 2014). Contemporary charter schools display diverse structures, but generally operate in one of three forms: start-ups, conversions, or networks. Independent, start-up schools were the originators of the charter movement. Inspired by specific approaches to instruction, curriculum, or governance, groups launch and operate these schools autonomously (Buddin & Zimmer, 2005). The second charter type, conversion schools, emerged during the George W. Bush accountability era that began in 2002. The name highlights the process: traditional, public schools are “converted,” or transformed, into charter schools.² This often occurs because the government deems a traditional, public school “failed” (Buddin & Zimmer, 2005).

Network schools are the third type of charter and the subject of this book. Operating 43% of the nation’s charter schools (David, 2017), networks are professional, franchise-like organizations that open many start-up schools under a single management structure (Lacireno-Paquet et al., 2002; Miron, 2007). For-profit, Education Management Organizations (EMOs) emerged soon after charter legislation took hold, as entrepreneurs identified new avenues for profit. Nonprofit, Charter Management Organizations (CMOs), followed soon after (Abrams, 2016). I refer to both as “networks” because they demonstrate remarkably similar operational styles.³ Both EMOs and CMOs function as commercial enterprises, typically under the leadership of individuals with business backgrounds. Instead of building single, local charter schools, they take on mass education like the big-box stores of the schooling world. They enroll large numbers of students and open new schools each year, leaning on marketing efforts to recruit new students. Every school in a charter network is virtually identical in terms of infrastructure, policy, curriculum, and pedagogy (Lacireno-Paquet et al., 2002; Miron & Urschel, 2010).

The largest networks operate 50 or more schools, often across multiple states. KIPP topped CMOs during the 2016 academic year: 169 KIPP schools enrolled close to 80,000 students in 21 states and the District of Columbia. Academica led EMOs with 130 schools, enrolling almost 76,000 students in five states and the District of Columbia. Although the vast majority of networks operate fewer than 15 schools, the biggest networks enjoy enormous market share. The ten largest networks serve 42.9% of network students or 18.3% of all charter students (David, 2017). Even among smaller networks, the aim of scale often makes their growth fast and frequent (Farrell, Wohlstetter, & ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Front Matter
• 1. Market-Centered Mania and Network Charter Schools
• 2. Going Undercover at Eclipse
• 3. AAG’s Frontstage
• 4. Eclipse’s Backstage
• 5. Competing on AAG’s Career Ladder
• 6. Complying Creatively with AAG’s Blueprint
• 7. Covering AAG’s Tracks
• 8. AAG Dreams and Eclipse Realities
• Back Matter