Neoliberalism

 Throughout our reading this week, I realized how prevalent No Child Left Behind really is in the teaching world. It seems as though everything that a teacher does is centered around NCLB and meeting the states AYP goals. In our reading, Pauline Lipman writes, on page 45, "The federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law that is driving education policy in the United States has all the hallmarks of the neoliberalism agenda. Apple also points out that NCLB is a prime example of neoliberalism. I have found that a majority of our readings throughout the course have been related to NCLB and the effects that this law has on public education.

Lipman states that "opening up public education to competition through privatization and the market is the ultimate neoliberal solution" (Lipman, 46). Neoliberals feel as though "public schools are failing our children as future workers, but like nearly all public institutions they are sucking the financial life out of this society" (Apple, 38). I can't believe that people can think this about public education. Neoliberalists think that all money that is put into schools should be directly related to bettering the economy. While I do agree that schools should teach the skills needed to compete efficiently and effectively in the workforce, there are other things that schools need money for that may not be directly related to bettering the economy.

Take sports teams for example, and the money that is necessary to maintain such a team. Students learn valuable knowledge from being on these teams. They learn about others (and to accept differences), they learn to share, to be good role models, to work hard, and possibly leadership skills, among many other. Does this mean that each person on a soccer, football, basketball, bowling, golf team should be denied of these opportunities because it is not directly leading to a bettering of the economy? On these teams, each of these individuals is not learning how to be a great doctor, lawyer, computer scientist or architect. So then, neoliberalists say, no money should be put into such "black holes" (Apple, 38).  These students are learning many other things, but not specifically how to be successful in a particular occupation so should we then take away the money that funds these teams?

These beliefs to me are asinine. How can one claim that "any money spent on schools that is not directly related to these economic goals is suspect"? (Apple, 38). This again goes back to NCLB. Some people place such a strong emphasis on meeting the AYP goals. Thus, many districts buy packages that swear by helping students improve and meeting their AYP standards. Thus, a private company makes money because public schools are "failing". Many similar instances occur such as the Channel One instance that Apple speaks of on page 42. Channel One, a for-profit, private television network offered a "free" satellite dish, two VCRs, and television monitors for every classroom. In exchange, the school had to sign a 3 to 5 year contract stating that the students would watch Channel One every day. In addition, the students were also forced to watch the mandatory advertisements. Furthermore, the technology was "hardwired" so that only Channel One could be received. In this case, again, public schools are being taken advantage of by private corporations. These public schools only want what is best for their students, but in exchange they get conned into things like this.

When neoliberalists claim that "what is private is necessarily good and what is public is necessarily bad", I couldn't disagree more. Public facilities offer people with many great opportunities. Neoliberalists could quite possibly just want everything to be privatized because that would mean more money!