Increasing Professors' Voice in Policy Debate

Contact Information for Responses to "Mid-Century Schools and Universities""

Dr. Mullen's post on the future of schools and universities has precipitated some interesting responses. Thank you for participating in the discussion! 


We are trying a new system to engage and interact with readers; while linking out to Google docs has been successful, the contact information provided by the blog has not been linked. We would greatly appreciate your continued participation and to all those who have already posted, please provide your contact information (name, email address, and row number of your comments) so that your comments may be credited appropriately. Thank you very much!


Please send this information to elkorda@gmail.com. 

View others' opinions: Mid Century Schools and Universities

Did a Mentor Help You Feel Capable, Connected, and Contributing?

Linda Searby, Ph.D.

Associate Professor of Educational Leadership

University of Alabama at Birmingham

            Mentoring is my passion, and the message which I continually convey to anyone who will listen is: “we all need to have a mentor and be a mentor at all stages of our lives.”  As we entered the professoriate, we all needed a mentor to “show us the ropes” and help us navigate a new culture.  All human beings have three basic psychological needs: to be capable, to be contributing, and to feel connected to others (Adler, 1930.)  Having a mentor as one enters the field of higher education can be a tremendous boon to a newly hired professor. 

Newcomers to higher education are often frustrated by the differences in their own expectations and the university’s expectations for them (Johnson & DeSpain, 2004). In addition, studies show that the presence or absence of collegiality in the higher education setting is a factor in retention of new faculty (Ambrose, Huston, & Norman, 2005; Zhou & Volkwein, 2004).  New faculty members moving to the ranks of higher education can find the publishing expectations daunting, and they often lack the mentoring support they need.  There is an assumption sometimes held in universities that mentoring will occur on its own which has often meant that non-tenured professors never receive mentoring.

            Adjusting to the demands in higher education can be especially daunting if one is coming from a practitioner role in a professional setting, such as K-12 schools.  Boice (2000) gives credence to the importance of new faculty members finding support quickly, as the tenure clock begins ticking and the necessity to start publishing becomes a reality. In his study of new faculty for over two decades, he found that the failures of new faculty were easily correctable problems, if they had availed themselves to the right resources.  Two of these problems are not knowing how to manage enough writing for publication in modest amounts of time, and not learning how to elicit effective collegial support.

            As the interest in mentoring has grown across all careers and professions, the mentoring paradigm  has taken on forms other than the traditional grooming-mentoring model.

• Peer mentoring, in which a reciprocal mentoring function is provided by individuals with the same or similar professional status,
• Group or co-mentoring, in which the mentoring function is supplied by a more or less tightly constructed group of professional colleagues
• Network mentoring - In this model, early-career faculty build robust networks by engaging in multiple “mentoring partners” in non-heirarchical, collaborative, cross-cultural partnerships to address specific areas of faculty activity, such as research, teaching, working towards tenure, and striking a balance between work and life” (Sorcinelli & Jung, 2007,p. 58). This could also be called one’s developmental network (Higgins, Chandler & Kram, 2007).

            The three human needs of being capable, contributing, and feeling connected (Adler, 1930) are said to be universal.  Most faculty in new jobs likely experience these needs, whether or not they are articulated.  I would like to begin a dialogue with others reading this blog about your mentoring experiences as a new faculty member in higher education, no matter what “era” you entered the professoriate.  Were you mentor-less?  Did you develop your own mentoring network out of a need for survival?  Or were you formally or informally mentored by a more experienced colleague who took you under his/her wing?  Please share your experience and share a few thoughts about why mentoring in higher education seems to be neglected or left to chance. And finally, what are you personally doing to assist someone else in becoming capable, connected, and contributing in our profession?

References

Adler, A. (1930). The education of children. New York: Greenberg.
Ambrose, S., Huston, T., & Norman, M. (2005). A qualitative method for assessing

            faculty satisfaction. Research in Higher Education, 46(7), 803-830.

Boice, R. (2000).  Advice for new faculty members.  Boston:  Allyn and Bacon.

Higgins, M. C., Chandler, D. E., & Kram, K. E. (2007).  Developmental initiation and

            developmental networks.  In B.R. Ragins, & K.E. Kram (Eds.), The Handbook

            of Mentoring at Work: Theory, Research and Practice (pp. 349-372).  Los Angeles: Sage.

Johnson, J. A., & DeSpain, B. C. (2004). Mentoring the reluctant writer. The Professional

            Educator, 26(2),  45-55.

Sorcinelli, M. D. & Jung, Y. (2007).  From mentor to mentoring networks: Mentoring

            in the new academy.  Change, 39(6). Retrieved August 28, 2008, from

            http://find.galegroup.com/itx/infomark.do?&contentset=IAC

Zhou, Y., & Volkwein, F. (2004). Examining the influences of faculty departure

intentions: A comparison of tenured versus non-tenured faculty at research universities using NSOPF-99. Research in Higher Education, 45(2), 139-176.

                       

Blazing New Trails: Preparing Leaders to Improve Access and Equity

Dr. Gary W. Kinsey, NCPEA Past-President    

California State University Channel Islands

This summer’s NCPEA conference theme --Blazing New Trails:  Preparing Leaders to Improve Access and Equity in Today’s Schools—emanated from a suggestion by the 2011 Summer Conference planning group that consisted largely of member representatives from the Oregon Council for Professors of Educational Administration (OCPEA) and their universities.  As this nation’s early westward expansion extended to the part of the country that served as last summer’s conference site, it occurred primarily via the “Oregon Trail.”  Monumental challenges and much adversity faced those pioneers who were daring and persistent enough to make the journey to a frontier where their hopes and dreams could be realized.  The 2011 conference theme reflected the desire to explore new trails and not just the well-traveled paths in respect to how we currently view and support our public schools.  We need to be pioneers that will challenge the present day assumptions about how students best achieve and also prepare our leaders with this same mindset.

We are currently on a trail in this great country, that I fear is taking us completely the wrong direction as a means to improve access and equity for all children.  There is indisputable evidence about the effects of poverty on both family life and student motivation that is completely contrary to what policymakers and the public have been hearing so pervasively.  As presented by Diane Ravitch (2011) in her recent writings, there is a clear “need to reverse the increasingly narrow focus on testing and accountability.”  What is remarkable, is that Ravitch was once a proponent and key player in the current accountability movement that we are so caught up in.  She provides a few suggestions as policymakers look to ESEA reauthorization:

1)     Given the remarkable progress in math that schools serving poor and disadvantaged children have made, we should use data collection as a tool to figure out what has worked well – such as improved curricula and class size – and to help schools and teachers improve, rather than as a weapon to punish schools and fire teachers, which further destabilizes already fragile communities.

2)     The current system forbids us to say openly what we all know: Students who live in poverty and isolation face tremendous hurdles to learning, and they bring those problems with them to school every day.  If schools are to succeed, and students to reach their full potential, teachers, principals, and parents need to have the necessary resources to help them do so. This means helping all students arrive at the kindergarten door ready to learn through quality early childhood education, parent education, targeting scarce resources of money, small classes, and the best teachers to at-risk students to maintain those early gains, and linking schools to the range of community supports, such as after-school and summer programs and mentoring opportunities that middle-class children already enjoy.

3)     The federal mandates in No Child Left Behind that require schools to demonstrate Adequate Yearly Progress in reading and math embody a utopian goal that no state or nation has ever met: 100% proficiency on state tests. This has resulted in accountability measures that narrow the curriculum, especially for poor children, and game the system rather than helping students learn more. Measures that help schools, teachers and administrators determine how well they are serving their at-risk students require: enhancements to NAEP that will allow it to provide disaggregated data in more nuanced ways and to assess a much broader range of subjects; additional tools to assess children’s health, values, civic engagement, and other curricular and societal goals; and state flexibility in designing accountability systems so that a range of models can be tested to meet district needs.

In order to put us on a different trail that will allow all children to achieve their hopes and dreams in our present day and for the future, we need to be the new pioneers tenaciously blazing the trail to a strategy of building a strong education profession and attending to the conditions of young people's lives.   Our efforts should be changed from the current punitive approach of rankings, score comparisons and “races to the top.”  We should instead be taking steps to recruit, support and respect those who work in our nation’s schools.  Rather than ignoring poverty and its negative consequences, we should be designing programs to help families and children achieve social justice in education.  As McKerrow and Shockley-Lee (2005) so adeptly point out, “social justice is defined not only by what it is but also by what it is not, namely injustice.  By seeking justice, we anticipate the ideal.  By questioning injustice we approach it.  Integrating both, we achieve it.”

In our leadership programs we have an obligation to equip school leaders to pursue social justice and undertake a change of direction from the trail we are now on in respect to the overemphasis on assessment and accountability.  As Marshall and Oliva (2006) state, “…educational leaders are the people who must deliver some version of social justice and equity” (p.1).  As stated in her message to the NCPEA membership in 2007, Past-President, Linda Morford, commented “that many critics of school leadership preparation contend that many of our programs have failed to produce credible leaders capable of addressing the complex demands placed on contemporary schools.”  In fact, we “have a clear choice.  We can continue to defend ourselves against detractors such as Arthur Levine (2005), the business community, government and others, or we can …create an epidemic in our profession where we summon the will to work with others to address issues facing schools and, thus, improve our preparation programs.”  I encourage you to pursue the latter and be among the new pioneers and “voices of reason” pursuing a change of direction in achieving a new frontier of equity and access for all our nation’s schools.

REFERENCES

Levine, A. (2005).  Educating school leaders.  The Education Schools Project.  Retrieved on April 1, 2005 from http://www.edschools.org/reports_leaders.htm .

Marshall, C., & Oliva, M. (Ed.). (2006). Leadership for social justice:  Making revolutions in education. Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon.

Morford, L. (2007).  President’s message.  Lancaster, PA: ProActive Publications.

Ravitch, Diane (2011).  We must change the narrative about public education.  Edutopia.  Retrieved on May 2, 2011 from http://www.edutopia.org/blog/diane-ravitch-reframing-narrative-public-schools

Shockley Lee, S., & McKerrow, K. (2005, Fall).  Advancing social justice: Women’s work.  Advancing Women in Leadership, 19.  Retrieved March 25, 2006 from http://www.advancingwomen.com/awl/awl.html.

New ELCC Standards

NCATE has approved the new ELCC standards for use by programs in educational administration. The 2002 standards will be replaced with the 2011 updated standards beginning in the fall. Keep in mind that NCATE has also approved new accreditation options. How the standards will be utilized by programs varies depending upon the accreditation option an individual program chooses. Here is a link to the options an individual program may use to achieve ELCC accreditation:

http://www.ncate.org/Accreditation/ProgramReview/GuidelinesAndProcedures/NewOptionsforProgramReview/tabid/650/Default.aspx

The ELCC Standards can be viewed on the bulletin board at the NCPEA Website - http://www.emich.edu/ncpeaprofessors/bulletinboard.html

Caveat Emptor: Buyer Beware of Some Inter-Agency and Non-Profit Collaboration with Neoliberal Foundations and Think Tanks - Part 3 of 3

Fenwick W. English

R. Wendell Eaves Senior Distinguished Professor of Educational Leadership

School of Education 

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 

Caveat Emptor: “Buyer beware” of what?

            Currently the neoliberal cause is embedded in millions of dollars going to promote the pet educational solutions of  individuals Diane Ravitch (2010) has labeled “The Billionaire Boys Club” (Bill Gates, John Walton and Eli Broad)(p. 199). These “venture philanthropists” have developed an aggressive approach to only funding those actions that fit closely their neoliberal ideology. In addition, there are the traditional right-wing foundations that also back the neoliberal ideology and hire consultants to produce slanted research (see the NEPC analysis) and keep writers on their payrolls to crank out an endless stream of op-ed page broadsides and blogs.

1.     Neoliberals are neither critics nor friends

Neoliberals are not our friends. Anyone who advocates your erasure from the educational field or who proposes the function you perform is not necessary is not a critic nor a friend. Neoliberals are not interested in a dialogue because they have already made up their minds. They do not believe that professors have anything to offer their agenda and they are particularly not interested in having their views challenged. Opposition is akin to heresy. The neoliberal foundations and right wing think tanks employ paid consultants and writers to advance their causes and engage in “creative destruction” (regressionsverbot). These persons are little more than gunslingers for hire.

2.     If you accept their money you accept all of their agenda

The billionaire players in the field of education today have a broad based agenda of the ideological changes they desire to implement in the schools. While one may not agree with all of that agenda, their funding of a program or any aspect of that agenda is part of a whole. Neoliberals do not fund efforts that do not coincide with their total agenda. So while you might defend your sliver of their agenda and console yourself that you were only interested in a smaller portion and not their total interests, you have, whether you like it not, become a cog in the implementation of their total plan.

3.     They are serious, focused and accountable to no one

The neoliberals are in the game for the long haul, they are serious and they are very focused. This is not a game of truth pursued. It is, rather, a game of a political agenda being ruthlessly implemented. Gates, Broad and the right wing think tanks are accountable to no one. There is no public regulatory body which oversees them and ensures their activities actually benefit the public. They are representative of a corporate ideology which is heavy-handed and authoritarian operating without any public oversight.

Some of the “research reports” produced by them have been subjected to review and been found to be wanting. This is a true “caveat emptor” warning in that a review of the reports  produced from these neoliberal organizations by Kevin Welner, a co-director of the Education and Public Interest Center in the School of Education at the University of Colorado said, “Across the nation, think tanks are churning out a steady stream of often low-quality reports that use weak research methods, offer biased analyses, and make recommendations that do not fit the data” (2010, p. 1)

The NEPC found many reports faulty and included in this group Chester Finn’s “study” of pre-school released by the Hoover Institution; the Friedman Foundation’s flawed study on the Florida school reforms; a Gates Foundation report on “value-added” analysis reached the wrong conclusion. According to professor Jesse Rothstein, an economist at the University of California at Berkeley said that if the report had been interpreted correctly, the data actually “undermine rather than validate value-added-based approaches to teacher evaluation” (2011, p. 1)

The Progressive Policy Institute’s report called Going Exponential: Growing the Charter School Sector’s Best was subjected to an external review  by David Garcia (2011), an ASU professor who said, “The report lacks any scientific evidence to support its advocacy” [of charter schools]. PPI has accepted funds from the Bradley Foundation (the same group behind the new Bush Foundation principal training program).

The Most Tragic Fallout of the Neoliberal Attack: 

The Destruction of the Ethic of Public Service

The most tragic fallout from the neoliberal attack on public education is their “for profit” mindset which is imposed on all transactions in public education. The neoliberals wish to  debase the entire idea of public service, the idea of a public servant who serves all of the children irrespective of who or what they may be.

Bourdieu (2002) said it this way:

…it remains however that the official definition of state office—and of state officials, who are mandated to serve, not serve themselves—is an extraordinary historical invention, an advance for humanity, in the same sense as art or science. The conquest is fragile, and always threatened with regression or disappearance. And it is all this that is now rejected as outmoded and belonging to a past era (p.197).

The imposition of the market place, the business mindset which has brought unprecedented levels of corruption to our financial system overall (Madrick, 2011), is the very same mindset the neoliberals wish to impose on public education. Teachers and principals motivated by the for profit motive, whose only interest is to advance themselves and enhance their financial status, are those individuals who have no desire to help children who cannot move them ahead to the next paycheck. Do we want such individuals in our schools? Are these the teachers we want for our children?

Bourdieu (1999) called this situation, the destruction “of the idea of public service” and the shrugging off of the huge disparities in wealth in the nation, “they suggest that since inequalities are unavoidable, the struggle against them is ineffective (which does not keep them from blaming the system for discouraging the best people) and, in any case, can only be undertaken to the detriment of freedom; by associating efficiency and modernity with private enterprise” (p. 182).

What is at stake is the very ethos of the public service and that of an educational system linked to a democratic state. Bourdieu (1999) asks:

How can we not see, for example, that the glorification of earnings, productivity,

and competitiveness, or just plain profit, tends to undermine the very foundation

of functions that depend on a certain professional disinterestedness often associated with militant devotion? (pp. 183-4).

Richard Ekman, President of the Council of Independent Colleges in the U.S. sounded an alarm in viewing who were the individuals coming into college presidencies. An increasing number are from business, government and the military (17% overall) and have no experience in the heart of the academic enterprise. What he wrote is also applicable to leadership in K-12 education:

If the number continues to increase, the risk is that higher education will become an industry that is led by people who do not truly understand it, who view it as a commodity to be traded, a production problem to be solved efficiently, or a brand to be marketed (p. A88)

Yet these are the very same persons that neoliberal agencies and think tanks promote along with the marketing mentality of problem solving.

What Can Professors Do?

            We cannot sit idly by and watch public education be dismantled and shifted into the “for profit” marketing model preferred by the neoliberals with the attendant loss of the ethic of public service which has long been the hallmark of our profession. The achievement gap is not a problem caused by the lack of corporate style management, but by issues with teaching, learning and curriculum. Here are things we can do in our classrooms, in our writing and research, in the op-ed pages of our local newspapers and in educational conferences we attend.

1.     Expose the neoliberal political agenda and its ideology

We need to become thoroughly familiar with the linguistic phraseology of the neoliberals and expose it for the anti-democratic views in which it swims. An excellent source in the U.S. is Emery and Ohanian’s (2004) Why Is Corporate America Bashing our Public Schools? For a wider global view Pierre Bourdieu’s (1998) short text Acts of Resistance: Against the Tyranny of the Market. Bourdieu’s (1998) analysis is revealing:

      What is surprising is that this fatalistic doctrine gives itself the

      air of a message of liberation, through a whole series of lexical

      tricks around the idea of freedom, liberation, deregulation, etc., a

      whole series of euphemisms or ambiguous uses of words—

      ‘reform’ for example—designed to present a restoration as a

      revolution, in a logic which is that of all conservative

      revolutions (p.50).

2.     Expose the neoliberal players and their financial backers

It takes time but it is necessary to learn the names of the public advocates for neoliberalism, their favorite arguments and to work to understand the sources which fund them. There is an argument that makes sense and that is if you want to understand what is really going on, “follow the money.” The money trails reveal where the hidden and vested interests really lie. Table 1 in this paper is the beginning of a chart which the reader can finish. 

3.     Expose the faulty logic, shoddy reports and research of neoliberal think tanks

The neoliberal foundations and think tanks have taken to do their own “research” which is rarely vetted at research conferences or in research journals where their research can be critically analyzed. Their paid writers do the research and release it directly to the media. Foundations such as Gates and others buy paid space in such outlets as Education Week. Recently the National Education Policy Center at the University of Colorado has begun exposing the shoddy and faulty research which has been the hallmark of too many think tank advocates. You can log onto their web site and check out their publications at http://nepc.colorado.edu. NEPC is one of the few objective locations where think tank research is being held up to the scrutiny it deserves.

Finally, we are in a fight for the “soul of our profession” (Kowalski, 2004)  and our collective will is being tested. The stakes are too high to fail.

Caveat Emptor: Buyer Beware of Some Interagency and Non-profit Collaboration with Neoliberal Foundations and Think Tanks - Part Two of Three

This is the second of a three part post.  Check back soon for part three.

Fenwick W. English

R. Wendell Eaves Senior Distinguished Professor of Educational Leadership

School of Education

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 

Current Neoliberal Targets

Target 1:Traditional Democratic Forms of Governance in Public Education: School Boards

The neoliberal attack has focused on the governance structure of public education. This includes elected school boards, teacher unions, state departments of education and the role of the respective states in determining teacher and administrative preparation and licensure, and the differences among the states in establishing testing programs and different educational standards.

Teacher unions have been targeted as representing major barriers to “educational reform,” which simply translates into the kind of changes the neoliberals and their allies see as necessary to “improve education.” The Gates Foundation gave $2 million dollars to support the controversial film Waiting for Superman, “which demonized Randi Weingarten, the president of the American Federation of Teachers. Gates also gave $500,000 to former Florida Governor Jeb Bush and to his Foundation for Educational Excellence (Dillon, 2011, 11A). Bush is pushing hard for the common core curriculum standards (Bush & Klein, 2011). According to Gates  officials, the Foundation is expected to allocate approximately 15 percent of the $3.5 billion it expects to spend on education for various forms of advocacy (Dillon, 2011, p. 11A).

Target 2: Schools of Education

Neoliberals find schools of education to be irritants to their corporate preferred changes in education. They see schools of education as places where their intellectual agenda is consistently challenged. Neoliberal assault has taken place as a flanking movement by (a) pushing for alternative certification and programs which prepare teachers and administrators outside schools of education because schools of education are seen to be agents functioning with a “harmful monopoly” and which have failed to produce leaders as part of a “faulty pipeline” (Broad Foundation,2003, and; (b) criticism that schools of education appeal to the lowest level of student as judged by college exam test scores.

The linkage between test scores and eugenics is one which is part and parcel of neoliberal ideology. Genetic arguments are used to indicate that test scores represent innate capacities, from the infamous Hernstein and Murray,(1994) the Bell Curve to the Broad Foundation’s (2003) broadside describing the innate capacities of “great” leaders.

This propensity to present prospective teachers prepared in schools of education as simply a task involving genetic sorting, circumvents arguments regarding low wages for teachers as a profession by suggesting merit pay and for profit models of compensation as an antidote which will then draw “the best and brightest” to teaching. The “best and the brightest” angle is a retreat to a genetic or eugenic model of those entering teaching.

By definition such traits are rare and would never apply to the entire teaching force. This is an economic-eugenic model for blunting the criticism that teaching as a profession is underpaid in America, i.e., they’d be better paid if they were “better” meaning more intelligent.

The actual political agenda of the neo-liberals is that they despise the causes often discussed in schools of education. Chester Finn Jr., a conservative fellow at the Heritage Foundation and an executive with a Broad supported institute, singled out schools of education because they are places where journals are published which emphasize topics such as “racism, homophobia, Eurocentrism, sexism and conservatism” (Finn, 1991, p. 225).

Target 3: Educational Leadership Programs

The neoliberal attack on the governance of public education as well as schools of education include an assault on programs which prepare school leaders. This attack has been epitomized by Eli Broad and the Broad Foundation which has funded efforts to de-legitimize leadership preparation in the release of position papers which make all kinds of allegations regarding their alleged shortcomings (Broad, 2003). Broad has focused on getting non-educators into positions of leadership in urban school systems to prove his point.

A frequent critic of leadership programs has been Frederick Hess of the American Enterprise Institute, a right-wing think tank that also supports Charles Murray, co-author of The Bell Curve (Hernstein & Murray, 1994), a text which advocated doing away with federal programs for poor African-Americans on the rationale that their lack of intelligence makes the use of such support negligible. Hess has received up to $500,000 from the Gates Foundation to “influence the national education debates” (Dillon, 2011,11A).

The Alliance to Reform Education Leadership, an arm of the George W. Bush Institute, aims to influence the preparation of 50,000 K-12 principals by 2020. The AREL approach is estimated to cost $500 million over a decade. It enjoys funding from the Bradley Foundation, one of the four “big sister” hard right foundations that support right wing causes.

The neoliberals like to argue that leadership is also largely a genetic capacity. They use such terms as “talent”, “attributes”, “qualities”, “traits” “endowments”, “capabilities” in describing great leaders (Broad Foundation, 2003). These are not acquired skills but innate characteristics. They are genetic endowments. Since they are rare the argument goes, education must be “opened up” in order to find such scarce talent wherever it might exist. The Broad Foundation takes the same approach in bringing in former business CEO’s and retired military brass to become school superintendents. Who cares if they don’t know anything about learning or curriculum? The Broad people see the simple antidote of imposed corporate style management as the solution to learning problems in the schools.

The same economic-eugenics approach to the selection of leadership is that proffered by the Alliance for Reform of Educational Leadership of the George Bush Institute, when the Director, James W. Guthrie, formerly a professor at Berkeley and Vanderbilt, explained that in not selecting more schools of education, the reason was that “education schools [were] not selective enough about who is allowed to enter their programs”. (Aarons, 2010, p. 16).  This perspective is the same advanced by the Broad Foundation in their attack on schools of education and leadership programs in indicating that they want non-educators in leadership positions because they have superior endowments, i.e. genetic capacities.

The de-professionalization agenda of the neoliberals is pursued on a variety of fronts and from a variety of angles. Frederick Hess indicates that that “deregulating the recruitment and training of school managers is especially crucial” (2004, p. 39). This is classic neoliberalist thinking. “De-regulation” is part of the ideology of neoliberalism in breaking the public service ethic ensured via state regulation and superimposing a business, “for-profit” mindset. It is the relentless commodification of public space (See Anderson & Pini, 2011).

Table 1

A Partial List of Neoliberal Goals Regarding Public Education and the Agents and Agencies Engaged in Pursuit of those Goals

Aspect of Society, Education and/or Schooling	Neoliberal View	Neoliberal Agents & Agencies
Role of government (state & federal)	-Limited only to creating legislation to permit alternatives and competition to be created if they did not exist before	-Chester Finn, Heritage Foundation, Fordham Institute -Frederick Hess, American Enterprise Institute
View of school boards	-An outdated appendage and a hindrance to corporate models of governance-should be abolished --Also push for more mayoral control of school systems	-Eli Broad- Broad Foundation/Fordham Institute -Lou Gerstner, Jr. -Arne Duncan, U.S. Secretary of Education
View of Schooling	The purpose of schooling is to enable the nation to remain economically competitive in a capitalistic society and world-globalization	-Jeb Bush, Foundation for Educational Excellence (Gates Foundation) -Chester Finn, Jr. Heritage, Hoover Inst. -Rupert Murdoch, News Corp.
The Necessity for Competition and Alternatives for Public Schools	Without competition the harmful “monopoly” of the public schools have no incentive to become more efficient and effective-must have charter schools and vouchers	-Chester Finn, Jr. Heritage -Frederick Hess, AEI -John Walton, (Wal-Mart) -Joel Klein, News Corp (Murdoch) -Rick Scott, Rep. of Gov.Florida -Michelle Rhee, former chancellor of D.C. schools
View of Teachers and the Teaching Work Force	Anyone can be a teacher as it is primarily genetic endowment that is important; abolish all but minimal teacher training and licensure requirements	-Chester Finn, Jr., Heritage Foundation, Fordham Institute, Hoover Institution
Teacher unions	Abolish teacher unions or strip them of any power to engage in collective bargaining as they pose barriers to corporate governance models; abolish seniority systems and connect teacher pay to test results	-Bill Gates-Gates Foundation -Eli Broad-Broad Foundation -Frederick Hess, AEI -Tom Pawlenty, Reb. Gov. of Minnesota -Jeb Bush, former Rep.Gov, Florida -John Kasich, Rep.Gov.Ohio -Michelle Rhee, former chancellor of Wash. D.C. schools -Eric Hanushek, Hoover Institution -Rupert Murdoch, News Corp.
School curriculum	Identify the “core” curriculum to be learned by all students; consists of time honored “Western” perspectives as the only legitimate form of knowledge	Jeb Bush-Foundation for Educational Excellence (Gates) Joel Klein-(Rupert Murdoch)
Testing	Extensive testing is necessary in order to know if students are progressing and to serve as the mechanisms to reward teachers and administrators whose students score the highest.	-Business Round Table -U.S. Chamber of Commerce -Bill Gates
View of Schools of Education	Unnecessary and should be abolished; teachers do not have to be professionally prepared; Teach for America is adequate	-Chester Finn, Jr. Heritage Foundation, Fordham Institute -Eli Broad- Broad Foundation -Arnold Foundation -Robertson Foundation
University educational leadership programs	-Must be radically changed or closed down -More business techniques instilled in preparation programs	-Frederick Hess, AEI -Eli Broad, Broad Foundation -James Guthrie, Bush Foundation -Arthur Levine, Woodrow Wilson Institute, NY

Note: Some of the data in this exhibit were extrapolated from F. English (2010, October) 

This is the second of a three part post.  Check back soon for part three.