Status
Checked out
Publication
Verso (2015), 240 pages
Description
"What is at stake when some American children go to school hungry and others go to school in $1,000 Bugaboo strollers? Class War argues that under free market capitalism, life paths prescribed by class but framed as parental choices--public or private? Gifted & Talented, general or special education?--segregate American children from birth through adolescence, and into adulthood, as never before. In an age of austerity, an elite class of corporate education reformers has found new ways to transfer the costs of raising children to families. Examining three New York City schools, Class War show how education has been transformed into a competitive "hunger games" for the resources and social connections required for economic success"-- "What is at stake when some American children go to school hungry and others go to school in $1,000 Bugaboo strollers? Class War argues that under free-market capitalism, life paths prescribed by class but framed as parental choices--public or private, gifted & talented, general or special education--segregate American children from birth through adolescence, and into adulthood, as never before. In an age of austerity, an elite class of corporate education reformers has found new ways to transfer the costs of raising children to families. Although public schools are tasked with providing childcare, job training, meals and social services for low-income children, their funding is being drastically cut; meanwhile, private schools promise to nurture well-rounded individuals for families able to afford the $40,000 a year tuition. Drawing from Erickson's own experience as a teacher in the New York City school system, Class War shows how education has been transformed into a competitive "hunger games for the resources and social connections required for economic success.""--… (more)
User reviews
LibraryThing member Karen59
This is a brilliant book about the privatization of schools and its impact on children, families and communities. Living in Boston, I have seen how the growth of charter schools, at first slowly, and now more quickly, is degrading the public school system and creating a new set of "haves" and "have
Thank you to NetGalley for allowing me to review this book for an honest opinion
Show More
not's" within our city. Ms. Erickson clearly captures how hedge investors have been capitalizing on poor communities and enriching themselves by creating a two tier system for schools where the children who need the most get the least. Ms Erickson shows us how deplorable the conditions are in the public schools for children and how corporate entities are starving these schools in service of the rich. In many, if not most public schools in Boston, parents and teachers have had to bring in their own supplies like paper and pencils to class while the charter schools are filled to the brim with everything that is needed for the school year. It is truly heartbreaking. What I like about Ms Erickson's book is that her she is simple and clear and she makes her case in a strong and powerful way. It is a book that can be given to anybody who doesn't understand the issues and wants to learn more and a really good book for those who are beginning to wonder what is happening in their city but does not have words for it.Thank you to NetGalley for allowing me to review this book for an honest opinion
Show Less
LibraryThing member sparemethecensor
The second half of this, about childhood, is more compelling than the first half about public schools. Erickson does not have the grasp of the K-12 research literature to overcome her personal point of view, so the book does not come off as compelling as it could. Around childhood's other pieces,
Though Erickson and I do not agree about all our politics, I often find it enlightening to read the views of others more radical than myself, and as a result I found this a compelling read.
Show More
though -- hobbies, leisure learning, accessories, even time use -- the book does a phenomenal job in illustrating the classism in American society and how it affects children. Though Erickson and I do not agree about all our politics, I often find it enlightening to read the views of others more radical than myself, and as a result I found this a compelling read.
Show Less
LibraryThing member kcshankd
A solid overview on 'The War on Teachers' by the right and tech mavens, though I'm not sure I learned much. I think Erickson missed the chance to fully draw the distinction between the ability of technology to increase production, and its inability to change fundamental human tendencies. Technology
Show More
has greatly changed the way food is produced and prepared, but a body's physical mastication and digestion is unchanged - and so it is with learning. Show Less
LibraryThing member stillatim
This book is fascinating, occasionally for the right reasons, and far too often for the wrong.
To start: this is not at all a book about 'the privatization of childhood,' despite the subtitle and introduction. It is about the history and present of American educational policy. I confess to being
Then there's the classic dilemma of a leftist analysis of anything; the argument must always be that the only solution is a total overhaul of our racist, sexist, capitalist society--but this book, like all similar books, is not content with making that case. It also shows how awful everything is with American education: the inequalities, the inhumanities, the poor treatment of students and teachers alike. And once those issues have been raised, I, at least, find it difficult not to ask, well, what can we do about those inequalities and inhumanities short of socialist revolution? What can I do, right now?
That's not necessarily fair; Erickson might just be writing this book to alert us to problems in American education. But...
Erickson quotes some very interesting figures: "research shows that less than 30 percent of students' academic achievement is even attributable to schools," and even conservative economists have "calculated the effects of teacher quality as accounting for only 7.5 percent of variation in student achievement." So, schools and teachers matter very little in educational achievement, okay. Why, then, should we care that so many poor students go to decrepit schools? It literally makes no difference! Let's just give up!
Of course, that's not the lesson here. Those figures are quoted in a chapter dedicated to defending teachers from the incessant demands of politicians and bureaucrats, and quite right, too: teachers can only do a little, but they get punished when students fail.
But on the very next page Erickson attacks a government initiative to keep experienced and qualified teachers in schools attended by poorer students. Why? Because it dares to suggest that teachers can make a difference. In other words, even though this initiative really could make a small difference, and help disadvantaged kids, Erickson opposes it because it isn't theoretically perfect.
If you're going to oppose theoretically imperfect, but practically beneficial policies, I want to hear your policies. And Erickson's are confusing, to say the least.
Although she's rightly hard on those who suggest that education will improve when teachers, students and parents just kind of try harder, she has a similarly hand-wavy wish to make education more 'empathetic' and less 'competitive.' There's some Vygotsky quoting here, naturally, but why should "be nicer to each other" be any more socially effective than "try harder"? It's the same move, with more collectivist language.
Similarly, she accepts that parents can't be asked to make personal sacrifices: the problems with American education won't be solved by rich parents sending their kids to bad public schools, even if a world existed in which that was plausible. Instead, she argues, this is a decision that has to be made democratically. But that is meaningless: if the decision is made democratically, the richer parents will vote to send their kids to better schools. There is a republican solution, in which everyone comes together and decides that the best thing for the society as a whole is universal, egalitarian education, but that is unlikely to come from any democratic process. In short, Erickson knows that rich people won't act against their interests, but insists that they will vote against their interests. This is not so. There are real, big problems that democracy cannot solve.
Finally, this book is a great advertisement for the rhetorical bankruptcy of the left. By far the best section of the book is Erickson's attack on home-schooling, unschooling, and their focus on personal authenticity and liberation from control. But Erickson struggles to free herself from these concepts: school, she thinks, should teach students to rebel against an unjust society. Students should not be thought of as receptacles for knowledge, but as active learners. And so on.
I wish more people would rebel against injustice; I wish students could be active learners. But school is also a place to learn the skills one needs to function in the world we have. If you can't function in the world, you cannot change it. And we do need concrete changes. The most obvious is a change to the funding structure of schools in the U.S.: cut the link between school funding and property tax (which Erickson argues for, effectively). Raise teachers' salaries, and provide what students need (books, small classrooms, adequate after-school care) rather than what is bright and shiny. My sister-in-law works at a fairly wealthy school in California. All of her students have an ipad. But she had to crowd-source funding for markers.
This book is worth reading, but would have been much more worth reading had it toned down the rhetoric, accepted partial solutions, and just considered the possibility that child-centered learning and its corollaries might be doing more harm than good.
To start: this is not at all a book about 'the privatization of childhood,' despite the subtitle and introduction. It is about the history and present of American educational policy. I confess to being
Show More
bit upset about this; as a recent father, who is deeply disgusted with the baby industry in all its guises (education being one of them), I was hoping for more on that specifically. But no real harm done. Then there's the classic dilemma of a leftist analysis of anything; the argument must always be that the only solution is a total overhaul of our racist, sexist, capitalist society--but this book, like all similar books, is not content with making that case. It also shows how awful everything is with American education: the inequalities, the inhumanities, the poor treatment of students and teachers alike. And once those issues have been raised, I, at least, find it difficult not to ask, well, what can we do about those inequalities and inhumanities short of socialist revolution? What can I do, right now?
That's not necessarily fair; Erickson might just be writing this book to alert us to problems in American education. But...
Erickson quotes some very interesting figures: "research shows that less than 30 percent of students' academic achievement is even attributable to schools," and even conservative economists have "calculated the effects of teacher quality as accounting for only 7.5 percent of variation in student achievement." So, schools and teachers matter very little in educational achievement, okay. Why, then, should we care that so many poor students go to decrepit schools? It literally makes no difference! Let's just give up!
Of course, that's not the lesson here. Those figures are quoted in a chapter dedicated to defending teachers from the incessant demands of politicians and bureaucrats, and quite right, too: teachers can only do a little, but they get punished when students fail.
But on the very next page Erickson attacks a government initiative to keep experienced and qualified teachers in schools attended by poorer students. Why? Because it dares to suggest that teachers can make a difference. In other words, even though this initiative really could make a small difference, and help disadvantaged kids, Erickson opposes it because it isn't theoretically perfect.
If you're going to oppose theoretically imperfect, but practically beneficial policies, I want to hear your policies. And Erickson's are confusing, to say the least.
Although she's rightly hard on those who suggest that education will improve when teachers, students and parents just kind of try harder, she has a similarly hand-wavy wish to make education more 'empathetic' and less 'competitive.' There's some Vygotsky quoting here, naturally, but why should "be nicer to each other" be any more socially effective than "try harder"? It's the same move, with more collectivist language.
Similarly, she accepts that parents can't be asked to make personal sacrifices: the problems with American education won't be solved by rich parents sending their kids to bad public schools, even if a world existed in which that was plausible. Instead, she argues, this is a decision that has to be made democratically. But that is meaningless: if the decision is made democratically, the richer parents will vote to send their kids to better schools. There is a republican solution, in which everyone comes together and decides that the best thing for the society as a whole is universal, egalitarian education, but that is unlikely to come from any democratic process. In short, Erickson knows that rich people won't act against their interests, but insists that they will vote against their interests. This is not so. There are real, big problems that democracy cannot solve.
Finally, this book is a great advertisement for the rhetorical bankruptcy of the left. By far the best section of the book is Erickson's attack on home-schooling, unschooling, and their focus on personal authenticity and liberation from control. But Erickson struggles to free herself from these concepts: school, she thinks, should teach students to rebel against an unjust society. Students should not be thought of as receptacles for knowledge, but as active learners. And so on.
I wish more people would rebel against injustice; I wish students could be active learners. But school is also a place to learn the skills one needs to function in the world we have. If you can't function in the world, you cannot change it. And we do need concrete changes. The most obvious is a change to the funding structure of schools in the U.S.: cut the link between school funding and property tax (which Erickson argues for, effectively). Raise teachers' salaries, and provide what students need (books, small classrooms, adequate after-school care) rather than what is bright and shiny. My sister-in-law works at a fairly wealthy school in California. All of her students have an ipad. But she had to crowd-source funding for markers.
This book is worth reading, but would have been much more worth reading had it toned down the rhetoric, accepted partial solutions, and just considered the possibility that child-centered learning and its corollaries might be doing more harm than good.
Show Less
Language
Original language
English
Physical description
240 p.; 5.13 inches
ISBN
1781689482 / 9781781689486
Local notes
teaching