The future of education and how to fund it

Two weeks ago, the White House announced “Digital Promise” and, in today’s Wall Street Journal, Rupert Murdoch wrote an op-ed about the role technology will play in the future of education in the U.S. He is, of course, intending to provide that technology. When Murdoch gave it as a speech yesterday in San Francisco, he was heckled: “Resist corporate domination of public education!” a man yelled out, according to local media. “Resist it, folks! Isn’t it time to stand up?”

These developments should not pass unnoticed by educators and parents. Unfortunately, they remain freaked out by the present, let alone the future. They are avoiding their responsibility to look ahead and save our urban schools from further wreck. They should be asking themselves what Digital Promise and Murdoch are not saying.

There is no question that a digital future is coming to America’s schools. We need to be open to that. But what is not being addressed is that corporations plan to sell those digital services to school districts, teachers and parents. Richer districts will do fine. They are constantly fundraising (begging) for money and they will succeed in funding extra-curricular activities. Poorer schools and poorer parents will be propped up (inadequately) by private foundations and charities and they will keep deteriorating. This is a deceitful game and educators need to come up with an alternative. So far they have not, and I doubt they ever will. Yet there are alternative solutions if they are open-minded.

I have spent part of my life in the entertainment industry. It is an industry that has always been popular with the public because it created escapist spaces for them to take a deep breath in. It stimulated the imagination even when it was predictable and dull. It financed itself by permitting advertising, whether it was via TV spots or in-theater trailering or promotions. It is an agreement that has allowed Hollywood to stay outside government regulation. The MPAA provided the self-regulation.

That is what is needed in education. Corporations should pay into our school systems in return for being able to supply services and in return there can be limited advertising opportunities. If that horrifies you, you may not be aware of the degree to which students today are exposed to advertising anyway and, furthermore, the current alternative where schools, teachers and parents are expected to pay for this, that and the other, is no better. The future, unfortunately, looks set to follow a militarized model, with strict discipline and surveillance, out-sourcing of all digital services to corporations, all funded by taxpayers for the benefit of rich corporations and their shareholders.

So, to summarize, if corporations want to sell services into schools, they should contribute millions of dollars for the access and, in return, they would be granted the right to sell advertising, subject to regulation, while teachers would control the online curriculum units. An entertainment industry model would benefit parents and teachers significantly (since they would retain control) more than a military model (where teachers no longer have any autonomy). Which model do you want?