Following suits
Anastasia De Waal, 11 May 2010
Bitter battles abound this week, and the world of education is no exception. The possibility of a Tory/Lib Dem coalition in school terms is perhaps less difficult to envisage than in other areas of policy; whilst spending pledges reveal clear blue water, the shared push towards greater school autonomy, provides workable common ground.
The Academy model will be central to any forthcoming government – the founding principles of which we owe to counterparts across the Atlantic. Over there the war being fought is not between political parties, but between teaching unions and charter schools – or more specifically, charter school sponsors.
Akin to the Academy, the charter school was adopted as a model of school improvement to drive up standards in inner cities by harnessing outside expertise – and cash – and severing central control. Charter schools receive government funding but are privately run. And, to the chagrin of the teaching unions, are made up of a largely unionised workforce.
In the words of todays’ New York Times, charter schools have become an unexpected ‘favourite cause’ of wealthy hedge funders. Under the title ‘Charter Schools’ New Cheerleaders: Financiers’, the paper explores a truly bitter battle being waged in the New York State area between teaching unions resistant to the establishment of more charter schools, and the Wall Street millionaires bank-rolling campaigns to increase the number.
Union resistance to the Charter movement is entrenched. On top of working outside the unions and central control, the schools are branded by many within the etaching community as ‘drains’ on mainstream public schools. Wall Street resolve to push through more charter schools however, is very strong. Supporting charter schools appears, at least in New York State, to be the latest in vogue form of philanthropy. Several charities have been established, including the nicely named Robin Hood Foundation, to lobby legislators into allowing the number of charter schools in the area to grow. The main strategy is funding awareness raising campaigns about the potential of charter schools, with the aim of nudging the electorate to lobby their representatives.
Criticism of charter schools tends to question their fundamental basis for acclaim: much higher performance. Sceptics argue that the ‘stellar’ exam results achieved by charter schools, although established to serve deprived areas, are down to weeding out the weakest students. Nevertheless, although there is some basis, for this argument, there are also many counter examples. Therefore if, as a compelling amount of evidence suggests, charter schools are having a positive effect on the learning and lives of the US’s most deprived, then this is an astute way for Wall Street to ingratiate itself with a hostile public. Investment in turning around the life chances of the least well off, could well counter bitterness towards their previous investments.
Interestingly, resistance towards the UK’s version of independent state schools has been comparatively low-key in the UK. Our equivalent (albeit in many respects a watered-down equivalent) Academies have met with resistance from individual communities, and nationwide networks via groups such as the Anti-Academy Alliance. However, generally there is a much greater political consensus about the Academy movement. All three political parties have embraced Academies, with any reservations about the current model on the part of the Conservatives and Lib Dems, centring on details. Unlike Wall Street however, the City has yet to follow suit by pouring ‘penance’ into Academy subsidies.