http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/books_riskybizintro/
Metrics of performance ("output") are intrinsic to privatization, since the case for an education market rests in part on the ability to measure output and pay for it, bit by bit. The logic of performance measurement obviates the need for close public regulation, where "close" entails actual public production -- hiring teachers and running schools in this case. (Also discussed in the book by yrs truly) If you can measure you can contract out and economize on administrative costs. In principle it's logical, IF you can measure.
An alternative in the same vein, not pursued for reasons obvious to this list, would be teachers running schools and compensated by authorities, like labor-managed firms. Absent firm workers control, the pretense of measurement opens the door to profit-based incentive systems: private management.
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 11:45 AM, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
>
> On Apr 14, 2010, at 11:36 AM, Miles Jackson wrote:
>
>> I'm not getting this argument. How is the assessment of student learning
>> related in any way to the privatization of education? Assessment doesn't
>> require us to bust unions; in fact, if it is driven by unionized teachers,
>> then it gives teachers more authority and oversight of the curriculum.
>> There must be some implicit links here that I'm not following.
>
> Have you followed this NCLB and Race to the Top stuff? The whole point of
> that sort of testing is to fire teachers, bust unions, and close and/or
> privatize public schools. Did you notice that our president has joined in
> the war on teachers' unions?
>
> Doug
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>