Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by n1 on Sunday June 18 2017, @11:08PM   Printer-friendly
from the telling-half-the-story dept.

Diane Ravitch, a top public education advocate, reports via AlterNet:

This month, the Public Broadcasting System is broadcasting a "documentary" that tells a one-sided story, the story that [Trump's Secretary of Education] Betsy DeVos herself would tell, based on the work of free-market advocate Andrew Coulson. Author of "Market Education", Coulson narrates "School, Inc.", a three-hour program, which airs this month nationwide in three weekly broadcasts on PBS.

Uninformed viewers who see this slickly produced program will learn about the glories of unregulated schooling, for-profit schools, teachers selling their lessons to students on the Internet. They will learn about the "success" of the free market in schooling in Chile, Sweden, and New Orleans. They will hear about the miraculous charter schools across America, and how public school officials selfishly refuse to encourage the transfer of public funds to private institutions. They will see a glowing portrait of South Korea, where students compete to get the highest possible scores on a college entry test that will define the rest of their lives and where families gladly pay for after-school tutoring programs and online lessons to boost test scores. They will hear that the free market is more innovative than public schools.

What they will not see or hear is the other side of the story. They will not hear scholars discuss the high levels of social segregation in Chile, nor will they learn that the students protesting the free-market schools in the streets are not all "Communists", as Coulson suggests. They will not hear from scholars who blame Sweden's choice system for the collapse of its international test scores. They will not see any reference to Finland, which far outperforms any other European nation on international tests yet has neither vouchers nor charter schools. They may not notice the absence of any students in wheelchairs or any other evidence of students with disabilities in the highly regarded KIPP charter schools. They will not learn that the acclaimed American Indian Model Charter Schools in Oakland does not enroll any American Indians, but has a student body that is 60 percent Asian American in a city where that group is 12.8 percent of the student population. Nor will they see any evidence of greater innovation in voucher schools or charter schools than in properly funded public schools.

[...] This program is paid propaganda. It does not search for the truth. It does not present opposing points of view. It is an advertisement for the demolition of public education and for an unregulated free market in education. PBS might have aired a program that debates these issues, but "School Inc." does not.

It is puzzling that PBS would accept millions of dollars for this lavish and one-sided production from a group of foundations with a singular devotion to the privatization of public services. The decision to air this series is even stranger when you stop to consider that these kinds of anti-government political foundations are likely to advocate for the elimination of public funding for PBS. After all, in a free market of television, where there are so many choices available, why should the federal government pay for a television channel?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19 2017, @01:41PM (5 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19 2017, @01:41PM (#527895)

    Businesses don't have the power to privatise anything. They can lobby for it. They can argue for it. They can't enforce it.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19 2017, @09:31PM (4 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19 2017, @09:31PM (#528163)

    Don't know about where you are, but in the USA corporations can buy elections/public servants/legislation.

    Here, "political donations" are simply graft ("Citizens United").
    Here, if a corporation doesn't like a candidate, they can run their own and throw enough money at him to defeat the guy who was thinking about doing the most good for the greatest number of people.

    Here, laws are routinely written by corporations.
    Sometimes the legislators don't even read those before introducing them onto the floor of the cameral.

    Similar deal for "think tanks" and articles in Lamestream Media, serving to sway public opinion to support those corporation-written bills.

    With a blind spot as large as yours, you shouldn't be allowed to drive.

    -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20 2017, @12:47AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20 2017, @12:47AM (#528258)

      Counterexample:

      Clinton outspent the Trumpster roughly 2:1. She barely scraped a plurality, and lost the electoral college by a country mile.

      Now explain to us again about the magic power of money running everything, because my popcorn just finished popping and I want entertainment.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 22 2017, @04:38AM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 22 2017, @04:38AM (#529365)

      Oooh, another more recent case!

      Georgia. Newt Gingrich's old seat. The democrats roll in with Ossoff and a seachest full of cold, hard cash!

      He loses by a wider margin than Clinton did. ... shit. Guess they should have spent more.

      Or is it just that the republicans are somehow getting better value for money? Write your answers on the back of a $100 note and send it to the DNC! (They could use the help.)

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 22 2017, @07:36PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 22 2017, @07:36PM (#529627)

        Karen Handel should be in prison for all the slimy acts she has committed.
        She's been heavily involved in voter suppression via the deceitful cross-state checklist thing. [google.com]
        (That flick is subtitled "Billionaires & Ballot Bandits: How to Steal an Election in 9 Easy Steps".)
        Apparently, folks in Georgia prefer politicians who are crooked.

        -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 23 2017, @05:37AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 23 2017, @05:37AM (#529857)

          Still doesn't mean that corporations can buy outcomes they like.

          Ossoff got plenty of that big money love, and didn't get much electoral love.

          So I guess we're back to: big business can lobby and run PR. So much for the Giant Neoliberal Takeover.