Share

The Duncan Doctrine: The Military-Corporate Legacy of the New Secretary of Education

by: Andy Kroll  |  TomDispatch.com

photo
President-elect Barack Obama with Arne Duncan, the nominee for secretary of education. (Photo: Ralf-finn Hestoft / Pool)

Note that an audio interview with Kroll on Duncan can be found here.

    On December 16th, a friendship forged nearly two decades ago on the hardwood of the basketball court culminated in a press conference at the Dodge Renaissance Academy, an elementary school located on the west side of Chicago. In a glowing introduction to the media, President-elect Barack Obama named Arne Duncan, the chief executive officer of the Chicago Public Schools system (CPS), as his nominee for U.S. Secretary of Education. "When it comes to school reform," the President-elect said, "Arne is the most hands-on of hands-on practitioners. For Arne, school reform isn't just a theory in a book - it's the cause of his life. And the results aren't just about test scores or statistics, but about whether our children are developing the skills they need to compete with any worker in the world for any job."

    Though the announcement came amidst a deluge of other Obama nominations - he had unveiled key members of his energy and environment teams the day before and would add his picks for the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior the next day - Duncan's selection was eagerly anticipated, and garnered mostly favorable reactions in education circles and in the media. He was described as the compromise candidate between powerful teachers' unions and the advocates of charter schools and merit pay. He was also regularly hailed as a "reformer," fearless when it came to challenging the educational status quo and more than willing to shake up hidebound, moribund public school systems.

    Yet a closer investigation of Duncan's record in Chicago casts doubt on that label. As he packs up for Washington, Duncan leaves behind a Windy City legacy that's hardly cause for optimism, emphasizing as it does a business-minded, market-driven model for education. If he is a "reformer," his style of management is distinctly top-down, corporate, and privatizing. It views teachers as expendable, unions as unnecessary, and students as customers.

    Disturbing as well is the prominence of Duncan's belief in offering a key role in public education to the military. Chicago's school system is currently the most militarized in the country, boasting five military academies, nearly three dozen smaller Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps programs within existing high schools, and numerous middle school Junior ROTC programs. More troubling yet, the military academies he's started are nearly all located in low-income, minority neighborhoods. This merging of military training and education naturally raises concerns about whether such academies will be not just education centers, but recruitment centers as well.

    Rather than handing Duncan a free pass on his way into office, as lawmakers did during Duncan's breezy confirmation hearings last week, a closer examination of the Chicago native's record is in order. Only then can we begin to imagine where public education might be heading under Arne Duncan, and whether his vision represents the kind of "change" that will bring our students meaningfully in line with the rest of the world.

    The Militarization of Secondary Education

    Today, the flagship projects in CPS's militarization are its five military academies, affiliated with either the Army, Navy, or Marines. All students - or cadets, as they're known - attending one of these schools are required to enroll as well in the academy's Junior ROTC program. That means cadets must wear full military uniforms to school everyday, and undergo daily uniform inspections. As part of the academy's curriculum, they must also take a daily ROTC course focusing on military history, map reading and navigation, drug prevention, and the branches of the Department of Defense.

    Cadets can practice marching on an academy's drill team, learn the proper way to fire a weapon on the rifle team, and choose to attend extracurricular spring or summer military training sessions. At the Phoenix Military Academy, cadets are even organized into an academy battalion, modeled on an Army infantry division battalion, in which upper-class cadets fill the leading roles of commander, executive officer, and sergeant major.

    In addition, military personnel from the U.S. armed services teach alongside regular teachers in each academy, and also fill administrative roles such as academy "commandants." Three of these military academies were created in part with Department of Defense appropriations - funds secured by Illinois lawmakers - and when the proposed Air Force Academy High School opens this fall, CPS will be the only public school system in the country with Air Force, Army, Navy, and Marine Corps high school academies.

    CPS also boasts almost three dozen smaller Junior ROTC programs within existing high schools that students can opt to join, and over 20 voluntary middle school Junior ROTC programs. All told, between the academies and the voluntary Junior ROTC programs, more than 10,000 students are enrolled in a military education program of some sort in the CPS system. Officials like Duncan and Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley justify the need for the military academies by claiming they do a superlative job teaching students discipline and providing them with character-building opportunities. "These are positive learning environments," Duncan said in 2007. "I love the sense of leadership. I love the sense of discipline."

    Without a doubt, teaching students about discipline and leadership is an important aspect of being an educator. But is the full-scale uniformed culture of the military actually necessary to impart these values? A student who learns to play the cello, who studies how to read music, will learn discipline too, without a military-themed learning environment. In addition, encouraging students to be critical thinkers, to question accepted beliefs and norms, remains key to a teacher's role at any grade level. The military's culture of uniformity and discipline, important as it may be for an army, hardly aligns with these pedagogical values.

    Of no less concern are the types of students Chicago's military academies are trying to attract. All of CPS's military academies (except the Rickover Naval Academy) are located in low-income neighborhoods with primarily black and/or Hispanic residents. As a result, student enrollment in the academies consists almost entirely of minorities. Whites, who already represent a mere 9% of the students in the Chicago system, make up only 4% of the students enrolled in the military academies.

    There is obviously a correlation between these low-income, minority communities, the military academies being established in them, and the long-term recruitment needs of the U.S. military. The schools essentially functional as recruiting tools, despite the expectable military disclaimers. The Chicago Tribune typically reported in 1999 that the creation of the system's first military school in the historically black community of Bronzeville grew, in part, out of "a desire for the military to increase the pool of minority candidates for its academies." And before the House Armed Services Committee in 2000, the armed services chiefs of staff testified that 30%-50% of all Junior ROTC cadets later enlist in the military. Organizations opposing the military's growing presence in public schools insist that it's no mistake the number of military academies in Chicago is on the rise at a time when the U.S. military has had difficulty meeting its recruitment targets while fighting two unpopular wars.

    It seems clear enough that, when it comes to the militarization of the Chicago school system, whatever Duncan's goals, the results are likely to be only partly "educational."

    Merging the Market and the Classroom

    While discussing his nomination, President-elect Obama praised the fact that Duncan isn't "beholden to any one ideology." A closer examination of his career in education, however, suggests otherwise. As Chicago's chief executive officer (not to be confused with CPS's chief education officer), Duncan ran his district in a most businesslike manner. As he put it in a 2003 profile in Catalyst Chicago, an independent magazine that covers education reform, "We're in the business of education." And indeed, managing the country's third-largest school system does require sharp business acumen. But what's evident from Duncan's seven years in charge is his belief that the business of education should, first and foremost, embrace the logic of the free market and privatization.

    Duncan's belief in privatizing public education can be most clearly seen in Chicago's Renaissance 2010 plan, the centerpiece of his time in that city. Designed by corporate consulting firm A.T. Kearney and backed by the Commercial Club of Chicago, an organization representing some of the city's largest businesses, Renaissance 2010 has pushed hard for the closing of underperforming schools - to be replaced by multiple new, smaller, "entrepreneurial" schools. Under the plan, many of the new institutions established have been privatized charter or "contract" schools run by independent nonprofit outfits. They, then, turn out to have the option of contracting school management out to for-profit education management organizations. In addition, Renaissance 2010 charter schools, not being subject to state laws and district initiatives, can - as many have - eliminate the teachers' union altogether.

    Under Duncan's leadership, CPS and Renaissance 2010 schools have adopted a performance-driven style of governance in which well-run schools and their teachers and administrators are rewarded, and low-performing schools are penalized. As Catalyst Chicago reported, "Star schools and principals have been granted more flexibility and autonomy, and often financial freedom and bonus pay." Low-performing schools put on probation, on the other hand, "have little say over how they can spend poverty funding, an area otherwise controlled by elected local school councils [Local school councils] at struggling schools have also lost the right to hire or fire principals - restrictions that have outraged some parent activists."

    Students as well as teachers and principals are experiencing firsthand the impact of Duncan's belief in competition and incentive-based learning. This fall, the Chicago Public Schools rolled out a Green for Grade$ program in which the district will pay freshmen at 20 selected high schools for good grades - $50 in cash for an A, $35 for a B, and even $20 for a C. Though students not surprisingly say they support the program - what student wouldn't want to get paid for grades? - critics contend that cash-for-grades incentives, which stir interest in learning for all the wrong reasons, turn being educated into a job.

    Duncan's rhetoric offers a good sense of what his business-minded approach and support for bringing free-market ideologies into public education means. At a May 2008 symposium hosted by the Renaissance Schools Fund, the nonprofit financial arm of Renaissance 2010, entitled "Free to Choose, Free to Succeed: The New Market of Public Education," Duncan typically compared his job running a school district to that of a stock portfolio manager. As he explained, "I am not a manager of 600 schools. I'm a portfolio manager of 600 schools and I'm trying to improve the portfolio." He would later add, "We're trying to blur the lines between the public and the private."

    A Top-Down Leadership Style

    Barack Obama built his campaign on impressive grassroots support and the democratic nature of his candidacy. Judging by his continued outreach to supporters, he seems intent on leading, at least in part, with the same bottom-up style. Duncan's style couldn't be more different.

    Under Duncan, the critical voices of parents, community leaders, students, and teachers regularly fell on deaf ears. As described by University of Illinois at Chicago professor and education activist Pauline Lipman in the journal Educational Policy in 2007, Renaissance 2010 provoked striking resistance within affected communities and neighborhoods. There were heated community hearings and similarly angry testimony at Board of Education meetings, as well as door-to-door organizing, picketing, and even, at one point, a student walk-out.

    "The opposition," Lipman wrote, "brought together unions, teachers, students, school reformers, community leaders and organizations, parents in African American South and West Side communities, and some Latino community activists and teachers." Yet, as she pointed out recently, mounting neighborhood opposition had little effect. "I'm pretty in tune with the grassroots activism in education in Chicago," she said, "and people are uniformly opposed to these policies, and uniformly feel that they have no voice."

    During Duncan's tenure, decision-making responsibilities that once belonged to elected officials shifted into the hands of unelected individuals handpicked by the city's corporate or political elite. For instance, elected local school councils, made up mostly of parents and community leaders, are to be scaled back or eliminated altogether as part of Renaissance 2010. Now, many new schools can simply opt out of such councils.

    Then there's the Renaissance Schools Fund. It oversees the selection and evaluation of new schools and subsequent investment in them. Made up of unelected business leaders, the CEO of the system, and the Chicago Board of Education president, the Fund takes the money it raises and makes schools compete against each other for limited private funding. It has typically been criticized by community leaders and activists for being an opaque, unaccountable body indifferent to the will of Chicago's citizens.

    Making the Grade?

    Despite his controversial educational policies, Duncan's supporters ultimately contend that, as the CEO of Chicago's schools, he's gotten results where it matters - test scores. An objective, easily quantifiable yet imperfect measure of student learning, test scores have indeed improved in several areas under Duncan (though many attribute this to lowered statewide testing standards and more lenient testing guidelines). Between 2001 and 2008, for instance, the percentage of elementary school students meeting or exceeding standards on the Illinois Standards Achievement Test increased from 39.5% to 65%. The number of CPS students meeting or exceeding the Illinois Learning Standards, another statewide secondary education achievement assessment, also increased from 38% in 2002 to 60% in 2008.

    When measured on a national scale, however, Duncan's record looks a lot less impressive. In comparison to other major urban school districts (including Los Angeles, Boston, New York City, and Washington, D.C.) in the National Assessment of Educational Progress, or "The Nation's Report Card," Chicago fourth and eighth graders ranked, with only one exception, in the bottom half of all districts in math, reading, and science in 2003, 2005 and 2007. In addition, from 2004 to 2008, the Chicago Public Schools district failed to make "adequate yearly progress" as mandated by the Bush administration's No Child Left Behind Act.

    Even if Duncan's policies do continue to boost test scores in coming years, the question must be asked: At whose expense? In a competition-driven educational system, some schools will, of course, succeed, receiving more funding and so hiring the most talented teachers. At the same time, schools that aren't "performing" will be put on probation, stripped of their autonomy, and possibly closed, only to be reopened as privately-run outfits - or even handed over to the military. The highest achieving students (that is, the best test-takers) will have access to the most up-to-date facilities, advanced equipment, and academic support programs; struggling students will likely be left behind, separate and unequal, stuck in decrepit classrooms and underfunded schools.

    Public education is not meant to be a win-lose, us-versus-them system, nor is it meant to be a recruitment system for the military - and yet this, it seems, is at the heart of Duncan's legacy in Chicago, and so a reasonable indication of the kind of "reform" he's likely to bring to the country as education secretary.

    --------

    Andy Kroll is a writer based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and a student at the University of Michigan. His writing has appeared at the Nation Online, Alternet, CNN, CBS News, CampusProgress.org, and Wiretap Magazine, among other publications. He welcomes feedback, and can be reached at his website. To listen to a TomDispatch audio interview with Kroll on the new Secretary of Education, click here.

  

»


Comments

This is a moderated forum.  It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.

this diatribe seems to want

this diatribe seems to want to "go back" to what has obviously not worked instead of trying a new system which has, in fact, shown improvements...the writer often seems to be "begging the question" and also to be casting aspersions for that best of all reasons, "because he can"...there will always be those who resist change, especially those who may not have been doing a creditable job and find themselves on the outside, looking in...their best defense seems to be, "but we've always done it that way"...the writer suggests that the new scores don't rank as high as some other large systems, even though there has been improvement...earlier in the piece, he "mentions" that there is a low percentage of white students in the system, white students who generally test better because the tests are culturally skewed...and now, they are beginning to catch up...how AWFUL, promoting a system which shows a possibility of improving the chances for success among minorities...we can't have that, now can we?

This columnist

This columnist wrote: "Under the plan, many of the new institutions established have been privatized charter or "contract" schools run by independent nonprofit outfits. They, then, turn out to have the option of contracting school management out to for-profit education management organizations. In addition, Renaissance 2010 charter schools, not being subject to state laws and district initiatives, can - as many have - eliminate the teachers' union altogether." Does this say the the non-profits turned around and subcontracted the entire school operation to for-profit entities, or is it just a case of subcontracting the cafeteria or milk delivery services? I don't know the answer, that's why I'm posing the question. Are all the teaching positions in the system unionized or open for unionization, i.e. can labor organization be conducted at the charter schools? Do the cadets/students study anything else, such as science, math, history, and literature, and how well do they deal with these subjects. What percentage of the students in the charter and military schools go on to college. Which institutes of higher learning do those college bound students gain access to? Are there craft or trade courses offered to prepare students for professions as opposed to continuing education? Is it possible, for example, that Chicago students' education in the academies and charter schools might prepare them to be key workers in the evolution of wind energy generation in this country as technicians, factory workers, or construction workers in the related industries? None of these matters are clarified in this essay. Displeasure with the military and charter schools is indicated but then performance statistics representing the entire school system are cited. I find this whole treatment of the school system very subjective.

I think this critique is

I think this critique is excellent. Military discipline, teaching to the ISAT, these methods of industrial education and quality control are plainly inimical to the pursuit of wisdom and do not help much either in the other educational imperative, the acquisition of useful techniques. I hope that the actual tenure of A Duncan does not prove to be an extension of the dismal and inept Bush effort to institutionalize, Nationwide, these foul practices.

The previous comment shows a

The previous comment shows a impressive will to misunderstand Kroll's argument. Critiquing a particular brand of "reform" is not equivalent to defending the status quo; nowhere does Kroll indicate a desire to "go back" to "the way we've always done things." It's a shame that such a large swath of the public has swallowed the claim that rising test scores indicate real educational improvement. When state testing standards and guidelines change from year to year, changes in student scores are worse than meaningless -- they're a deceptive stand-in for real reform. Consistent, well-established assessments like the NAEP (which Kroll mentions), or international measures like the TIMMS, though also biased, are much better measures of students' acquired skills and knowledge -- and by those measures, Chicago's schools have little to brag about. I'm surprised the heavy military investment in Chicago's schools, and Duncan's role in that, haven't garnered more attention from the media. As Kroll notes, a military education may be valuable in terms of instilling discipline, but it is diametrically opposed to the kind of of critical, questioning citizenship that many educators and parents think schools should provide (and that schools for wealthier kids often DO provide). The recruiting function of these military schools, which overwhelmingly target low-income kids of color, could hardly be more obvious. Apparently CPS thinks that a military career is the highest thing these kids can aspire too. Where are the science and arts magnet schools for these kids?

I think you've missed the

I think you've missed the point--it's like the No Child Left Behind program, which was based on TX's educational "achievements" which were subsequently shown to be nothing more than warped statistics. This article repeats what I've seen in other places: there is little indication that this guy has really improved Chicago's educational system or that it represents meaningful "change." And no, I'm not impressed by militarization of schools. Perhaps you don't remember the huge cheating scandal at West Point? Happened in the mid-late '70's. Just because you have rigid rules & strictly enforce them doesn't mean people won't cheat or behave in other sleazy ways--and those attending West Point have to compete & get a Congressional referral (pretty much) to be admitted. Yet, when I visited, what pretty much amounted to hazing of first years was promoted, many of the women who've been admitted have been treated badly and so on. Head Start is one of the pre school programs that has been proven, by most standards, to be very successful. It achieves its goals. Bush tried to ruin that program--make it a failure--by saying kids in those programs had to learn to write, etc. A friend who worked at Head Start said that was a recipe for failure, she said kids came into the Head Start program without knowing that red meant the color red, they couldn't color with crayons because they didn't know what crayons were. Yet she said it was a hugely successful program in her opinion & that the kids who were in the program learned a great deal & what numbers I've seen suggest that kids who go through Head Start do better in school. So why not put more money into the pre-Bush Head start? In any event, didn't the Bush administration and the current collapse of the US financial system because of the greed & stupidity of so many, finally prove to most people that being "businesslike" isn't always best? The goal of education is to educate people in certain skills. it is not to make a profit. The sole goal of a corporation, the only reason for this imaginary thing to exist, is to make a profit. Therefore, the two things or processes do not have the same goals.

We would deride any other

We would deride any other country such China doing this and call it what it is - military indoctrination and brain washing. It is for good reason that the elite want a cadre of young boys and girls to blindly follow their leaders into any war. It is not citizen soldiers that are being created but obedient canon fodder for future imperialist wars and occupations. This practice goes against the principles of a democracy where leaders are challenged and not blindly obeyed when they lead the country into war and cause the needless deaths or other people's sons and daughters. It is a very small step from policies such as this promulgated by the neocons and outright fascism.

RE: this diatribe seems to

RE: this diatribe seems to want The author is in no way condemning the concept of trying something new for our public schools. He is instead railing against the model(s) used by Duncan because it lays the foundations for creating, as he says, "separate and unequal" facilities. He doesn't point out the low number of whites in the system because he's afraid of minorities improving. You've missed the point completely. He's using this statistic to point out how the military is targeting low-income, minority neighborhoods. And while I agree that he could have provided more statistics on test scores, he does refute Duncan's record by mentioning "lowered statewide testing standards and more lenient testing guidelines". So who's to say if the man has actually improved the situation at all?

What is most important to

What is most important to the education of a citizen in a democratic society is the skill of critical thinking, an intellectual tool whose lack of implementation is most conspicuous in the US educational system (as opposed to, for instance, most other developed and even undeveloped countries, just talk to them and you'll see) and the deficit will only be compounded by an unquestioning, military-heirarchical, bias (Yessir, whatever you say, sir!). It should be no surprise that conservatives, desiring a compliant, obedient populace, have done away with music and art programs and instituted ROTC; they, occupying an intellectually indefensible position, find it distressing to be challenged in their nudity. The hopes of the idealistic, younger generation, the engine of change that propelled Obama to the highest office in the land are in danger of being betrayed by his apparent shift to the right but one must remember that from the beginning he was the most conservative of the democratic contenders. Being older I'm habituated to betrayal by politicians and predicted that this would happen, authentic progressive politics would have nominated Nader, Edwards, Kucinich. Obama hasn't taken office yet and I'll reserve judgement, but he was vetted and okayed by the powers that be (otherwise would not have stood a chance) and has selected cabinet appointees that are (with a few but refreshing exceptions) alarmingly connected to "Business-with-a-capital-B" as usual" . Progressive change will happen only if we, the electorate, hold Obama's feet to the fire and demand REAL change NOW! I hope that interest in and the desire for change in the workings of the US democracy hasn't ended with the recent election cycle; in that aspiration lies the hope for a rejuvination of US democracy.

I was wondering how Obama

I was wondering how Obama was going to get the soldiers he'll need for his imperial wars! Maybe we won't need to revise the draft after all ...

As an inner-city NYC middle

As an inner-city NYC middle school teacher, I see first hand what standardized testing means - it generates artificial numbers representing "success". NCLB was designed by politicians to measure a body of knowledge some subcontracted testing company feels is "basic" or "important". But not only are the tests flawed and arbitrary, the testing materials are replete with mistakes that make teachers howl with laughter. The scoring of these national tests has also been plagued with problems such as botched or late results, and sweetheart deals given rampantly to "educational" businesses during the Bush tenure. Much has been written about this. When I send my kids to school, I expect an educational experience that can go in many directions, making learning interesting and worthwhile for the child. Teaching-to-the-test has shown to have reduced all other activities by about 17%, to concentrate on more math and more literacy, meaning kids get less science, history, gym, art, music, health, etc. Arne Duncan's record seems like just what a politician would want - doubling test scores looks great on paper. If Duncan's own kids aren't in those schools, it's because everything taught in the best Masters in Education programs shows that standardized testing is a sham. Just ask the students, parents, teachers and administrators who despise it - NCLB was invented by Bush to stack the deck and make himself look great on paper and he even failed at that.