Suchergebnisse

"How 'innovative' finance schemes skim public wealth while hijacking public governance. Charter school expansion. Vouchers. Scholarship tax credit programs. The Swindle of Innovative Educational Finance offers a new social theory to explain why these and other privatization policies and programs win support despite being unsupported by empirical evidence."--

1. Smart drugs : corporate profit and corporeal control -- 2. The austerity school : grit, character, and the privatization of public education -- 3. Biometric analytic pedagogy : control of students and teachers and the assault on thinking -- 4. Corporate educational reform and the making of the new forced consumption : educational technology and the destruction of teachers as public intellectuals -- 5. Learning to be a psychopath : the pedagogy of the corporation.

Addresses how disaster is being used for a radical social and economic reengineering of education. From the natural disasters of the Asian tsunami and the hurricanes in the Gulf Coast, to the human-made disasters in Iraq, Afghanistan, Haiti, Sudan, Indonesia, the United States and around the globe, disaster is increasingly shaping policy and politics. Exploring how education policy is being reshaped by disaster politics, scholars in education and sociology tackle issues as far-ranging as No Child Left Behind, the War on Terror, Hurricane Katrina, the making of educational funding crises in the US, and the Iraq War to bring to light a disturbing new phenomenon in educational policy. From publisher description.

This article considers proponents' arguments for Pay for Success also known as Social Impact Bonds. Pay for Success allows banks to finance public services with potential profits tied to metrics. Pay for Success has received federal support through the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2016 and is predicted by 2020 to expand in the US to a trillion dollars. As school districts, cities, and states face debt and budget crises, Pay for Success has been advocated by philanthropists, corporate consulting firms, politicians, and investment banks on the grounds of improving accountability, cost savings, risk transfer, and market discipline. With its trailblazing history in neoliberal education, Chicago did an early experiment in Pay for Success. This article provides a conceptual analysis of the key underlying assumptions and ideologies of Pay for Success. It examines the claims of proponents and critics and sheds light on the financial and ideological motivations animating Pay for Success. The article contends that Pay for Success primarily financially benefits banks without providing the benefits that proponents promise. It concludes by considering Pay for Success in relation to broader structural economic considerations and the recent uses of public schooling to produce short-term profit for capitalists. ; En este artículo se consideran los argumentos de los proponentes de Pay for Success, también conocidos como Social Impact Bonds. Pay for Success permite a los bancos financiar servicios públicos con beneficios potenciales vinculados a métricas. Pagar por el Éxito ha recibido apoyo federal a través de la Ley de Todos los Sucesos Sucesivos de 2016 y está previsto para 2020 para expandirse en los EE.UU. a un billón de dólares. A medida que los distritos escolares, las ciudades y los estados se enfrentan a crisis de deuda y presupuesto, Pay for Success ha sido defendido por filántropos, empresas de consultoría corporativa, políticos y bancos de inversión con el fin de mejorar la rendición de cuentas, ahorro de costos, transferencia de riesgos y disciplina de mercado. Con su historia pionera en la educación neoliberal, Chicago hizo un experimento temprano en Pay for Success. Este artículo provee un análisis conceptual de las suposiciones e ideologías fundamentales de Pay for Success. Examina las afirmaciones de los defensores y críticos y arroja luz sobre las motivaciones financieras e ideológicas que animan a Pay for Success. El artículo sostiene que pagar por el éxito beneficia principalmente a los bancos sin proporcionar los beneficios que los proponentes prometen. Concluye considerando el Pay For Success en relación con consideraciones económicas estructurales más amplias y los usos recientes de la educación pública para producir ganancias a corto plazo para los capitalistas. ; Este artigo considera os argumentos dos proponentes para Pay for Success, também conhecidos como "Social Impact Bonds". Pay for Success permite aos bancos financiar serviços públicos com lucros potenciais ligados a métricas. Pagar pelo sucesso recebeu apoio federal através da Lei de Sucesso de Todos os Estudantes de 2016 e está prevista para 2020 para expandir nos EUA para um trilhão de dólares. À medida que os distritos escolares, as cidades e os estados enfrentam crises de dívida e orçamento, Pay for Success foi defendido por filantropos, empresas de consultoria corporativa, políticos e bancos de investimento com base em melhorar a prestação de contas, redução de custos, transferência de riscos e disciplina de mercado. Com sua história pioneira na educação neoliberal, Chicago fez uma experiência inicial em Pay for Success. Este artigo fornece uma análise conceitual dos principais pressupostos subjacentes e ideologias do Pay for Success. Ele examina as reivindicações de defensores e críticos e ilumina as motivações financeiras e ideológicas que animam Pay for Success. O artigo afirma que o Pay for Success beneficia principalmente os bancos sem beneficiar dos benefícios que os proponentes prometem. Conclui considerando Pay for Success em relação a considerações econômicas estruturais mais amplas e os recentes usos da educação pública para produzir lucro a curto prazo para os capitalistas.

This article discusses how neoliberal and neoconservative ideologies, policies, and political projects inform the changing nature of educational privatization efforts by the right wing. It contends that these projects, which are global in nature, threaten the development of forms of education conducive to the expansion of democratic social relations. The author argues that the struggle for critical public education could not be more necessary and worthwhile at the present moment.