Why the United States Is Destroying Its Education System

Below we reproduce the first paragraph of this insightful article published in Truthdig.com by Chris Hedges. It has plenty of arguments that directly go to the heart of the motivations behind the Reinvention. Please click on the title which is linked to the source, to read the whole piece.

PEARL

Why the United States Is Destroying Its Education System

Source: Truthdig

Posted on Apr 10, 2011

By Chris Hedges

A nation that destroys its systems of education, degrades its public information, guts its public libraries and turns its airwaves into vehicles for cheap, mindless amusement becomes deaf, dumb and blind. It prizes test scores above critical thinking and literacy. It celebrates rote vocational training and the singular, amoral skill of making money. It churns out stunted human products, lacking the capacity and vocabulary to challenge the assumptions and structures of the corporate state. It funnels them into a caste system of drones and systems managers. It transforms a democratic state into a feudal system of corporate masters and serfs.

Student Protest at District Office

Student Protest at District Office

THIS FRIDAY!!!
APRIL 15, 2011
STUDENT PROTEST AT DISTRICT
226 W. JACKSON STREET
1:30 - 3:00 PM

Watch this video - be inspired!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3bBvpVvgxY

Let's support our students! Let's support our community!  Let's support our colleges!  Our voices must be heard!  

Thanks to Save  the City Colleges for the info

Accenture and the CCC Exchange Pointers in Cronyism

On Monday, April 4, 2011, the CCC Press informed us that “City Colleges of Chicago Teams with Accenture to Provide Students with the Skills They Need to Get a Job.” The press release, communicated through PR Newswire  (http://www.14wfie.com/story/14369250/update-city-colleges-of-chicago-teams-with-accenture-to-provide-students-with-the-skills-they-need-to-get-a-job), excitedly shared in stereotypical style, among several fantastic developments, the following:

The City Colleges of Chicago (CCC), the largest community college system in the state of Illinois and one of the largest in the nation has teamed with Accenture to offer a "Job Readiness Mentoring Program" designed to provide students with the skills they need to successfully enter the workforce.

"This program is an excellent experience for students," said Cheryl L. Hyman, Chancellor, City Colleges of Chicago.  "Our students are exposed to top professionals in corporate settings and are learning about the high expectations the business world has set for them."

and

The effort is part of Accenture's Skills to Succeed initiative, which plans to equip 250,000 people around the world by 2015 with the skills to get a job or build a business.

(Sound of jaw dropping.)

This is shameless. There seems to be no end to the web of cronyism that the CCC administration and Accenture have become entangled in. The CCC Reinvention site proudly proclaims how Accenture, a civically-minded partner, offers pro bono “services” for the crusade. Then a former Accenture Manager, Donald Laackman, becomes the new president of Harold Washington College. And now, Accenture gets the rights (and the contract not mentioned in the press release) to supposedly train our students in job skills. Not for a single moment believe that there is no quid pro quo here. As the press release states, this is part of Accenture’s worldwide Skills to Succeed initiative.

Accenture has a long, devious history, as we will see below. In fact, it is so controversial and rapacious that one has to wonder why would any honest person in government would be interested in doing business with them.

The following information about Accenture is a bit dated, from the early 2000s, but the sickening reach of Accenture’s shenanigans is carefully documented by the folks from British Columbia Citizens for Public Power. Below we reproduce extended excerpts from a fact sheet they put together. It can be found at http://www.citizensforpublicpower.ca/files/uploads/accenture.pdf. We are sure that since then Accenture has moved on to greater and more grotesque endeveaors.

PEARL

Who is Accenture?

Accenture is a multinational consulting company with its headquarters in Bermuda [since then it moved to Ireland], a popular tax haven for corporations. Accenture operates regional offices throughout the world and has embarked on an aggressive campaign to win government contracts for computer systems and customer services. Recently, they have also expanded into public utilities throughout North America.

Before 2000, Accenture was known as Andersen Consulting, the consulting arm of Arthur Andersen, the accounting firm implicated in the Enron scandal. In 2000, Andersen Consulting (then a Chicago-based partnership) undertook the largest re-branding initiative in corporate history. It renamed the company Accenture, went public as a corporation, and relocated their head office to Bermuda [then in 2009 to Ireland].  (Source: “Accenture and Monday employ three tax havens.” Glen Simpson, Wall Street Journal, July 3, 2002.)

Why would Accenture locate its head offices in Bermuda? It’s not for the weather. According to documents filed by Accenture in July 2001 to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), taxes and legal advantages seem to be the priorities. According to Accenture’s own SEC documents:

“We are not subject to tax in Bermuda on our income or capital gains.”

“It may not be possible to enforce court judgements obtained in the United States against us in Bermuda or in other countries other than the United States where we have assets.”

“Shareholders of Bermuda companies do not generally have rights to take action against directors or officers of the company.” (Source: “Accenture: My holiday home in Bermuda.” Philippe Rose, Le Monde Informatique. ITworld.com. November 23, 2001 and Accenture SEC filings: http://biz.yahoo.com/e/l/a/can.html)

Accenture has a history of controversial deals.

Florida

Members of Florida’s Joint Legislative Auditing Committee have blasted a nine-year, $69 million deal to hire Accenture to provide a call centre and online licensing system for the Department of Business and Professional Regulation. State Auditor General Bill Monroe says that the deal will wind up costing the state $30 million more than the current system – an allegation Accenture denies, claiming that the state will save more $93 million. Republican Senators criticized the deal as “sloppy” and “pretty poor business practices.”  (Source: “Agency defends Accenture contract.” Nancy Cook Lauer, Tallahassee Democrat, January 29, 2002.)

Ontario

While Accenture considers the privatization of the Ontario welfare system a success, many critics, including the province’s Auditor General disagreed. At one point Accenture billed taxpayers $26,000 in unreceipted expenses and Accenture management was paid up to $575 an hour. In 2001, the Provincial Auditor reported that the cost ratio of having Accenture perform the work rather than public servants was 6 to 1 and that in 2000, while the Province saved $89 million (primarily from cutting welfare payments), they paid Accenture $193 million. (Sources: www.polarisinstitute.org, “Workfare Fiasco”, Toronto Star, September 28th, 1999; “Opposition accuses consulting firm of hosing taxpayers”, Wendy McCann, Canadian Press Newswire, December 9th, 1999; “Some Consulting Service Fees Higher, Ministry Confirms”, Theresa Boyle, Toronto Star, December 10th, 1999; “Welfare Critics Rip Expansion of Computer System”, Peter Van Harten, Hamilton Spectator, September 5th, 2001; “Welfare contract called $194 million boondoggle; Ont Says money being saved” Colin Perkel, Canadian Press Newswire, October 11, 2001; “MPPs slam provincial welfare deal”, Caroline Mallan, Toronto Star, October 12th, 2001; “Accent on Savings”, Ottawa Citizen Editorial, October 22, 2001; “Consultants Cost Province millions”, Richard Brennan and Katherine Harding, Toronto Star, December 1, 2001)

At one point, Accenture fitted social service workers with electronic tracking devices to record their every movement. Eventually, these were shelved under a storm of controversy. (Sources: www.polarisinstitute.org, “Big Brother is watching Ontario’s bureaucrats: Workers fitted with tracking devices”, Tom Blackwell, Montreal Gazette, March 30, 2000; “Mike Harris, not social workers, should be fitted with an electronic tracking device, opposition says”, Canadian Press Newswire, March 30, 2000)

Ohio

Up until 1998, the former welfare director of Ohio, Arnold Tompkins, awarded nearly $26 million in unbid contracts to Accenture/Andersen Consulting. After leaving public office, Tompkins was given a $10,000 a month job from Accenture. The contracts themselves were fraught with problems and eventually led to the reinstatement of original computer systems after too many complaints from workers and clients. The state was billed up to $450/hour per manager and one consultant was paid $123,000 for working 492 hours in a month (or 16 hours per day for 31 days.) (Sources: www.polarisinstitute.org, “State Agency’s Former Leader Accused of Wrongdoing” Columbus Dispatch, June 30, 2001; “State Probes $26 million no-bid deal”, Cleveland Plain Dealer, January 26, 2001; Ohio Works Problems Lead to Reinstatement of old job-matching, Dayton Daily News, March 12, 2001; “Tompkins’ Sweet Deal”, Cleveland Plain Dealer, November 13th, 2001; “Ex-Official Sentenced to Fix Computers”, Tim Doulin, The Columbus Dispatch, November 3rd, 2001; “Ex-State Official to be Sentenced November 2, Catherine Candisky, September 15th, 2001”; “Job & Family Services runs into still more computer problems”, Ted Wendling, Cleveland Plain Dealer, February 5th, 2002)

New York

A system to enable private and public agencies to track child abuse reports has been filled with problems. It is incomplete, was nearly 3 years overdue, and cost $362 million up to early 1999—3 times the original price tag. For example, Accenture/Andersen Consulting projected 5,448 billable days of working on the project, and it has grown to over 28,000, all at the expense of taxpayers. (Sources: www.polarisinstitute.org, “Foster Care Agencies Fault Statewide Computer System”, Somini Sengupta, New York Times, May 13, 2000;”“Computer Costs Soar, Study Says”, The Times Union (Albany, NY), March 11, 2001; “Experts offer a $54 million solution”, James M. Odato, March 17, 2001)

Texas

Accenture/Andersen Consulting billed the state $75 million, $63 million more than the original estimate to develop a system to track child support in Texas. (Sources: www.polarisinstitute.org, “Consulting Company has a track record of boosting billing,” Wendy McCann, Canadian Press Newswire, November 4, 1998)

Nebraska

Accenture/Andersen Consulting billed Nebraska $24 million over the original estimate to automate social services programs. The state auditor called the project “the most wasteful I have ever heard of. It’s like pouring money down a deep dark hole.” (www.polarisinstitute.org, “Consulting Company has a track record of boosting billing”, Wendy McCann, Canadian Press Newswire, November 4, 1998)

A Living Example that Debunks the Reinvention Misrepresentations

In response to our post on the impending demise of remedial education at the CCC we received a sobering comment from a reader. We have taken the liberty of reposting and highlighting it below because it brilliantly exposes all that is wrong with the premises and objectives of the Reinvention, and because it is truly inspirational in our struggle to defend the original mission of the CCC and all community colleges.

PEARL

Anonymous said:

Anything of value? I am a product of the City Colleges of Chicago. I am a child of immigrant parents and a first generation college graduate. It took me 11 years to earn my bachelors degree. Throughout that time, I lived life. I got married, had a family, worked, and went to school...all in a variety of combinations that life allowed. Particularly instrumental in this success was the fact that the community college afforded me the opportunity to make this happen. Today, I have earned my Masters Degree and then some and am tenured faculty with the system. My children have never been enrolled in daycare and we live a modest lifestyle where education is a priority. Anyone who reports the system being a failure is off their rocker! Not everyone is "college bound" and "traditional" and quite frankly, why would everyone want to be? Just my two cents...

On the demise of remedial education

The CCC administration has pounded long and hard on the issue of remedial education. We have reported on how Chancellor Hyman, not long after taking over the reigns of the CCC, blurted out during August 2010 that the she wanted to severely curtail remedial education— and that the strong rejection of these plans by the faculty, because it would end one century of open enrollment at the CCC, compelled her and her crew to publicly back off, at least for a while.

They came up with a different formulation: that they were going to study the issue, that it was going to be submitted to the famous Task Forces for research and recommendations. On the meantime they have continued their agenda of promoting this remedial education cutback behind the scenes. Furthermore, they had the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune endorsing this cutback.

Unfortunately this has had an effect even on sectors of the faculty who have begun to doubt the historical mission of the CCC and the responsibility that we all have toward all students that are rejected by the rest of higher education because the Chicago Public Schools (CPS) failed them, or because they are immigrants, etc.

Recently, on March 2011, a faculty member circulated a link to a New York Times article about remedial education (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/04/nyregion/04remedial.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&src=ISMR_HP_LO_MST_FB). The faculty member quoted from the article and added some comments:

“The article states, “A recent nationwide study that followed community college freshmen over six years found that only 35 percent earned any sort of degree.” As instructors and advisers, how should we address statistics such as these with our students? How do we encourage students to continue pursuing their goals while still being realistic with them about their chances of success?”

This is very ominous. This sounds like an argument for convincing students that they should give up, but that we should tell it to them softly. This is preposterous.

1. These students have their significant delays in math and reading/writing because the City and CPS failed them. It is the responsibility of the City to make them full. The City must develop a structure to fully support these students, at the City’s cost (currently pre-credit students have to pay for their pre-credit courses because financial aid does not cover it), not only by assuming the total cost of the remedial education, but also by offering additional resources to these students in the form of financial aid, childcare aid, etc. (i.e., social services) that will ease their burden and give them a better chance of overcoming their academic deficiencies. It is at this point that these students will be better equipped and more self-confident to take on a college-level academic load. But the administration agenda is geared to either convincing the students to quit, even before they start, or to discard them early in the process. That is why the Chicago Tribune, the major business paper in town, loves it.
2. Going along with the first and foremost goal of the Reinvention (degrees and programs of “economic value”) any student that after so many years has not concluded a degree, even if they have approved a series of college courses, is a failure and they have gained nothing of value. This is dead wrong, on only acquires meaning (very grotesque) under the business-model criterion of “economic value.” Recently, an officer of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), and an emeritus and still active professor at a Research-1 university, while in town, expounded on this issue. To paraphrase him/her: to look at a student and say that after so many years she/he has not finished a degree and conclude that this student has gained nothing is a one-sided mistake; this student has certainly benefited personally from the number of courses taken and has grown intellectually and socially. We cannot negate this added value to this person’s life; the issue cannot be resolved only in economic terms.

PEARL

Response to a comment on the recent Duncan-CCC growing links post

We have decided to post independently our reply to Fairbanks, Out question regarding this post. Below we reproduce the exchange.

Fairbanks, Out. said...

So...what's wrong with more workers being taught to work jobs that Chicago creates by using it's gravity to pull 'em in? The rest I understand is the set-up for that.

March 31, 2011 8:19 PM 

City Colleges of Chicago Reinvention: The Truth said...

Fairbanks, thanks for your question. There is no problem with job-training, it has been done for decades. The problem is with the actual context.
1. For a long time, industry has trained their workers on the job. And for a long time they have been trying to shift its cost into the government or any other willing partners. That is why they have argued for years for higher education to twist itself and accept these responsibilities at no cost for the corporate world. Hey, the corporations pay little taxes and in many cases like GE or Bank of America, no taxes at all. SO by not owning to their responsibilities to invest in training their workers they want to have their cake and eat too.
2. The transformation of community colleges like the CCC into job-training centers destroys a historical role they have played in helping working class folks to get a meaningful education at a relatively reasonable cost. The new job-training orientation will mean that the scope of their education will become much narrower, and that many won’t be able to have the flexibility (in personal growth and social advancement) that comes with a broader education and a bachelor’s degree. Flexibility that will be needed when the current jobs on offer morph or disappear and you are left with a tunnel-vision type of education. Flexibility in a richer understanding of the world that you need to understand that the limited pay and working conditions you have in your job as a plan for millions of people is fundamentally unfair.
3. Finally, it is particularly disgusting that many people will be pulled like cattle by their noses through the conscious tracking of these folks into job-training programs disguised as higher education. Tracking happens when you are placed into a category by the educational system and then you are told that that is your lot on this earth. It will be more sophisticated in this new world of Reinvention, but it won’t be less outrageous and disgusting than when it was done to African American, Latino, female, and poor, working class white children in the 1960s.

PEARL

Response to a comment on the Duncan Gian