A HUMANIST LOOK AT EDUCATION

The Corporate Takeoverof American Schools

by DERON ROBERT BOYLES

Wr hat is the purpose of education? Over the years,educational policymakers have utilized a languageof economics, masked under the rubric of culture,

to promote the idea that schools should preparetheir students to compete m the world marketplace. While thistopic has been explored in the past, there is renewed interesttn the role of business in education, particularly in light of"choice" plans and federal policies affecting national standardsand testing. Supported by research on "corporate cultured-such as Terrence Deal and A. A. Kennedy's Corporate Culture:TTie Rites and Rituals 0/ Corporate Life and T J, Peters andR. H. Waterman's In Search 0/Excellence—educational policymakers point to empirical studies showing increased efficiencyand effectiveness within business settings. Thus, managementschemes which reflect business attitudes toward success and

accountability have become the focus of educational reform.

Defining "Corporate Culture"Management theorists, like W G. Dyer, Jr., in Culture in Or'ganization: A Case Study, argue that corporate culture consistsof a pattern of behaviors, beliefs, rituals, symbols, and mythswhich help to stimulate members of an organization towardsuccess. Success, in turn, is defined by those individuals whoshape the culture of the organization. Deal and Kennedy con'tend that companies which generate their identities by "shapingvalues, making heroes, spelling out rites and rituals, and ac-knowledging the cultural network have an edge." Part of thisedge, they contend, is in having heroes whom workers canimitate.

20 THE Hu^4ANlsT

A HUMANIST LOOK AT EDUCATION

To understand "corporate culture" ideology, one must firstunderstand its functionalist and behaviorist foundations. Thesefoundations best serve business interests in two major ways:by satisfying their proclivity for control, and by allowing forgeneralized standards of accountability.

Behaviorists consider the human being as an entity to beexternally molded. If the person controlling a given human beingwishes to stimulate a desired response, tactics like reinforce-ment, modeling, and conditioning are appropriate. In GdiningControl of the Corporate Culture, Ralph Kilmann, Mary Saxton,and Roy Serpa exemplify the behaviorist position in corpora-tions when they distinguish between the positive and negativeimpacts a culture has on an organization:

A culture has positive impact on an organization whenit points behavior in the right direction, is widely sharedamong the members of work groups, and puts strongpressure on group members to follow the establishedcultural guidelines. Alternatively, a culture has negativeimpact on an organization when it points behavior in thewrong direction, is widely shared among group members,and exerts strong pressure on group members.

The only (rather obvious) difference between what is con-sidered positive and negative in this case relates directly towhether employee behavior is being pointed in the "right" or"wrong" direction.

What are the implications of this seeming truism? Ad-vocates of "corporate culture" readily point to the leadershiprole of managers (by the very definition of their title, controllingand manipulative), who are seen as setting the tone and serv-ing as models for their subordinates. Deal and Kennedy concedethis point and argue that the practice of cultural managementby "symbolic managers" is becoming not just an addedmanagement technique but the only effective solution • =to loss of control within an organization.

2. Use scientific methods to deterTnine the most efficient wayof doing wor\: design the workers' task accordingly,specifying the precise way in which the work is to bedone,

3. Select the best person to perform the job thus designed.4. Train the worker to do the work efficiently.5. Monitor worker performance to ensure that appropri-

ate work procedures are followed and that appropriateresults are achieved.

Accountability and standards thus become the focus of a well-run organization. Businesses which incorporate the appropri-ate symbols, myths, and beliefs with Taylor's characteristicsof production and accountability have become the apex of suc-cess for "corporate culture" advocates.

Consider fast-food chains. The respective symbols—a smil-ing clown or a fatherly pitchman-are coupled with the beliefthat a delicious meal can be purchased for a nominal fee andreceived in a very short amount of time. Workers are expectedto follow the designated speech for each customer ("Wouldyou like fries with that?") and must project the appropriatehappy demeanor. Managers direct workers to complete theirtasks in the most efficient manner possible, noting duties andprocedures specific to the "drive-thru," "register," and "grill."

These days, schools are at risk of becoming similar insti-tutions. Like corporate managers, educational administratorsdirect their teachers to perform special "tasks." In addition totheir classroom duties, teachers patrol the cafeteria and hallsand monitor the bathrooms. Scripted speech may not be asnoticeable as in a fast'food establishment, but careful reviewmay yield phrases which intimate the impact of behavioristspeech patterns or Madeline Hunter vocabulary ("My, isn'tSusy sitting nicely today?"). State-mandated objectives serve

Standardization and AccountabilityFor managers to point behavior in the "right" direction,schemes of standardization are formulated for the pur'pose of accountability; these schemes have as theirorigin the "scientific management" concepts of Fred'erick Taylor. Taylor advocated the use of time-and-motion study as a means of analyzing and standard- • =lzing work activities. In his Principles of ScientificManagement, he called for detailed observation and measure-ment to find the optimum mode of performance. GarethMorgan's /mages o/Organization outlines five principles Tayloradvocated as follows:

1, Slii^ all responsibility for the organization of wor}{ fromthe worker to the manager: managers should do all thethinking relating to the planning and design of work,leaving the workers with the task of implementation.

The "corporate culture" mentality has becomeincreasingly dominant among educationalpolicymakers, with schools as businesses,

administrators as managers, teachers as workers,and students relegated to the role of product.

as the menu teachers serve their students, with one major dif'ference: students have little or no choice in selecting what theywant, nor, it is argued, do teachers have any major input.

As Stanely Aronowitz and Henry Giroux illustrate inEducation Under Siege: The Conservative, Liberal, and RadicalDebate Over Schooling, the "corporate culture" mentality hasbecome increasingly dominant among educational policymakers,putting students at risk by forcing them to respond in set waysto predetermined situations. Recent calls for accountability.

MAY/JUNE 1995 21

A HUMANIST LOOK AT EDUCATION

standardized testing, and homogeni2;ed curricula all point tobusiness schemes and "corporate culture'' production. Thetransfer is easy: schools assume the role of businesses; admin-istrators assume the role of managers; teachers assume the roleof workers; students are relegated to the role of product; andall are encouraged to consider the climate "positive" becausethere are predetermined symbols, behaviors, beliefs, and ritualsto support the claims and help people "feel" a part of the team.

Ironically, "corporate culture" advocatesoverlook the possibility that in their system, which

depends on inculcating the proper "myths"the overriding myth might actually be the

validity oi "corporate culture" itself.

approved and corporate'supported beliefs regarding "hardwork" and "obedience to authority'' could be induced fromkindergarten through high school. The result is hegemony; theschool itself becomes a factory poised to produce workers forgrowing companies and competitive enterprises. The ritualsof tracking and stratification become paths which separatefuture managers from future workers, as determined by the per'formance of "appropriate" or "inappropriate" behaviors. It

seems ironic, then, that "corporate culture" advocates= • readily overlook the possibility that in their system,

which so much depends on the inculcation of the proper"myths," the overriding myth might actually be thevalidity of "corporate culture" itself.

Referring again to Gareth Morgan's outline of the five prin-ciples of "scientific management" as advocated by FrederickTaylor, we can draw the following parallels:

BUSINESS SCHOOLS

Shift all responsibility fororganization of work fromthe worker to the manager.

Use scientific methods todetermine the most efficientway of doing work.

Select the best person toperform the job thusdesigned.

Train the worker to do thework efficiently.

Monitor worker performanceto ensure that appropriateprocedures are followed andthat appropriate results areachieved.

Base the teacher's role onprescribed agenda set by-supervisor, principals, andsuperintendents.

Develop more standardizedtests for easier evaluation.Teachers follow MadelineHunter techniques forefficiency.

Expand tracking to furtherstratify students. Teachersshould be tested to ensurethey qualify to be aneducator by taking the NTE.

Provide teachers with in-service training on "effectiveteaching" methodologies andon staff development.

Evaluate teachers on studentperformance, on outcomes ofthe SAT, and on classroomobservations.

What easier way is there to ensure the success of majorcorporations in the United States? Indeed, the business-

The Language of EconomicsAs Culture

Ifthe "corporate culture" position is accepted, including= • its behaviorist and functionalist foundations, schools

should act as institutions in which culture is determinedby the aforementioned educational managers in order to supportthe national economy. Schools should meet the criteria set bythose who favor the business perspective, which supports lden-tifying certain "skills" that will make high school and collegegraduates more "marketable" and businesses more profitable.

In its widely discussed report, A ?{ation at Risi{: The Ini'perative for Educational Reform, the National Commission onExcellence in Education proclaimed that educational successis needed to preserve "the slim competitive edge we still retainin world markets." The Task Force on Education for EconomicGrowth agreed; it claimed that schools are not doing "anadequate job of education for today's requirements in theworkplace." Indeed, this line of reasoning employs a distinctvocabulary normally seen in the annual market reports of majorbusinesses.

This language of economics is utilized to advance the ideathat schools should serve to supply businesses with qualifiedworkers. At the same time, a vocabulary of culture is used tomask the promotion of economics. Included in this vocabularyare such words and phrases as choice, free markets, core cur-ricula, accountability, cultural literacy and competency testing.

Such concepts reflect the views of those who believe that thesuccess of American culture is based mainly on the UnitedStates' economic success in the world marketplace.

In their influential Broo}{ings Review article, "America'sPublic Schools: Choice Is a Panacea," John E. Chubb and TerryMoe demonstrate this confusion of culture with economicswhen they discuss "choice" and "competition" in the public-school arena. Simplistically equating democracy with capitalism,Chubb and Moe make their appeal to populist zeal about thenecessity for "choice," then shift quickly to capitalist material-ism. Any discussion of the culture{s) of school becomesminimized to touting test scores and "organizational effective-ness" in order to lure more and more potential consumers.

22 THE HUMANIST

A HUMANIST LOOK AT EDUCATION

In their book Cultural Comervatism: Toward a T^ew 7s[atioTi-al Agenda, William Lind and William Marshner support theidea of a core curriculum because it allows schools to "reinforceand inculcate [cultural] virtues such as punctuality, impulsecontrol, respect for legitimate authority, and sound work hab-its." The idea of cultural literacy is promoted by E. D. Hirsch,who seeks a more efficient method of communication betweenbusiness executives. Culturally literate individuals would, aC'cording to Hirsch, have common backgrounds from which toconvey ideas and thoughts in economical, effective ways. Alongwith "basic skills" and "cultural literacy," competencies areadvocated by those who claim they have the knowledge andability to prescribe what is needed by subordinates in corpora-tions and students in schools. Businesses support this ortho-doxy because it maintains the authority of corporate leadersto dictate standards which mainly benefit their situations.

The California Business Roundtable, for example, joinedothers to lobby lawmakers in their state, resulting in a majoreducation bill, SB-813, calling for reform. Their generalizedrecommendations are representative of the corporate theoryof education. The roundtable of chief executive officers calledfor, among other things, the adoption of the following aims:"establishing accountability based on performance and choice,upgrading instruction, and capitalizing on diversity."

Once again, hegemony is the result: large numbers of citi-zens consciously use and champion a language of economicsas culture. What makes such usage hegemonic is not only theconsciousness of those involved but the effects of reducingculture to simple-minded "efficiency" schemes.

An Alternative Perspective:Schools As Democratic Public Spheres

hope for the future of schooling when she indicts contemporaryeducational practice for emphasizing the antithesis of individualinterpretive thinking:

There is . . . an implicit encouragement of the tendencyto accede to the given, to view what exists around usas an objective "reality," impervious to individual inter-pretation. Finding it difficult to stand forth from whatis officially (or by means of media) defined as real, unableto perceive themselves in interpretive relation to it, theyoung (like their elders) are all too likely to remain im-mersed in the taken-for-granted and the everyday. Formany this means an unreflective consumerism; for others,it means a preoccupation with having more rather thanbeing more.

In order to foster reflective thinking, schools must be chargedwith the task of promoting interpersonal relationships betweenteachers and students. No longer should it be acceptable tohave the teacher serve as an authoritarian engaged in a one-directional methodology—from the teacher to the student.Although students would be guided by their teachers, theywould not be relegated to positions of passive receptivity but,instead, would assume the role of active participants with theteachers and other students.

Not surprisingly, corporatist policymakers argue that sucha paradigm would undermine authority and promote lack ofdiscipline, Consider, however, that current educational policysupports strong discipline and upholds the authority of ad-ministrators and control officers. Given the extent to whichthis mentality exists, why are national drop-out rates in sub-stantive double-digits? Why are vast numbers of studentsfrustrated with schooling? Is it because they are fi-ee to interact

Some educational theorists have argued that, in place • =of the reductionist business-oriented perspective,schools should be viewed as democratic public spheres.For instance, Henry Giroux, in his book Schooling andthe Struggle for Public Life: Critical Pedagogy in theModern Age, advocates a public philosophy of educa-tion that "links the purpose of schooling to the develop-ment of forms of knowledge and moral character inwhich citizenship is defined as an ethical compact, not[solely] a commercial contract." In the school arena,"empowerment is related to forms of self- and social •==formation that encourages people to participate critical'ly in shaping public life"

Implicit in this understanding is the notion that studentsliving in a democracy should have (and not "be given") thefreedom to question, probe, initiate, and even dissent. Theseterms form the vocabulary of a free society. Without thisnomenclature and its changing contextual meaning, a demo-cratic state would cease to be. In its place would rise anestablishment that would promote consumption void of con-science. In The Dialectic of Freedom, Maxine Greene offers her

Some educational theorists have argued thatschools should be viewed as democraticpublic spheres-that students living in ademocracy should have the freedom to

question, probe, initiate, and even dissent.

with teachers and each other in an environment that respectstheir voice, history, and culture? Or is it because Americanschools today instead place a premium on job marketability,competencies, "basic skills," and student suppression?

Democracy engenders participation. If young people findthemselves in positions of passivity throughout their formaleducational life, how can they be expected to participate in thesO'Called real world? Instead, they find themselves merely react-ing to external stimuli. Never engaging in socially acceptable

MAV/JUNE 1995 23

A HUMANIST LOOK AT EDUCATION

roles, some turn their attention to anti'societal activities,which, in turn, fuel behavionst arguments for increased controland discipline. Regression becomes infinite.

The argument for schools as democratic public spheres isnot void of consideration for businesses and corporations,however, interaction and participation should not imply thedownfiill of an economy. Instead, businesses and corporationsstand to gain. If the foundations of corporate America wereseverely ruptured to the extent that those who are traditionallyseen as workers—or mere subordinates—authentically partici-pate (as opposed to Deming or any version of "Total (!j ualityManagement"), not only would new and creative ideas emergebut, more importantly, participation within a given organiza-tion would translate into participation in the overall society.It is this discourse that defines democracy. Of course, suchLi discourse will not be neat, concise, or uncomplicated. It is,as Aronowitz; and Giroux have stated, "a political and peda'gogical movement that speaks to life, to future generations; it

is a call that chooses life and takes as its first principle the valueand possibilities inherent in human struggles."

T'he insurgence of business and corporate interests ineducational policy is not a new development. A rejuvenatedcall for critiques of the dominant language may serve, how-ever, as an initial step in aiding younger generations to redefineschooling in the United States. These young people have grownup in a period of time in which the dominant language has beeninfluenced by functionalist, neo'conservative voices. This is notto say that functionalist or business voices have no place inthe discussion. A reflective language takes as its foundationthe plurality of ideas to be found in a true democracy. Byencouraging such diversity through its schools, America wouldbe able to achieve an actualization of its democratic tenets. H

Deron Robert Boyles is an assistant professor specializing inphilosophy of education in the Department 0/Educational PolicyStudies at Georgia State University.

VocationGrowing up obedientAuthority's words flooded over meDrowned my ownvowels and eonsonantsSevered my several tongues.

BleedingmutedI hibernated until middle ageThen my voice sounded—

a stranger to both ears.

All my languages have returned.Beginning as hoarseness.gestures and signalscoursing down a warmer throatthrough freer fingersI make vocal notesto chronicle imagination's

dryness, drip, cascade.

Long agooften alonenow I descendlo deeper, diamond mines of solitude.Not much light —

but here is wherea writer must goto do the work.

by LINDA SEJFULLA

An Ivy-LeaguerLashes OutAn attorney, once a friend.heard me eomplainabout my plnk-eollar lotthen asked me hotlyjust who I thought I was.

"The rest of us hate our jobs,but Lve still keep on going . . ."

Double-edged bladeand tragicomical truth

Her slaphad the undesired effectof eonvlncing me I was right

From a perspective of great distance1 now thank herfor asking me to considerjust who I think I am.

I thinkI am learning my own answer.

24 THE HUMANIST