The C3 Framework and Market Based Reforms

It has been a long time since I have written a blog post on C3 teachers however, my examination into the framework has continued. Along the way I’ve become interested in how the C3 Framework interacts with the market-based reform movement that has grown to become the standard for education reform. In this post, I would like to examine market-based (sometimes called neoliberal) reforms, focusing on their purpose, their reasoning, and the pragmatic impact that these reforms have on contemporary education systems.

The idea of market-based reforms in many ways goes back to economist Milton Friedman who theorized an economic system wherein the primary purpose of government is to create new markets and otherwise stay out of the way (Friedman, 1962). The root of the current reform movement in education follows Friedman’s theory by creating a marketplace of schools. Supporters argue that a market-based educational system would not only give people more opportunities for profit (after all, what other purpose does the market have in a capitalist system), but would also improve education. The argument goes that a free-market educational system would create competition where only the best education products and services survive and all others would step up their game to compete or fail and come to an end. In this way, education functions much like other businesses where business that are good at providing customers what they want survive and those that are less effective, efficient, or provide an unwanted product fail.

The market-based theory suggests that if public education is to operate in a market then there needs to be choice. When the market is constrained, as it is the mostly public system that has been common in America during much of the 20th century, then students and parents have little choice about which schools they will attend. Opening markets is one of the arguments behind the charter school and private school voucher movements that have been gaining traction nationally. Further, a market only works when consumers (in this case parents and students) have information about which providers (schools) can provide them with what service and at what level of quality. This need for information about the quality of schools has in large part driven the rise of standardized testing. The market-based reform education movement has also advocated for holding schools (and teachers) accountable for student growth on standardized tests. The idea is that is that market forces will identify high quality schools as well as failing schools and reward and punish accordingly.

Most market-based educational reforms focus on education as preparation for a career. Market-based reforms emphasize, in their standards and assessments, the idea of creating a productive worker (Whitman, 2008). They even go so far, in some cases, to discuss education as a way of developing the nation’s “human capital” (Hess & Finn, 2007; Scott, 2009; Chubb & Moe, 1990). Critics counter that much of what is lauded in the market-based reform movement, specifically in the often vaunted charter schools, is actually focused on creating compliant workers (Apple, 2006).

So, where does that leave the C3 Framework? Does the emphasis on college and career put the C3 in line with the market-based reforms or does Dimension 4 and the notion of Taking Informed Action push asks those reforms? In my next post I will examine this question and the complex relationship the C3 Framework has with market-based educational reforms.

References:

Apple, M. (2006). Educating the “right” way: Markets, standards, God, and inequality. New York, New York: Routedge.

Chubb, J., & Moe, T. (1990). Politics, markets, and America’s schools. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.

Friedman, M. (1962). Capitalism and freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Hess, F. & Finn, C. (2007). What innovators can, and cannot do. In Educationnext. Retrieved from http://educationnext.org/what-innovators-can-and-cannot-do/