Binary scheme of democracy and centralism by bantam 17 April 2002 14:43 Hi again Charles,
Weber really is a cracking good read on bureaucracy, and the examples he plucks from his time and place are mostly taken from private enterprise in wholesale manufacture - a heroic whinge about reality getting distorted and edited into quantifiable and surveilled bits and pieces, about particulars having to be lumped into dehumanised categories, about the ascendance of timidity and the worship of order, and about the soulless machine we are making of ourselves. Taylorism strikes me as the ideal-type target of this brilliant assault. 'Bureaucracy' has been framed as a synonym for the state these days, sure, but that's discursively retrievable, I reckon, if we go at it in the sense Weber was on about. And I don't think we can do that with a substitutionist, top-down, central-planning sorta programme. Do the analysis of current dynamics and dream the dream, and do it publicly and charmingly articulately - that's my idea of doing politics in the modern 'north'. ^^^^^^^^^^ CB: Thanks , Rob. What is your take on the usual usage that a "big bureaucracy" is a bad thing , implying that making it "smaller" would improve it ? Seems to me the problem you summarize is the dictatorial or "undemocratic" structure of socalled bureaucracies. This implies that it is the small number of autocrats, not the large number of people who make up the "bureaucracy" that would be the problem. I understand your wish to preserve Weber's insights. My concern is that right now, the term bureaucracy is always used to argue for privatization. Weber's examples of private companies is specifically not the widespread meaning in this context, otherwise there would be no argument that privatisation gets rid of the problems of "bureaucracy". If the Taylor system is a bureaucracy, is a factory system a bureaucracy ? I think we should use the term "dictatorship" and "bourgeois dictatorship " to refer to corporate structures , including factory systems. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/18/education/18EDIS.html April 18, 2002 Private Groups Get 42 Schools in Philadelphia By JACQUES STEINBERG Timothy M. Shaffer for The New York Times Student protesters blocked the Philadelphia school system's administration building yesterday, delaying the meeting of a state commission that was prepared to vote on privatizing some of the schools. For-Profit School Venture Has Yet to Turn a Profit (April 8, 2002) Buying in to the Company School (February 17, 2002) Topics Alerts Edison Schools Incorporated Education and Schools Reading and Writing Skills Reform and Reorganization Create Your Own | Manage Alerts Take a Tour Sign Up for Newsletters Join a Discussion on Ideas on Contemporary Education HILADELPHIA, April 17 — In what is believed to be the largest experiment in privatization mounted by an American school district, a state panel charged with improving the Philadelphia public school system voted tonight to transfer control of 42 failing city schools to seven outside managers, including Edison Schools Inc. and two universities. The three members of the School Reform Commission appointed by Gov. Mark Schweiker voted for the plan, while the two members appointed by Mayor John F. Street voted against it. The vote capped a fiery three-hour meeting in which the two sides had split over whether Edison, the nation's largest for-profit operator of public schools, had the capacity and know-how to improve the 20 schools that it was assigned. "I want this reform to succeed," Michael Masch, a vice president at the University of Pennsylvania and one of the mayor's two appointees to the panel, said at one point in the debate. "I am gravely concerned that the magnitude of the change being proposed is imprudent." Moments later, James P. Gallagher, the president of Philadelphia University and one of the governor's three appointees, said, "We should push the envelope and be as aggressive as possible." The panel's vote today represents a milestone in the decade-long growth of the movement to turn troubled public schools over to private operators. There is no better index of the impact of this effort than Edison's own expansion: over the last six years, it has gone from operating a handful of public schools to more than 130 in 22 states, with a combined student population that is larger than all but a few dozen urban districts. All told, the Philadelphia panel voted to assign an outside manager to one of every six schools in the city. In addition to Edison, the other organizations involved include two colleges that are in Philadelphia: Temple University, which was assigned five schools, and the University of Pennsylvania, which received three schools. The panel also tapped four other companies with various degrees of school administrative experience, though each was smaller than Edison. They are Chancellor Beacon Academies Inc., a for-profit company based in Florida that operates public and private schools (assigned five schools); Foundations Inc., a nonprofit organization in Philadelphia that offers after-school programs (four schools); Victory Schools Inc., a New York-based company that opened the state's first charter school (three schools); and Universal Companies, a new venture begun by the record producer Kenny Gamble (two schools). How much responsibility those managers would be given in the schools that they have been assigned remains to be negotiated with the state panel, as well as with the teachers' union and the parents in those schools. But panel officials said that, in many instances, the outsiders would likely make sweeping changes in school curriculum, as well as seek to replace school administrators and many of the teachers. After the meeting, Jerry Jordan, a vice president of the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers, said he regretted that the panel had said so little about how the schools would be redesigned by the outsiders. "They didn't spell anything out," Mr. Jordan said. "It's like, `Let's see what works.' It shows a total lack of respect." After the roll was called, several dozen student protesters, who have long argued that it was undemocratic for a for-profit company to operate a public school, chanted, "Shame!" and "I am not for sale!" Beginning at daybreak, those same protesters had succeeded in shutting down the system's Art Deco administrative building on Benjamin Franklin Parkway by forming a barricade at the entrance. Neither police officers nor the building's 350 employees were willing to cross the line. As a result, the meeting, which had been scheduled for 1 p.m. at district headquarters, was delayed for two hours then was moved to the city's African American Museum, nearly a mile away. Today's developments were the most significant here since late December, when Mr. Schweiker, a Republican, assumed control of the city school system, which had been operated by a board of education appointed entirely by Mr. Street, a Democrat. At the time, Mr. Schweiker said that only a bold approach could save a system in which more than half of the nearly 200,000 students had failed to achieve minimum proficiency on state reading and math tests. The governor had also made clear at the time that he wanted Edison, which operates more than 130 public schools in 22 states, to play a major role in Philadelphia. Though the 20 schools that the company was awarded today was more than double the number it manages in any other district, the assignment was far more modest than the 60 Philadelphia schools that it said it was capable of managing. Indeed, the governor had once argued that Edison should assume control of the system's central administration. Later, he retreated in the face of opposition from many parents and students, as well as the teachers' union and other labor groups representing school employees. They questioned Edison's academic and financial record. At a news conference, James P. Nevels, the panel's chairman, said of Edison's role, "Things have not turned out as one would have expected." Still, a majority of the panel members managed to pass a school reform plan in Philadelphia today that was more ambitious than those mounted in any other district. The largest such plan previously was believed to have been in Hartford, where all 32 schools in the district were given over to the company Education Alternatives Inc. for less than two years in the mid-1990's. But largely because the Hartford experience failed relatively quickly, other districts have usually embarked on more modest experiments, with Edison now operating nine schools in Chester-Upland, Pa., outside Philadelphia, and seven in Clark County, Nev., the Las Vegas district. In addition to the 42 schools that the Philadelphia panel assigned to outside managers, it also ordered that 28 other schools undergo substantial reorganization, with some becoming more independent charter schools but most remaining within direct control of the district. In the cases of the schools identified today for private intervention, the panel reserved the right to revoke a contract in instances where the schools fail to improve.
