This article was downloaded by: [The University of Manchester Library]On: 05 December 2014, At: 12:17Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Teacher Development: An internationaljournal of teachers' professionaldevelopmentPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtde20

Privatization and its impact on urbanschool reform: Table Top Theory as aguiding conceptual frameworkBruce Anthony Jones aa David C. Anchin Center, College of Education , University ofSouth Florida , Tampa, USAPublished online: 02 Dec 2008.

To cite this article: Bruce Anthony Jones (2008) Privatization and its impact on urbanschool reform: Table Top Theory as a guiding conceptual framework, Teacher Development:An international journal of teachers' professional development, 12:4, 319-328, DOI:10.1080/13664530802579876

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13664530802579876

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

2:17

05

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Teacher DevelopmentVol. 12, No. 4, November 2008, 319–328

ISSN 1366-4530 print/ISSN 1747-5120 online© 2008 Teacher DevelopmentDOI: 10.1080/13664530802579876http://www.informaworld.com

Privatization and its impact on urban school reform: Table Top Theory as a guiding conceptual framework

Bruce Anthony Jones*

David C. Anchin Center, College of Education, University of South Florida, Tampa, USATaylor and Francis LtdRTDE_A_358155.sgm(Received 26 June 2008; final version received 23 September 2008)10.1080/13664530802579876Teacher Development1366-4530 (print)/1747-5120 (online)Original Article2008Taylor & Francis124000000November 2008Associate Dean Bruce AnthonyJonesjones@coedu.usf.edu

This article focuses on the growing role of the private sector in public education and theimplications of this role on issues of social justice and leadership in public schooling. Inthe USA, until the early 1980s, teachers, school administrators, and professional schoolstaff provided leadership in areas of curriculum and instructional development.However, increasingly curriculum and instructional development is being outsourcedto national and internationally based private firms. Numerous public school systemshave begun to engage in outsourcing and privatization of academic functions at anunprecedented rate. The author sheds light on one example of a privatization strategy inurban school reform by drawing from research conducted in 2003–2004 in the St LouisPublic School District. From both an academic and democratic standpoint, the reformeffort was a disappointment. Through his conceptual framework Table Top Theory, theauthor explains why the strategy did not succeed and what this may mean forprivatization and urban school reform initiatives across the United States.

Keywords: business and education; learner-centered schooling; social justice; schoolleadership; transactional leadership and decision making

Since the early 1980s, the trend in urban education reform for US schools has shifted fromlocal and public sector control of curriculum and instructional strategies to more national-international and private sector-driven strategies and assessments. With this shift, gone arethe days when teachers met around the conference table in the teachers’ lounge to writecurriculum and adopt instructional practice based on their own expertise. Increasingly,school boards, with the support of state boards of education and influence from the businessand philanthropic sector, are outsourcing curriculum and instructional matters to private for-profit companies and nonprofit organizations (Emery and Ohanian 2004; Green 2005).These companies and organizations have sprung up at an unprecedented rate producingprefabricated curriculum packages that are associated with the proclamation of being theend-all and cure-all for what ails urban schools in America (Jones 2004). Taken as a whole,the school reform industry, which includes globally based curriculum reform strategists, theglobally driven testing and textbook (print and electronic) industry and the alternativeeducation industry, has become big business for the first time in US history (Leistyna 2007;Molnar and Garcia 2007; Saltman 2007).

From a social justice standpoint, these curriculum and instructional trends have servedto undermine local teacher autonomy and decision making in schools. One effect is thediminishing of values in schools that may lend themselves to socially just practices that

*Email: jones@coedu.usf.edu

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

2:17

05

Dec

embe

r 20

14

320 B.A. Jones

include shared decision making, shared governance, distributive leadership and site-basedmanagement. These curriculum and instructional trends have also had implications forhow schools are led. With pressures to conform to curriculum and instruction privatizationschemes, school leaders (i.e., school superintendents, school principals, central officeadministrators of school curriculum) have had to become more transactional as opposedto transformative in their leadership style (Emery and Ohanian 2004; Gelberg 1997; Jonesand Jackson 2007a). The latter is consistent with democratic, just, emancipatory andempowering styles of leadership, while the former is characterized as top-down-hierarchal,authoritative and punitive (Boyles 2000; Edelsky 2004; Jones 2007; Webb, Neumann, andJones 2004). Haworth (2007) defines transactional leadership, in part, as the placement ofthe leader at the center of decision making to the exclusion of others. In his delineation ofwhat this means in a case study school setting he wrote:

To the superintendent and principal there was no doubt that they were not expendable whileteachers and students were. So leadership, especially under a ‘managed democracy,’ becomesan elitist, individualist process that dismantles possibilities of building democratic spaces thatwe, as teachers and students deserve. (269)

Context for privatization and academic outsourcing

There is a longstanding tradition of school boards or local education authorities in Americaoutsourcing school services for the operational side of schooling, which includes studentbusing and transportation, school security and maintenance, cafeteria food services andcatering, and accounting and fiscal services. Until the early 1980s, the notion of outsourcingthe academic side of schooling, such as curriculum and instructional functions, was largelyunheard of. There were instances in which after-school enrichment programs for studentswere outsourced to institutions, such as the Boys and Girls Clubs, the Police AthleticLeagues, or Girl Scouts of America and Boy Scouts of America, but in-school curriculumand instructional strategies remained largely under the control of individual schools, withguidance from local school boards and state-level educational policy mandates. Table 1provides a sampling of national and worldwide for-profit and nonprofit organizations towhich curriculum and instruction has been outsourced under the guise of urban educationreform in the United States.

Since the Presidential administration of Ronald Reagan 25 years ago, there has been adeliberate push to dismantle the role of public sector governmental agencies in providingservices to the American public. This has been characterized by an aggressive push towardconferring contracts to private companies and corporations to provide these services undera profit-driven philosophy. According to Baptiste, Orvosh-Kamenski, and Kamenski (2007):

Concerning Reagan’s philosophy of government, he accomplished his own purposes by amalign neglect of governmental machinery rather than legislative abolishment of it. Reagan leftall of the New Liberal state intact, but made it almost impossible for it to function … Reagan’sneglect served to camouflage the real motivation behind, [which was] his hostility to the publicsector. (133)

Reese, Giedraitis, and Vega (2007) report on this phenomenon in their discussionof privatization, economic welfare and provision of municipal services in Milwaukee,Wisconsin. In their explication of housing and redevelopment in California, Aguirre and Vu(2006) highlight the same privatization trend. In the name of effectiveness and efficiency,across the country, health care facilities, once run by government agencies, are beingoutsourced to private companies. America’s government-run interstate highway and road

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

2:17

05

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Teacher Development 321

Tabl

e 1.

Fort

y m

ajor

who

le-s

choo

l ed

ucat

ion

refo

rm m

odel

s in

the

Uni

ted

Sta

tes

as o

f 20

04.

Acc

eler

ated

Sch

ools

Co-

nect

Fir

st T

hing

s F

irst

Mid

dle

Sta

rtS

choo

l R

enai

ssan

ce

Am

eric

a’s

Cho

ice

CO

RE

Hig

h S

choo

ls t

hat

Wor

kM

oder

n R

ed S

choo

l H

ouse

Suc

cess

for

All

AT

LA

S C

omm

unit

ies

Cor

e K

now

ledg

eH

igh/

Sco

peN

atio

nal

Wri

ting

Pro

ject

Suc

cess

for

All

Roo

ts &

Win

gsC

arbo

Rea

ding

Sty

les

Dir

ect

Inst

ruct

ion

Ope

n C

ourt

Rea

ding

Inte

grat

ed T

hem

atic

In

stru

ctio

nO

nwar

d to

Exc

elle

nce

Tal

ent

Dev

elop

men

t H

S

CE

LL

/ExL

LD

iffe

rent

Way

s of

Kno

win

gJu

nior

Gre

at B

ooks

Out

war

d B

ound

Tal

ent

Dev

elop

men

t M

SC

ente

r fo

r E

ffec

tive

Sch

ools

Ear

ly I

nter

vent

ion

Rea

ding

The

Lea

rnin

g N

etw

ork

Qua

ntum

Lea

rnin

gT

urni

ng P

oint

sC

hild

Dev

elop

men

t P

roje

ctE

xem

plar

y C

ente

r fo

r R

eadi

ngL

iter

acy

Col

labo

rati

veQ

uES

tU

rban

Lea

rnin

g C

ente

rs

Com

mun

ity

for

Lea

rnin

gF

irst

Ste

psM

icro

Soc

iety

Sch

ool D

evel

opm

ent P

rogr

amV

entu

res

Init

iati

ve

Sou

rce:

Nat

iona

l C

lear

ingh

ouse

for

Com

preh

ensi

ve S

choo

l R

efor

m (

2004

).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

2:17

05

Dec

embe

r 20

14

322 B.A. Jones

system is being outsourced to private corporations, and its once largely government-runcorrections, jail and prison system is being outsourced to for-profit entities. In public educa-tion, the New York City school system illustrates an example of this growing privatizationand outsourcing. According to the Office of the Public Advocate, New York City Schoolsconferred a total of eight no-bid contracts valued at $1.3 million in 2001. Two years later,the number of outsourcing contracts jumped to 69, totaling over $56 million (Freedman 2006).

Shock and awe in St Louis, Missouri

The St Louis Public School system, which enrolls approximately 37,000 students, becamethe first school system in the history of the United States to become governed by a corporatetakeover firm taking the privatization of public education to a new level. This is to be distin-guished from a school district that may appoint an ‘individual’ from the business sector torun the district. With the St Louis situation: (1) A corporate takeover ‘firm’ was contractedto run the operations (i.e., custodial services, transportation, school security, food services,maintenance) and all academic matters (i.e., instructional and curriculum) in the district. (2)Corporate takeover firms, such as Alvarez & Marsal, historically have taken over fiscallydistressed companies in the private sector in order to bring said companies to fiscal stability.The usage of the corporate takeover firm in St Louis represents the first instance in ourhistory where this type of firm has operated in the public school sector.

In 2003, the newly elected members of a corporate-backed school board slate won fourpositions on the seven-member St Louis, Missouri school board. Once installed as thenew voting majority, they awarded a $5 million, one-year contract to the New York-basedcorporate takeover firm, Alvarez & Marsal,1 to manage and operate the St Louis SchoolDistrict. The school board justified the hiring of the firm on the basis of the district’s direfiscal situation.2 With the official sanction of the school board, the takeover firm immediatelyappointed as Interim Superintendent a former Brooks Brothers clothing executive and formermilitary official to run the day-to-day operations of the school district for the one-year (2003–2004) contract period.

Transactional leadership and the end of site-based management

With the sanction of the newly elected school board majority, the Interim Superintendentimmediately closed the site-based management office and fired the central office site-basedmanagement director. With this shutdown, the message was clear – school principals wouldno longer make decisions about budget, curriculum and personnel matters. Instead, thesedecisions would be directed top-down from the central office.

Within two weeks, the takeover firm shut down 16 schools without public notice andmoved quickly to terminate maintenance, food service and security workers throughout theschool district. Each of these operational functions was outsourced to private firms andemployees who were fired were told that they would have to re-apply for their jobs with thecompanies that received the contracts. During this period, the St Louis School District wasthrown into a state of turmoil and chaos. As one teacher reported, ‘They [the corporate take-over firm] moved in so fast we did not know what hit us’ (Jones 2007, 192).

Table Top Theory

I was conducting research on site-based management in the district before the election ofthe new school board majority and appointment of the Interim Superintendent. As a result

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

2:17

05

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Teacher Development 323

of the election results and the subsequent elimination of the site-based management office,I had to shift research gears to a focus on school reform and privatization. Figure 1 emergedout of my documentation of the events that transpired during the year that the takeover firm(Alvarez & Marsal) governed the district.Figure 1. Table Top Theory. Policymaking and private sector-led school reform in St Louis.Table Top Theory is guided, in part, by Goodlad’s (1984) notion of the educationalecosystem. Educational ecosystems imply interdependence between individuals and socio-political and economic institutions, such as government agencies, community-based orga-nizations, universities, business, philanthropy, K–12 systems of public education and therepresentatives of each of these institutions. The success or failure of public education needsto be understood within the context of how well or how poorly these institutions interrelate.Communities that house institutions that interrelate in a positive manner, with a collectivevision of education, are more likely to produce positive education outcomes. This way ofviewing phenomena in education is consistent with recent trends in the field of educationalpolicy. According to Weaver-Hightower (2008), there is a movement in the scholarly liter-ature toward viewing educational policy decision making from an ecological standpoint:‘Policy analysis over the past 25 years has moved away from such traditional and function-alist views, adding needed complexity to the interpretation of how groups create andimplement policy’ (153).

I am in full agreement with this scholarly trend. Too often educational analysis leavesout a critical understanding of the role of the private sector in education and school reform.Historically, these understandings have been too simplistic and limited to a focus on thesymbolic or aesthetic role of the private sector in public education. Traditionally these rolesmay have included a charitable role (i.e., adopt-a-school; mentoring activities; teacher andadministrator scholarships for professional development) or a sponsorship role (i.e., hostingthe local teacher of the year banquet). More critical attention is needed to understand thegrowing role of private sector institutions in, for example, the appointment of school lead-ers, influence over curriculum and instructional matters, and influence over school budget

��� �� ��� ����

��� ����� ��� ����

�����

������ ������ ��� ������ �

��������� ����� �

�������� �����

���������

�������

����

������������

����� ��������� ����������� ��� ������� � ��� �� � !����� ���"������ �����

��� � � #���� ��� "����� ��" ��$�� �����

� � #���� �������� �"����� � �������� �

���" �"�����������

������� %����

�� �������

!��� �

�� ��� �

���

&������� ��� ����������

���������'������ �����

()��� �*

���+ ,����

������ ������ ��� ��$��� �

��������

������

��������

��-.���� ��/�������

#����

����� �#����

���������

,��� �������.���

����-�� � 0����������������� ���-

������� �����

��������� ����������

1������ 2,�����*� ����� 3 !����� ���"������ �����

�� ���� �

1������ �� �������� �"����� � �������� �

� � #���� ���+ #��������� ,���� �.��

/������ 4 ������

Figure 1. Table Top Theory. Policymaking and private sector-led school reform in St Louis.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

2:17

05

Dec

embe

r 20

14

324 B.A. Jones

allocations. These latter activities are far more intrusive than the typical symbolic eventsthat have characterized school district–private sector relationships.

Individual participant world view and decision-making authority

As the events unfolded during the course of the year in St Louis, it became clear that ‘place’,as defined in Table Top Theory, was significant in terms of who and what institutions heldauthority in the urban school reform process. Those individuals and institutions whose placewas listed at the top of the table (see Table 1) tended to wield less influence in the reformprocess. These individuals were typically representatives of public sector agencies. Thosewho represented private sector interests and whose place was underneath the table wereprone to wield more power and authority in the radical changes that were underway in theschool district.

The following section describes five patterns or world views that emerged in terms ofhow individuals perceived strategies around reform in the school district based on their‘place’ at the table.

Community perspective

Individuals whose place was on top of the table (see Table 1) viewed grassroots or indige-nous participation in the reform strategies as integral, while those underneath the tabletended to rely more on technical experts who held credentials in community reform anddevelopment. This pattern was apparent during a reading of the ‘community report’ by amember of the school board majority. A disagreement ensued between the individual whoread the report and a member of the school board minority. The former would be considereda representative of constituents who are underneath the table, or private sector constituents,while the latter represented the public sector constituents who are listed in Table 1 as beingon top of the table.

The main goal of the ‘community report’ was to address how the school board couldbe more responsive to community concerns in the educational decision-making process.While reading the report, the school board member proudly proclaimed that the committeeagreed to expand its membership to include members from the community. However,‘community’ in the collective mind of the committee meant individuals who held techni-cal or college degrees in community affairs. It did not matter to the committee that noneof these individuals was a resident of St Louis or a resident of the neighborhoods wherethe parents lived. The school board member who objected to this strategy proclaimed thatshe viewed ‘the community’ as meaning ‘grassroots-indigenous’ community – not indi-viduals who held PhDs in community affairs from Princeton University or HarvardUniversity.

Resource perspective

Public officials whose place was at the top of the table tended to worry day-to-day aboutresources that they needed to perform their jobs. Because of the centralization of all decisionmaking for the budget, curriculum and personnel, teachers in the classroom lacked basicsupplies to conduct instruction. School principals, lacking the authority to make budgetdecisions, were largely unaware of how to govern their schools from a human, fiscal andmaterial standpoint. For example, resources to support educational field trips during the day

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

2:17

05

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Teacher Development 325

were eliminated without consultation with teachers in the district. Resources for after-school programming and student enrichment were also unilaterally eliminated. Only oneschool was able to support some level of in-school and after-school enrichment program-ming because it had a private endowment of resources to support such programming.

Those whose place was underneath the table operated with nearly unlimited resourcesto carry out what they viewed as in the best interest of the city-wide school reform agenda.High-priced attorneys and accountants were being flown in to facilitate this private sector-driven agenda.

Time perspective

Those constituents who were at the top of the table, such as teachers and school administra-tors, worked hard to plan for an eight-hour day under very uncertain circumstances, whilethose underneath the table were engaged in city-wide school reform strategies that wouldlikely unfold over several decades. These strategies were tied to the economic viability ofthe city and entailed, by some accounts, the need to displace largely low-income andAfrican American population quadrants to allow for rapid gentrification and downtowndevelopment.

Transparency and accountability

While private sector constituents in St Louis called for more transparency and accountabil-ity from public school officials on matters of education achievement and school perfor-mance, little transparency and accountability emerged from those in the private sector whooperated underneath the table during the 2003–2004 school year in which the takeover firmdrove the governance of the school district. Much of the school reform decision makingtook place in executive sessions and there were attempts by the corporate-backed schoolboard and Interim Superintendent to circumvent Sunshine laws3 that required a publicnotice of school board meetings.

Decision-making authority

I observed that ‘place’ determined the level of decision-making authority that individualsheld during that year of school reform in St Louis. Those who held ‘mandate authority’ –that is, what they say goes – tended to be representatives of the private sector (underneaththe table), whereas those who held ‘advisory authority’ tended to be representatives of publicsector organizations. Individuals and institutions that held an advisory level of authoritywere sometimes given the opportunity to express opinions and provide advice on how toproceed with education reform, but this did not mean that anyone was compelled to heartheir advice. For example, the St Louis Black Leadership Roundtable, consisting of some ofthe most prominent African Americans in the city, was virtually ignored when it requestedthat the Interim Superintendent and school board slow down the reform. The rationalefor the request stemmed from the feeling that too many representatives of the indigenousneighborhoods were being left out of the education reform decision-making process.

Finally, those who held ‘symbolic’ decision-making authority in the school reformprocess were simply figureheads. These individuals tended to be propped up to create anillusion of inclusiveness when in fact they had no authority and capacity for providingadvice in the school reform process.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

2:17

05

Dec

embe

r 20

14

326 B.A. Jones

Figure 1 includes what the author refers to as ‘straddlers’. These individuals includedthe St Louis mayor, the school board majority and the Interim Superintendent who navi-gated both sides of the table. They were public officials, but they appeared beholden toprivate sector interests that manifested underneath the table.

Social justice and the legacy of urban school reform in St Louis, Missouri

When Alvarez & Marsal left the St Louis School District at the end of the school year (June2004), the district was in worse condition than before the firm’s arrival. When the corporatetakeover firm arrived in St Louis, the school district was two points away from regainingfull accreditation.4 During the tenure of the corporate takeover firm, the district fell 25points down the accreditation ladder and was two points away from becoming fully unac-credited (Jones 2007). Teacher morale was at an all-time low because many recalled whenthe district was moving toward full accreditation and a site-based model of governancewhich was to, in part, empower teachers. The transactional style of leadership brought in bythe corporate takeover firm excluded teachers from instruction and curriculum decisionmaking within the district. In too many instances, the professional development focusadopted by the takeover firm lacked relevance for the teachers because the professionaldevelopment efforts failed to take into account that teachers have different needs based onprofessional experience and where they are in their careers (i.e., junior level, mid-level, orsenior level). A one size fits all approach to the professional development of teachers didnot succeed.

The budget deficit that the firm was supposed to eliminate remained with the district inthe wake of the departure of the takeover firm and more importantly, several good teachersand administrators fled the district to secure employment in other counties.

Concluding words

There has been a significant push for schools to become more relationship based as a meansto advance higher levels of learning in school systems (Danzig et al. 2007; Jones and Jack-son 2007b). Behind this push is the belief that relationships must serve as the foundation forall learning – without positive, respectful and productive relationships between teachers,administrators and students, learning cannot occur in school buildings. Unfortunately, muchof the way that urban school reform has unfolded and continues to unfold in the UnitedStates is contrary to the creation of healthy learner-centered environments. Much of thereform is forced top-down, is non-participatory, and employs types of leadership that aretransactional in nature. This trend is inconsistent with the transformative types of leadershipthat are necessary for learner-centered environments to thrive and survive. Given this real-ity, much more effort will be required by educators to adopt learner-centered notions inconcept and practice, particularly in the face of growing forces for privatization, if publiceducation is to embark on a new road to school reform that is effective in working withdiverse student populations and communities in the global economy.

Notes1. Prior to St Louis, Alvarez & Marsal had no experience in school management. Since the St Louis

experience, the firm has secured a $17 million no-bid contract to engage in its turnaround workin the New York City school system and a $16.8 million no-bid contract to manage and admin-ister the operational facets of the New Orleans school system (Jones 2007).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

2:17

05

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Teacher Development 327

2. The newly elected school board majority claimed that the district was facing a $70 million deficit.In support of this claim, the mayor declared that the outgoing-retiring Superintendent ‘spentmoney like a drunken sailor’. However, an independent state audit revealed otherwise. Accordingto the state audit, the district actually had a $38 million deficit that was the direct result of cuts instate funding allocations to the district (McCaskill 2004). The outgoing Superintendent was,contrary to the political rhetoric of the mayor and newly elected school board, quite thrifty (Jones2007).

3. Sunshine laws require public disclosure of governmental agency (including schools) policies andprocedures. Such laws require governing authorities of school systems to post meeting dates andagenda for public viewing in advance of said meetings.

4. The school district was provisionally accredited during this time period.

Notes on contributorBruce Anthony Jones is the David C. Anchin Endowed Professor of Education at the University ofSouth Florida. He is also the Director of the David C. Anchin Endowed Research Center and theAssociate Dean for Research in the College of Education. Dr Jones holds a PhD in political sciencefrom Columbia University in New York City. He is known for his research and work in grant devel-opment, research-related fund raising, and community and institutional collaboration.

ReferencesAguirre, A., and F. Vu. 2006. Eminent domain and city redevelopment in California: An overview

and case study. Social Justice 33, no. 3: 101–13.Baptiste, H.P., H. Orvosh-Kamenski, and C.J. Kamenski. 2007. Examining Presidents Ronald

Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and William Jefferson Clinton. In The US presidency and socialjustice: Implications for public education, ed. H.P. Baptiste, 129–60. San Francisco: Caddo GapPress.

Boyles, D. 2000. American education & corporations: The free market goes to $chool. New York:Falmer Press.

Danzig, A.B., K.M. Borman, B.A. Jones, and W.F. Wright. 2007. Learner-centered leadership: Newdirections for school leadership in a national perspective. In Learner-centered leadership:Research, policy and practice, ed. A.B. Danzig, K.M. Borman, B.A. Jones, and W.F. Wright, 3–19. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Edelsky, C. 2004. Democracy in balance. Language Arts 82(September), no. 1: 8. National Councilof Teachers of English.

Emery, K., and S. Ohanian. 2004. Why is corporate America bashing our public schools? Portsmouth,NH: Heinemann Publishing.

Freedman, S.G. 2006. The not-so-public part of the public schools: Lack of accountability. The NewYork Times, September 13.

Gelberg, D. 1997. The ‘business’ of reforming American schools. New York: State University ofNew York Press.

Goodlad, J. 1984. A place called school: Prospects for the future. New York: McGraw-Hill.Green, J.P. 2005. Bucket into the sea: Why philanthropy isn’t changing schools, and how it could.

In With the best of intentions: How philanthropy is reshaping K-12 education, ed. F.M. Hess,49–76. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Haworth, R. 2007. Why leadership is problematic: Resisting capitalist mimicry in an age ofglobalization and implications for public schools. In The US presidency and social justice:Implications for public education, ed. H.P. Baptiste, 267–81. San Francisco: Caddo GapPress.

Jones, B.A. 2004. As I see it: Reform schools from inside. Kansas City Star, September 15, B6.———. 2007. Table Top Theory as a policy framework for gauging the confluence of teaching and

private sector interests. Teacher Education Quarterly 34, no. 2: 185–204.Jones, B.A., and N.D. Jackson. 2007a. Learner-centered leadership in ‘urban’ contexts: Key

elements to consider for professional development. In Learner-centered leadership: Research,policy and practice, ed. A.B. Danzig, K.M. Borman, B.A. Jones, and W.F. Wright, 207–20.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

2:17

05

Dec

embe

r 20

14

328 B.A. Jones

———. 2007b. Student resiliency, institutional structures, and arts education: ManchesterCraftsmen’s Guild as a model. In Resiliency reconsidered: Policy implications of the resiliencymovement, ed. D. Davis, 69–82. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Leistyna, P. 2007. Corporate testing: Standards, profits, and the demise of the public sphere.Teacher Education Quarterly 34, no. 2: 59–84.

McCaskill, C. 2004. Review of St Louis public school district: Audit report no. 2004-47. JeffersonCity, MO: State of Missouri, Office of the State Auditor.

Molnar, A., and D. Garcia. 2007. The expanding role of privatization in education: Implications forteacher preparation and development. Teacher Education Quarterly 34, no. 2: 11–24.

National Clearinghouse for Comprehensive School Reform. 2004. The catalog of school reformmodels. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.

Reese, E., V.R. Giedraitis, and E. Vega. 2006. Welfare is not for sale: Campaigns against welfareprofiteers in Milwaukee. Social Justice 33, no. 3: 38–53.

Saltman, K. 2007. Schooling in disaster capitalism: How the political right is using disaster toprivatize public schooling. Teacher Education Quarterly 34, no. 2: 131–56.

Weaver-Hightower, M.B. 2008. An ecology metaphor for educational policy analysis: A call tocomplexity. Educational Researcher 37, no. 3: 153–67.

Webb, P.T., M. Neumann, and L. Jones. 2004. Politics, school improvement, and social justice: Atriadic model of teacher leadership. Educational Forum 68, no. 3.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

2:17

05

Dec

embe

r 20

14