Thinking About Humanitarianism In Relation to The Government's Role In Schools: Just a Couple of Thoughts.

I am channeling Quartez Smith, a student from the Brown School, who spent his senior year researching altruism as he tried to come up with an answer of whether or not looking out for others is ever a sincere act or a selfish deed. He drew from his lived experience and many who helped him to put into question whether their intentions always had his best interests in mind. He concluded, in the end, it was up to him as an individual to make the decisions to save himself and to do right by him. All humanitarian work is actually a selfish act, he decided. The performance and kindness of others were a guiding path in his life, but to reach human excellence, he had to pave the road himself. Of course, as an American-born young man, he was afforded privileges, even when he faced obstacles that many will never know.

Maybe this is why reading Empire of Humanity:  A History of Humanitarianism had me thinking last night. Michael Barrett accounts for 200 years of Humanitarian work and wrestles with what it means to do right by human beings. Most well-intended action occurs because of the financing of affluent, and powerful, institutions.

This made me think about about the recent Common Core State Standards, the SBAC, and state of testing-frenzy in American schools. In theory, holding kids to high standards, excellence and academic integrity is smart, ambitious, and necessary. The trick to this becomes, sadly, that the very institution that causes the tremendous achievement gaps in the U.S. are also behind the decisions that are putting forth the tests that haunt American public classrooms.

The very monster testing schools is actually the same monster that causes the huge academic disparities. Their monstrosity is a part of the problem, and although they are working to fix inequities, their nature also causes these inequalities. It's terrible, but the truth.

This puts into question whether or not government, as a guiding institution, is ever capable to do what is right by the needs of the people, especially when large dollar signs can be accrued by doing such work (and the greedy are quick to respond). Rather than really helping the teachers and students who need the most investment of curriculum, financing, and better instruction, those with a means (and eye) to make money become the very people who step in and sell their wares to politicians and, eventually, schools (read charters, TFA, and textbook companies).

Barrett shows a number of examples when well-intended humanitarians have swallowed their tongues because the hands who allow them to do the work that they do often have political reasons for doing as they do. This results in a lack of criticisms and the inability to speak up when speaking up in needed. Souls are sold to the devil and, WOLA! harm is created (as evidence, look at Bridgeport Public Schools state-mandated leadership through Paul Vallas).

I am thinking of teacher unions in Connecticut, too,  who recently put their endorsement behind a governor whose platform has been to undermine the public education system as it exists (most recently - this week - through Bridgeport's announcement of another Steve Perry charter school. Seriously. In the name of doing good for poor communities, the poor communities are undermined).

None of it makes sense. The impoverished individual at the end of receiving 'aid' and 'assistance' is the one who is detrimentally impacted in the end. And this is where my thinking is while reading humanitarianism on the larger scale. Does such work - tied with bureaucratic underpinnings (with pockets also interested in sustaining their own capitol and funding) ever do right by the very human beings who are in need of assistance most?

At this point, I'm unsure.

And I'm cynical. I'd laugh, but it is infuriating.