Harvard Being Harvard Again: Furthering the Neoliberal Agenda and Undermining Public Schools
The relentless march of neoliberalism has long undermined the institutions meant to serve the public good, and education is no exception. Just as I’ve critiqued capitalism for its failure to accommodate those who don’t fit into its rigid definitions of productivity, a recent article from Harvard’s Education Next on special education subtly promotes a similar agenda that threatens the very foundation of public schooling. This article is not merely an analysis of staffing shortages; it’s part of Harvard’s broader strategy to advance neoliberal policies that prioritise market efficiency and corporate interests over the needs of students, particularly those most vulnerable. By manipulating data and omitting crucial political context, the article paints a picture of inefficiency in public schools, laying the groundwork for privatisation and the erosion of public trust in our education system. In doing so, it furthers the same logic that has historically marginalised those who don’t conform to the narrow demands of profit-driven systems, perpetuating a cycle of exclusion and inequality in the name of “reform.”
Neoliberalism’s Impact on Vulnerable Populations
Capitalism, as I’ve previously argued, systematically marginalises autistic and disabled individuals by valuing profit above all else, reducing human worth to a mere economic calculation. The constant pressure to conform to a system that prioritises efficiency and productivity leaves those who cannot—or choose not to—fit this mould in a perpetual state of precarity. These same neoliberal principles that commodify human lives are now deeply entrenched in public education, where market-based solutions and a relentless focus on efficiency are increasingly favoured over the holistic needs of students. This approach dehumanises education, treating it as a marketable service rather than a public good. Harvard, with its long history as the finishing school for America’s ruling class, has played a pivotal role in promoting these ideas. From its economic policy influence to its impact on educational reform, Harvard has consistently supported the interests of the elite, often at the expense of public services. In pushing for neoliberal education reforms, Harvard furthers a system that privileges corporate interests and the wealthy, while leaving behind those students who most rely on a robust, inclusive public education system. This legacy is not just an academic curiosity; it’s a deliberate continuation of Harvard’s role in shaping a society that serves the few at the expense of the many.
The Misuse of Data to Shape Public Perception
The ‘Education Next’ article deploys a common neoliberal tactic: using percentage increases without providing baseline data, a move that subtly manipulates public perception. By highlighting the growth in the number of special education teachers and instructional aides, the article creates the illusion that public schools are overstaffed, suggesting that resources are being allocated inefficiently. However, without the necessary context of starting figures, this portrayal is misleading at best, and deceptive at worst. It’s a strategy reminiscent of capitalism’s creation of artificial scarcity—whereby the illusion of limited resources is maintained to justify austerity measures or the minimisation of social spending. In this case, the article suggests that the education system is bloated, paving the way for arguments in favour of privatisation or budget cuts under the guise of increasing efficiency.
This tactic mirrors how capitalism often undermines public trust in social safety nets by perpetuating myths of dependency and inefficiency. Just as the capitalist system is structured to make public welfare seem unsustainable, the article’s selective use of data aims to erode confidence in public schools, making them appear wasteful and ineffective. The implication is clear: if the public perceives that schools are mismanaging resources, they are more likely to support reforms that involve cutting funding, increasing private sector involvement, or even dismantling parts of the public education system altogether. This misrepresentation doesn’t just distort the reality of the situation; it actively contributes to the neoliberal agenda of weakening public institutions to make room for corporate exploitation.
In doing so, the article not only misleads its readers but also serves as a tool in a broader campaign to delegitimise public education. By manipulating data, it reinforces the neoliberal narrative that public institutions are inherently flawed and in need of market discipline. This erodes the public’s trust in education systems that are crucial for ensuring equity and access for all students, particularly those who are already marginalised. Just as capitalism commodifies human needs to the detriment of the vulnerable, this article’s misuse of data commodifies public education, setting the stage for reforms that prioritise profit over the well-being of students.
The Strategic Omission of Political Context
The article’s omission of the broader political context surrounding public education is not an accidental oversight; it’s a calculated move that serves to obscure the real threats facing the system. By failing to address the aggressive rhetoric from the RNC or the implications of Project 2025, the article avoids confronting the very forces that are actively working to dismantle public education. This omission is a classic neoliberal strategy: by stripping the issue of its political dimensions, the article frames the problem as a mere technical or managerial challenge, rather than a deeply political struggle over the future of public education.
This approach effectively depoliticises the conversation, making it easier to push forward neoliberal reforms without having to engage with the contentious and polarising debates that these reforms inevitably provoke. It shifts the focus away from the ideological battles being waged against public schools and instead presents the issue in terms of efficiency, staffing levels, and budget management. This is reminiscent of how capitalism often dismisses the social and environmental impacts of its policies, maintaining the status quo by focusing on technical fixes rather than addressing the underlying systemic issues. Just as capitalism downplays the destructive effects of its relentless pursuit of profit, the article downplays the real dangers posed by political movements that seek to undermine public education.
By omitting the political context, the article shields its readers from the reality that the crisis in public education is not just a matter of staffing or resources but a consequence of deliberate political actions aimed at weakening public institutions. This strategic silence allows the neoliberal agenda to advance unchallenged, as it sidesteps the need to defend or even acknowledge the political motives behind the push for privatisation and corporate control of education. In doing so, it perpetuates a narrative that serves the interests of the powerful while masking the true nature of the threats to public education, much like how capitalism obscures the social costs of its operations to maintain its dominance.
Promoting Market-Based Solutions at the Expense of Public Good
The article subtly but unmistakably endorses market-based solutions as the answer to the perceived inefficiencies in public schools, advocating for measures like increasing teacher training or incentivising private sector involvement. This market-oriented framing aligns perfectly with neoliberal ideology, which prioritises efficiency and cost-cutting over the needs of students. It’s a familiar refrain in capitalist systems: when a public service is deemed inefficient, the solution is to introduce market dynamics, rather than addressing the root causes of those inefficiencies. But this approach, much like the capitalist emphasis on profit over people, disproportionately harms those who are already marginalised, particularly students with disabilities, who require more resources, tailored support, and a commitment to equity that the market simply doesn’t provide.
By promoting these market-based solutions, the article reflects a broader trend within Harvard’s intellectual output, which rarely recognises education as a public good. As a finishing school for future CEOs and corporate leaders, Harvard’s interests are aligned with those of the private sector, not with the democratic and equitable provision of education. To acknowledge education as a public good would be to work against its own institutional interests, which are deeply intertwined with the perpetuation of elite power and wealth.
The ultimate beneficiaries of this framing are, unsurprisingly, corporate interests that stand to profit from the privatisation of education. Just as capitalism commodifies essential public services, transforming them into profit-generating enterprises, this narrative sets the stage for the commodification of education. The drive to privatise is not about improving education for all; it’s about opening new markets and revenue streams for corporations, often at the expense of the very students who rely on public schools for their education and future opportunities. In this light, the article’s recommendations are not neutral policy suggestions but part of a larger strategy to undermine public education for corporate gain.
The Long-Term Consequences: Erosion of Public Trust and Equity
The long-term consequences of the neoliberal narratives propagated by the article are deeply concerning, particularly in their capacity to erode public trust in the education system. As these narratives take root, they pave the way for increased privatisation, further entrenching inequality within our society. The coordinated efforts between corporate media and academic institutions like Harvard to promote these ideas are not coincidental—they are part of a broader strategy by the ruling class to undermine public institutions that serve as vital sources of equity and opportunity, particularly for the working class. Public education, when accessible and properly funded, equips students with the tools they need to challenge the status quo, something the ruling class is keen to prevent.
This coordinated agenda can be understood through the Power Threat Meaning Framework (PTMF), which reveals how those in power (in this case, the ruling elite) manipulate narratives to maintain their control and further their interests. By casting public schools as inefficient and ineffective, they create a sense of crisis that justifies the looting of the public purse under the guise of “reform.” This is a direct threat to our venerable public schools, institutions that have historically provided a pathway to social mobility and empowerment for the working class. The erosion of these institutions is not just an educational issue; it’s a profound social justice issue. Just as capitalism marginalises those who are already vulnerable, including people with disabilities, so too does the privatisation of education exacerbate existing inequalities, making it even harder for marginalised students to access the resources and support they need to succeed.
The real danger here is that as public trust in education diminishes, so too does our collective commitment to a system that prioritises equity and accessibility. The more the narrative of inefficiency is pushed, the more likely it becomes that public schools will be defunded, dismantled, and replaced by for-profit entities that have little interest in serving all students. This shift will disproportionately harm those who rely most on public education—students from low-income families, students with disabilities, and others who already face significant barriers to success.
It is imperative that we recognise and resist these subtle forms of manipulation. We must advocate for a public education system that truly serves the needs of all students, not just those who can afford to buy their way into a good education. The future of our society depends on maintaining and strengthening the public schools that are the bedrock of equity and opportunity. This is not just about education; it’s about ensuring that the tools for challenging inequality and oppression remain accessible to everyone, not just the privileged few.
Final thoughts …
The Education Next article is more than just an analysis of special education; it is a calculated piece of a broader neoliberal agenda aimed at undermining public education for the benefit of corporate interests. By distorting data, omitting critical political context, and subtly promoting market-based solutions, the article furthers a narrative that seeks to erode public trust in our schools, paving the way for increased privatisation and inequality. This is not an isolated incident but part of a systematic effort by the ruling class to weaken public institutions that serve as vital sources of equity and opportunity, particularly for those who are most vulnerable.
As we observe the global landscape, it is evident that many countries in the Global South have begun to reject neoliberalism, turning away from the influence of the US and towards more stable and equitable partnerships, such as those with China. These nations have experienced firsthand the devastating impacts of neoliberal policies, often imposed by Western powers without facing any meaningful consequences. Now, with external avenues of exploitation dwindling, these neoliberal forces are turning inwards, attempting to apply the same tactics within their own borders to maintain the relentless pursuit of shareholder value. This belief—that they can transform their own societies into “banana republics” without facing significant resistance—is not only sad but deeply frightening.
In this context, it is more important than ever to critically engage with reports like the one from Harvard and to support efforts that resist the privatisation of public services, including education. The stakes are high, and the consequences of inaction are severe. We must draw on the insights from our critiques of capitalism to advocate for a more just and inclusive society, one that values public education as a cornerstone of democracy and social equity. This is not just about protecting schools; it’s about safeguarding the very principles of fairness and opportunity that underpin our society. I urge you to continue exploring and challenging these issues, to stand up against the neoliberal assault on public institutions, and to work towards a future where education—and all public services—are truly accessible to all, not just the privileged few.