Search results

During the 2020 election cycle, 2,276 super PACs spent over $2.1 billion in federal elections. This chapter argues that changes made to the US campaign finance system brought about by the Citizens United v. FEC (2010) and SpeechNow.org v. FEC (2010) cases have destabilized the American political system by fueling tensions between right-wing and left-wing populist factions and by contributing to congressional corruption. By moving away from the political corruption standard and toward the free speech standard in Citizens United, polarizing wealthy mega-donors and dark money sources have come to play a dominant role in congressional elections. These cases also helped to contribute to a two-tiered campaign finance regulatory structure that distinguishes between campaign contributions given directly to federal candidates and political money contributed to super PACs to support or oppose federal candidates. In the 2020 congressional elections, PACs and super PACS outspent both major party candidates combined in 35 House and Senate races. Super PACs are serving as “shadow parties” by targeting competitive races for the purpose of swaying partisan control of Congress. This study also shows that an exceedingly high percentage of super PAC money is spent on negative advertising that further divides rather than unifies the nation. This chapter also highlights the corrupting influence of congressional leadership PACs and examines how super PACs have enabled foreign and dark money sources to illegally influence congressional campaigns.

This chapter addresses how Black, Asian Minority Ethnic (BAME) Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) of Multi-academy Trusts (MATs) with track records of outstanding school improvement navigate turbulence when leading school improvement to optimise students’ learning. There are different ideas of what it means to have equitable access and equitable outcomes in education systems, and beyond, and how to live a good life on the journey to both. These different ideas and values’ systems have different intersectionalities of recognition by ‘the other’ in societies. Crenshaw argues, once these intersectionalities of discrimination have been identified, it will be possible to understand what Dewey calls their intrinsic nature and to seek ways to reconnect the isolated, and marginalised that are subjects of discrimination. The BAME CEOs articulate the current Public Governance of Education Systems that induces fear of forced takeovers and job insecurity creates a kind of divide and conquer approach of colonialism and intersectionalities of discrimination. The chapter identifies BAME CEOs want to create cultures where they can make a commitment to take the time to know the self, in relationship with the other, and build bridges between different groups in society for equity, renewal, trust, and peace in our time. The BAME CEOs wishing to empower others to engage in this moral training for democracy in education need to have and share the thinking tools to prevent community members from being manipulated by people who wish to rush them into new ways of thinking and doing. Change requires giving mature citizens the time and space to think things through by: asking good questions, critiquing the evidence underpinning the change, inquiring into the logic of the change and holding the moral compass of the change to check the direction steers a sure and steady ethical course with what Adler calls the primary virtues of social justice, prudently and with courage.

The professional challenge the chapter addresses is Black, Asian Minority Ethnic Chief Executive Officers (BAME CEOs) who lead Multi-academy Trusts (MATs) in England need to navigate turbulence to assure all schools within their MATs are high performing. In the investigation of this issue, the structures of MATs themselves emerge as causing turbulence. Evidence revealed the BAME CEOs with track records of improving failing schools to outstanding schools interviewed in this research are working in partnership with their communities. These BAME CEOs sustain their high achieving MATs and/or take on more schools that need improving and lead their change to outstanding schools with BAME communities, non-BAME communities and diverse communities. However, they were not given the opportunities to build capacity for high-performing schools by the current MAT structures. Rapid change to the organisation of Public Education Governance Systems has shifted power from local authority governance to public corporation governance without addressing any of the old problems in the change (Brighouse, 2017). The rapid change has led to a clash of cultures between those with the values of generic Public Governance Systems who have not been democratically elected by the public and do not require professional educational credentials, a track record of being ethical teachers, and a track record of leading ethical teachers in ethical communities in school improvement from ‘Needs Improvement’ to ‘Good’ or ‘Outstanding’. The rapid change has been hallmarked by a lack of full and free interactions and cooperation of the public in how the change in public education is being implemented. There has been no referendum on whether parents want their schools organised by their representatives they have elected in local councils or organised by public corporations financed by Private Finance Incentive (PFI) and Private Finance 2 (PF2) and operated by public corporations like Carillion.

The average American child spends more time “playing”¹ than doing any other activity besides sleeping and attending school (watching television comes in next, with children gradually replacing play time with TV time as they grow older) (Hofferth & Sandberg, 2001a, b). In fact, free, unstructured time makes up between 20 and 50% of children’s waking hours² (Hofferth & Sandberg, 2001a, b; Larson & Richards, 1989). Nonetheless, sociologists currently know very little about how children’s free time use influences their well-being. Although scholars, teachers, and parents all have strong opinions about the types of free-time activities that they think are “best” for children, recent studies of the association between children’s time use and their well-being have failed to find consistent associations (Hofferth & Sandberg, 2001a, b; McHale, Crouter & Tucker, 2001).