No Child Left Behind and the Spectacle of Failing Schools: The Mythology of Contemporary School Reform

Abstract

This article discusses what David Berliner (2005) has called the perverse “spectacle of fear” (208) surrounding issues of teacher quality and accountability in contemporary school reform. Drawing principally on the critical semiotics of Roland Barthes' essay, “The World of Wrestling” (1957), it examines the way that this spectacle works to undermine public education and explicates the powerful mythology behind it. The article then concludes with some suggestions on how this destructive “spectacle of fear” might potentially be disrupted using the agencies of Deweyan “strong democracy”.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I thank Jim Garrison, Christine McCarthy, Dennis Showers, Linda Ware, Melanie Blood and several anonymous reviewers from Educational Studies for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this article.

Notes

1. See also David C. Berliner and Bruce J. Biddle (1995, 108), Richard Rothstein (1998), and Gerald W. Bracey (2004), all of whom argue that educators are not responsible for most of the (alleged) shortcomings of America's public schools.

2. A sample of noted writers who have argued similarly, often emphasizing the artistic/aesthetic and moral dimensions of teaching while critiquing technocratic approaches, includes Philip W. Jackson (1986), Jim Garrison (1997), David T. Hansen (2001), William Ayers (1993), Landon Beyer (1996), Nel Noddings (1984), Lisa Delpit (1995), D. Bob Gowin (1981), Jane Roland Martin (1992), Mark Edmundson (2002), Wayne C. Booth (1988), and Robert M. Pirsig (1985).

3. Patrick Brantlinger (1983) identifies this spectacle conscience in contemporary sports events: “Most watchers of the Super Bowl or of World Cup soccer do not realize that they are mimicking the spectators in Roman arenas, cheering madly and turning thumbs up or down for their favorite gladiators, but that comparison is nevertheless implicit in the very structure of televised sports ‘spectaculars”’ (40). Observe also the parallels to tabloid television talk shows.

4. A major public poll by the Educational Testing Service (ETS) in 2004 found that only 14% of respondents believed that public schools were performing well or pretty well (McGuinn 2006, 191).

5. For his own part, President George W. Bush's post-9/11 rhetoric of fear and antiterrorist policy initiatives are built on an “us/them” binary that regularly denotes the “other” as an “unchosen” object of fear and contempt. When pressed on atrocities committed by Christians and evidence of peace-loving Muslims, the New Right agenda places “real” Christians and “real” Muslims on one side and “false” Christians and “false” Muslims on the other, maintaining the neat good/evil binary (no one could harbor elements of both) and occluding the reality that people of all races, sexes, cultures, and creeds are, when certain conditions prevail, capable of committing horrendous acts against humanity. For more on the destructiveness of the politics of fear, see Mark Edmundson (1997), Benjamin R. Barber (2004), Henry A. Giroux (2003), and Cory Robin (2006).

6. See also Jameson (1991) and Debord (1967) on the image as the final form of commodity reification.

7. For a potent critique along Deweyan lines of the call in education for evidence-based practice, see Gert Biesta (2007). It should also be noted that appeals to evidence-based practice within NCLB are highly selective in favor of more traditional forms of pedagogy.

8. Interestingly, given the recent influence on education policy of the religious right, the ritual of scapegoating has deep theological roots in the Judeo-Christian tradition. See Friedrich Nietzsche (1967), Sylvia Brinton Perera (1986), René Girard (1986), and Tom Douglas (1995).

9. Some more traditional liberal stalwarts were involved in drafting the legislation as well. People like Senator Edward Kennedy also wanted enhanced equity for students of color and those living in poverty, including increased federal funding. But they were ultimately compelled to make compromises (e.g., on issues related to standards, testing, and accountability) or risk being left out of the process altogether. The same was true of conservatives who wanted to include vouchers, block grants, and other controversial items in the legislation, and who worried that the reform was too top-down. Still, the final form of NCLB, although reflecting considerable political compromise, shows clear evidence of the conservative/neoliberal political agenda and the increasing political power of business interests. See McGuinn (2006, 165–195) and Peterson and West (2003, 23–54).

10. Contrary to popular belief, AYP is determined not by whether a school's test scores rise or fall, but by a minimum threshold for aggregated and disaggregated test scores that gradually increases every year.

11. As Rothstein (1998) observed, “Polls consistently show that, while the public believes (public) schools do a terrible job, respondents generally think the particular schools their own children attend are pretty good” (28–30).

12. Note, however, that the public still supports a strong national presence in school reform (McGuinn 2006, 191).

13. Despite not wanting to discount the value of empirical research, Edelman (1988, 126–128) and Smith (2003, 257–258), invoking writers like Suzanne Langer, Georg Lukács, and Maxine Greene, emphasize the complementary role of the arts in providing more intimate and nuanced perspectives. In Edelman's words,