The Politics of Priorities in Turbulent Times: Policy Logics, Faces of Power, and Reform Possibilities

Abstract

Following the U.S. financial crisis of 2008, demands on our social safety nets grew as federal, state, and local revenues declined. Projected shortfalls are forcing deep cuts in state and local services including education. It is too early to know fully the nature of the cuts or impacts on various communities and constituencies. This article looks to recent reform history to understand the shaping of educational priorities in the context of shrinking public coffers, disenchantment with public institutions, and anxiety about individual and collective positions in the global economy. I employ Steven Lukes's (2005) multidimensional view of power to examine the emergence of performance accountability policy as part and parcel of a neo-liberal reconsideration of schooling. From this recounting, I raise questions about the preference and press for particular reform priorities—reconstitution and pay for performance models of remuneration—ensconced in No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top.

Acknowledgments

I acknowledge Stacey Rutledge for her contributions to the initial drafts of this article and Thu Suong Nguyen for her insights and assistance in the preparation of the final article. I also thank the editors and reviewers for their comments and assistance in preparing the manuscript.

Notes

The quote stems from a debate published in Phi Delta Kappan regarding “Texas-style Accountability” with Richard Valencia, Angela Valenzuela, Doug Foley, and Kris Sloan (Scheurich & Skrla, 2001; Scheurich et al., 2000; Valencia, Valenzuela, Sloan, & Foley, 2001).

In a recent review of the use of assessment policy, Herman and Baker (2009) outlined challenges to the validity of these instruments including nonalignment of assessments to curricular standards being taught, bias in test items, and failure to recognize culturally based differences that influence student knowledge and performance. Further, they noted several unproven assumptions underpinning the use of standardized assessments that raise questions about the strategy of relying so intensively on standardized test data (see also Kiplinger, 2008). These concerns suggest that the authority presumed in governance through comparison rests in this instance on a dubious faith in the assessment instruments and how they will be used.

The 1st year opens transfer options to schools meeting adequate yearly progress. The 2nd year provides for parental selection of funded, supplementary education services from public, private or religious organizations. In Year 3, schools must make substantial governance changes: reconstitute the staff, reopen as a charter school, outsource management, or undergo state take-over (McDermott & Debray-Pelot, 2009).

The next lowest performing 5% would be placed on alert for potential intervention, as would chronically underperforming “Challenge Districts” (U.S. Department of Education, 2009a).

Transformation is an intensive intervention including principal removal and institution of a research-based instructional program. Turnaround entails reconstitution of administration and staff and imposition of a research-based instructional program. Under the restart option, the school reopens with a reconstituted staff under charter or private management (U.S. Department of Education, 2009a).

Looking to turnaround models from the private, public, and not-for-profit sector, Murphy identified lessons consonant with the shifts just noted: bring new leadership from the outside and pursue quick results by focusing effort and resources on key performance metrics.

See also Jacob, Lefgren, and Sims (2008) and Rothstein (2008).

“Because of the instability of the estimated effects, only about one-third of teachers ranked in the top 20 percent one year are also ranked in the top quintile the following year and just half of the top-quintile teachers in a given year stay within the top two quintiles the next year. About 10 percent of these teachers are actually ranked in the bottom quintile the following year. Similarly, about one-third of the teachers in the lowest quintile in one year remain in the lowest quintile the next year, over half stay in the bottom two quintiles, and roughly 10 percent ranked in the top quintile the next year” (McCaffrey et al., 2009, p. 594).