The ‘fear of falling behind regime’ embraces school policy: state vs federal policy struggles in California and Texas

Abstract

This article maps the genealogies of how California and Texas have dealt with school policy. The twin purpose is to shed light onto the dynamics governing the formation of K-12 education policy in two influential and different states, and visualizing the intensification of state-federal interaction that has gradually evolved into a national school discourse since the 1960s and with particular speed since the 1990s. The argument is that an overarching ‘fear of falling behind’ regime has been a driving force in establishing a national school discourse by amalgamating standards-based education discourse with previously dominant civil rights discourse. Drawing upon Foucauldian discourse analyses of policy documents, education debate and policy literature, the author demonstrates how documenting different state contexts sheds light upon the forces at work in shaping ambiguous balances between federal and state levels that simultaneously transform both, as is currently manifested in the transition from NCLB(2001) to ESSA(2015).

Keywords:

• K-12 education policy
• ‘fear of falling behind’ regime
• the federal turn
• standards-based education discourse
• California
• Texas

Acknowledgments

I wish to thank and acknowledge Professor Carlos A. Torres and TEP Faculty Advisor Jeff Share (University of California, Los Angeles), Professor Linda McSpadden McNeil (Director of the Center for Education at Rice University, Houston TX), Professor Thomas S. Popkewitz (University of Wisconsin-Madison), Assistant Professor Angus Mungal (University of Texas at El Paso), Professor Emeritus David C. Berliner (Arizona State University) and several others for sharing their valuable insight and for generous assistance in facilitating access to various research contexts, schools, and key persons to understanding the California, Texas, and US contexts and complexities.

Notes

1. In the United States school policy is usually debated in terms of K–12 policy. K–12 is a short term for the publicly supported school grades prior to college, i.e. kindergarten, primary school as well as lower and upper secondary school.

2. (1) Surveys/rankings at national level: SAT (Scholastic Aptitude Tests), NAEP (National Assessment of Educational Progress), and NCLB measures. (2) at an international level: PISA, TIMSS (Trends in Mathematics and Science Study), PIRLS (Progress In Reading Literacy Study).

3. A coalition of conservative education debaters (Diane Ravitch, Chester Finn), a bipartisan group of highly influential Southern governors (e.g. Bill Clinton(D-AR), Richard Riley (D-SC), Lamar Alexander (R-TN)), big business and civil rights associations, and many others.

4. California is the third largest state in terms of geographical size; has a population of 39,145 million inhabitants (2015); and a state GDP per capita of USD 56,365 (compared with the US average of USD 49,748).

Texas is the second-largest state in terms of geographical size, population (27,469 million in 2015) and state GDP (with a GDP per capita of USD 53,707).SOURCE: (2015) https://www.statista.com/statistics/248063/per-capita-us-real-gross-domestic-product-gdp-by-state/

5. According to the Pew Research Center, 39% of the population of California and 52% of all K–12 school students (2015) have a Hispanic background, and in Texas the equivalent numbers are 39% and 48% (2014) (http://www.pewhispanic.org/states/ ). The largest school districts in both states, i.e. the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) and the Houston Independent School District (HISD), have an overwhelming majority of Hispanic origin students, i.e. 73.4% (2011) and 62.1% (2015).

6. California student–teacher/adult ratio in public schools is 23.4 compared with a US average of 16 (2011–2012 (NCES)), expenditure per student is USD 9,595 compared with a US average of USD 11,008 in 2014. Student dropouts and other key figures are also unfavorable (Kaplan, 2015). In addition, you get less for a dollar in California than in most other states. Nonetheless, California American College Testing (ACT) average scores for college readiness are above the national average on all benchmarks (https://www.act.org/content/dam/act/unsecured/documents/Natl-Scores-2014-California.pdf).

7. CORE districts: Fresno, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Santa Ana, San Francisco, Oakland, San Diego and Sanger.

8. Proposition 13: A referendum adopted in 1978, which put a strict cap on local property taxation and thus severely and effectively limited the equalization of funding between rich and poor districts.

9. CAASPP (California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress) replaced STAR (Standardized Testing and Reporting Program) in 2014 (www.caaspp.org/). CAASPP.

10. Texas: (1) spending per pupil: USD 8,593 compared with a US average of USD 11,008 in 2014.(2) student–teacher/adult ratio in public schools: 15.4 (slightly better than US average of 16 (2011–2012 (NCES)). In terms of ACT average scores for college readiness, Texas scores above the national average in benchmarks for algebra, but below in English, social science and biology (https://www.act.org/content/dam/act/unsecured/documents/Natl-Scores-2014-Texas.pdf).

11. ‘Robin Hood plans’ was a nickname given by media to Texas state legislation (1993) enacted in response to the Texas Supreme Court’s ruling in the Edgewood Independent School District v. Kirby case. The ruling required equitable school financing for all school districts in the state. Property-wealthy LEAs are required to redistribute revenue from local property taxes for school purposes over a certain level to poorer districts. This can be done in a number of ways via the state, via a partnership with a poorer district or otherwise. The model, however, is highly contested, in particular as the local funding share related to state funding share has grown considerably (Barba, Ginn, Grusendorf, & Heflin, 2016). Many people from property-wealthy districts oppose the idea that taxes levied in their districts should be spent elsewhere, which somewhat ressembles the resentment in similar districts in California, which ultimately led to the ‘Proposition 13’ vote (e.g. Collier, 2016).

12. In terms of state-mandated standardized tests TAAS (1991), relying on high-stakes testing results, was replaced in 2002 by TAKS (Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills), which was in turn replaced in 2012 by STAAR (State of Texas Assessment of Academic Readiness), which adapted its discourse to accommodate increasing criticism of over-reliance on high-stakes testing by talking of moving away from measuring simple knowledge to also including higher-level reasoning skills.

13. School boards from more than 880 Texas districts, serving 4.4 million students, passed a resolution demanding a school accountability system that did not rely solely on high-stakes testing (http://www.tasanet.org//site/Default.aspx?PageID=842 ), and the Texas Association of School Administrators developed a vision for Texas schools that strongly opposed over-reliance on high-stakes testing for accomplishing what it saw as the much broader purpose of schools (Texas Association of School Administrators, 2008). During this same timeframe, grassroots movements gained significant traction (e.g. Save Texas Schools, Texans Advocating for Meaningful Student Assessment (TAMSA), and Texas Parents Opt Out of Testing).

14. Texas and California policy discourse concerning disadvantaged students usually refers to a schism between the US Supreme Court and federal policy that goes back to the San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez (1973) ruling by the US Supreme Court. This ruling stated that in constitutional terms there is no talking about fundamental rights to education and there is no privileged ‘poor’ category. Nonetheless, since 1965 and the ESEA, poverty-alleviating and desegregating measures have become priorities in federal educational policy and the conditions for federal funding. As a result, since the early 1970s, litigation for equity has been targeted at showing violation of Texan or Californian state constitutions, not the US constitution. And these complex developments have since become drivers for the development of political technologies like high-stakes testing and corresponding assessment models to measure progress for students as well as disaggregating measures for different racial and socio-economic groups (e.g. Valenzuela et al., 2015).