Race, Gender & Class: Volume 18, Number 3-4, 2011 (7-27) Race, Gender & Class Website:

www.rgc.uno.edu

THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATIONS FEDERAL EDUCATIONAL POLICY, INTERSECTIONALITY, CITIZENSHIP, AND FLOURISHING
Stefan Brueck and Carl A. Grant Department of Curriculum and Instruction University of Wisconsin-Madison
Abstract: In this article we analyze, evaluate, and critique contemporary federal educational policy in the United States. W e initially focus on philosophical matters involving the aims of education and purposes of schooling, with specific spotlights on flourishing and citizenship. Next, we introduce the lens of intersectionality, and follow with a brief discussion about the functions of educational policy. W e then provide an overview of Race to the Top, the federal Department of Educations recent proposal for educational reform. After this, we offer a summary of the White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for Hispanics, another example of present-day federal education policy. Subsequently, we share our assessment of both Race to the Top and the White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for Hispanics program. Utilizing the aforementioned intersectionality perspective, we assert that the documents examined demonstrate limited attention to the interlocking and intertwining of the multifaceted dimensions that education policy should consider. In conclusion, we argue that the Obama administrations current federal educational policy inadequately contributes to the cultivation of citizenship and flourishing. Keywords: philosophy of education; educational policy; intersectionality; citizenship; flourishing Stefan Brueck is a Doctoral Student in Curriculum and Instruction at the University of W isconsin-M adison. Being increasingly focused on interdependence, his current research interests include establishing interdisciplinary ties between music education, multicultural and intercultural issues, equity and justice, health and wellness, the natural world, spirituality, creativity, leadership, and transformation. In seeking to integrate such matters, he is presently exploring an upcoming project that will incorporate the arts,

Stefan Brueck & Carl A. Grant

intercultural education, and equitable flourishing Address: 218 S. Bassett Street, Apt. 103, Madison, W I 53703. Ph.: (608)-6304798, Fax: 608-263-9992, Email: brueck@wisc.edu Carl A. Grant is Hoefs-Bascom Professor of Teacher Education in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction at the University of W isconsinM adison. His most recent publications include: Teach! Change! Empower! (2009); a 6 volume set on the History of Multicultural Education (2008; with Thandeka K. Chapman) and Doing Multicultural Education for Achievement and Equity (2008; with Christine E. Sleeter). Professor Grant has written or edited more than 25 books and 125 articles on multicultural education, teacher education, and/or globalization and education. Address: Teacher Education Room 574C, 225 N. Mills Street, Madison, W isconsin 53706. Ph. (608) 263-6586, Fax: (608)-263-9992, Email: grant@education.wisc.edu

his past spring (March, 2011) the Race, Gender and Class Conference hosted a gathering in New Orleans, LA to explore the question, Is a progressive race, gender and class presidency possible in the US? This article has emerged as a response to this important query. Accordingly, in this paper we seek to analyze, evaluate, and critique contemporary federal educational policy in the United States. W e begin by attending to some philosophical matters involving the aims of education and purposes of schooling, specifically commenting upon flourishing and citizenship. Next, we introduce the lens of intersectionality, which we believe could complement a flourishing ethos in tandem with the development of citizenship. We then focus upon the functions of educational policy, briefly noting the need for ties to beliefs and commitments associated with intersectionality, citizenship, and flourishing. W e follow with an overview of Race to the Top, the federal Department of Educations recent proposal for educational reform in the United States of America. Our synopsis includes attention to the proposals links with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the Gates Foundation, and two earlier educational policy reform measures: the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and No Child Left Behind. Next, we summarize the White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for Hispanics, another example of present-day federal education policy. W e then assess Race to the Top and the White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for Hispanics programs. Utilizing the aforementioned intersectionality perspective, we assert that the documents examined demonstrate limited attention to the interlocking and intertwining of the multifaceted dimensions that education policy should consider. In conclusion, we argue that the Obama administrations current federal educational policy inadequately contributes to the cultivation of citizenship and flourishing.

The Obama Administrations Federal Educational Policy PRIMARY AIMS OF EDUCATION S C H O O L IN G F L O U RISH IN G A N D C ITIZENSH IP
A N D

9
O F

PU

R PO SES

The aims and purposes of education when Stefan was a K-12 student in the 1970-80s and when Carl was a K-12 student in the 1940s-50s was, in many ways, to prepare citizens for the rewards and responsibilities associated with a W estern constitutional republic. Accompanying this charge, the purposes of schooling were largely attuned to teach the Jeffersonian, Mannian and Deweyan goals of developing personal autonomy; critical and analytical thinking; ethical judgment; forging diverse relationships; and learning to respect one anothers perspectives, experiences, and world views. Today, we believe that the systems of reasoning about the aims of education by many persons affiliated with schooling, including policy makers, have been recognizably altered and are myopically imagined. Consequentially, many contemporary priorities attend to the preparation of students to race to the top, to train their body, minds, and spirits for the work place; and, the associated functions of schooling have become to prepare students to run the race, to become number one, and to chiefly embrace a competitive worldview. This results in widely discussed education proposals surrounding national standards, charter schools, technocratic models of teaching and learning where experts almost exclusively determine what children learn, and linking teacher evaluation to student test scores (Rose, 2010 as cited in Grant, 2010:1). Our argument is that the current infatuation with globalized markets, economic competition, and preparing students for a Twenty-first century work place has problematically overridden and replaced richer, more appropriate aims of education and schooling, particularly commitments to citizenship and enhanced attention to issues regarding quality of life. Similarly, political philosopher Harry Brighouse (e.g., 2006, 2008) is also concerned with many existing dimensions in W estern society, including those related to education. One aspect of interest for him is the connection between economics, education and schooling. Brighouse argues that people do need to earn a living, so economic achievement is a worthy educational goal for societies and should be supported by governments. But, he also asks whether this is a satisfactory end for schooling. Brighouses answer to this inquiry is that an economic agenda is necessary, but not sufficient (Brighouse, 2008:58). Students, he proposes, should be prepared for the world of work because people need incomes; because for most persons work takes up a sizable portion of their lives; and because most people also tend to need a sense of self-reliance 1 (Brighouse, 2008:29-33). Yet, he asserts, if quality of life is the grounds upon which economic stability and growth matter, and growth does not systematically improve quality of life, then education should not be guided only or primarily by economic considerations. To do this, he declares, is inappropriate, for in pursuing

10

Stefan Brueck & Carl A. Grant

relevance to the childs immediate surroundings and to the economys shortterm demands, we steer education away from the life-enhancing mission it could have (Brighouse, 2006:4). Extending this line of thought, Brighouse claims that while economic achievement, economic stability, and economic growth are important, they are only important insofar as they promote full human flourishing (Brighouse, 2008:60). Hence, Brighouse (2006) suggests that the principle of flourishing is one that schools need to emphasize. In fact, he believes that flourishing is the primary intrinsic value that schools should basically serve (Brighouse, 2006:4). Brighouse puts it this way: W e owe a duty to children that their childhood be rich and enjoyable, but we also owe them a duty to prepare them so that they can have a significant range of opportunities to lead a flourishing life in adulthood (Brighouse, 2006:9). In attending to what flourishing is and may involve, Brighouse (2006) acknowledges that this is debatable and controversial. Likewise, he notes that there are many ways to flourish. Yet, his personal commitments are significantly associated with research that enumerates seven central factors influencing levels of happiness. These include: 1) financial situation; 2) family relationships; 3) work; 4) community and friends; 5) health; 6) personal freedom; and 7) personal values (Layard, 2005: 62-70 as cited in Brighouse, 2006: 5). Brighouse (2006, 2008) subsequently asks how evidence and insights pertaining to such realms might guide education and schooling. In his view, important to such deliberations is how culture and society impact what becomes possible in various schooling contexts. In this way he observes, what the school can and should contribute to education is influenced by what happens beyond the school (Brighouse, 2006:6). He reflectively questions whether the educational call for flourishing is absurdly utopian in an environment in which business interests direct the political debate and in which advantaged parents, who utilize a good amount of political voice, are deeply concerned with gaining competitive advantage for their children. Brighouse also admits that schools face a good deal of pressure to conform the children they teach to the requirements of the economy. But, he claims that most schools, and most governments, have some political space within which to experiment, and with committed leadership and competent execution there is no reason why this space should not grow (Brighouse, 2008:67). Nonetheless, Brighouse (2006) makes a point to declare that schooling should not attempt to force a way of life on children (Brighouse, 2006:52). He wants children to have numerous opportunities, though, and advises policymakers, administrators, and teachers to promote an ethos, adopt a curriculum, and manage the day-to-day pace of school life better, to serve the children under their care. He highlights possibilities for nurturing close personal

The Obama Administrations Federal Educational Policy

11

relationships, supporting emotional aspects of learning, and studying mental health. For him, such suggestions are inextricably linked to how schools, as a major contributor to the aims of education and the purposes of schooling, should see it as their task to facilitate their students future and present flourishing (Brighouse, 2006:60). Yet Brighouse importantly notes, in addition to educational aims in which the benefit to the person receiving the education is foremost, it is also worth considering aims related to what benefits others (Brighouse, 2006:62). He holds that the child who becomes a well-functioning citizen in a democratic society may or may not benefit from being one. Nonetheless, Brighouse maintains that other citizens are considerably enhanced, at least if a critical mass of well-functioning citizens develops. Indeed, public education is intimately connected with our shared civic project, and confirmation of this collective venture is itself tied directly to sharing a civic community with all ones fellow citizens (Macedo, 2000). In fact, the U.S. was the first country to institutionalize universal publicly provided schooling, the central justification being to produce a unified citizenry out of a nation of immigrants with diverse pre-existing identities and loyalties. Important as this history has been and remains, there is much less agreement about exactly what constitutes good citizenship, and how it should be reflected in schooling (Brighouse, 2006:63). Among other possibilities, a citizen might be considered to be someone expected to participate, as an elector and in other ways, in decisions about the future of a political community. The more fully a citizen understands what this involves, and the less he or she is led astray by misconceptions of it, the better for the polity (W hite, 2007:7-8). As part of this process, it is the community who assists in establishing and nourishing the individuals moral voice, providing a moral anchor. Hunter (2000) suggests that we necessarily find the answers to our existential questions among the particularities that we bring to a civic dialogue. He emphasizes that character outside of a lived community, the entanglements of complex social relationships, and their shared story, is impossible (Hunter, 2000:227). These connected narratives, conversations, and decision-making efforts will, in part, be about how to potentially make life better for people, about their flourishing. Hence, the ancient Greek understanding of ethics is still relevant today, for ethics is the practical and moral wisdom or expertise cultivated in the context of individual and community flourishing (Narvaez, 2002:40). Indeed, it bears emphasizing that the good life is not lived in isolation. One does not flourish alone (Narvaez, Bock, & Endicott, 2003:46). Yet, in addition to the importance of considering relationships, including ethical and moral ones, that pertain to quality of life for self and others, so too must some attention be focused on associations involving other beings and the natural world.

12

Stefan Brueck & Carl A. Grant

One entry point to consider ties between people and the more than human world is that of the commons. The commons includes shared spaces and necessary public goods. If tended well, they can enrich human life while improving the world. Importantly, the commons is not all about duty, obligation and sacrifice; it is also about joy, celebration, pleasure, happiness, meaningmaking, and fun. People can feel more connections with others and less isolated as they realize that they are not completely on their own. At the same time communities, the environment, and the overall social fabric can be protected. To do this nonetheless requires participation and collaboration, which is also at the very core of the commons (Davis, 2011). Cultural relations are also intimately connected to citizenship and flourishing, and as such are also worthy of attention. As a concept, culture has been pluralistically conceived, such that numerous definitions for the notion have been proposed. For example, culture has been suggested as a body of common understandings (that are) the sum total andarrangement of (a) groups ways of thinking, feeling, and acting (Brown, 1963:3-4). It has also been described as the set of distinctive spiritual, material, intellectual and emotional features of a society or a social group, and that it encompasses, in addition to art and literature, lifestyles, ways of living together, value systems, traditions and beliefs (UNESCO Declaration on Cultural Diversity, 2001:2). Additionally, culture...is not composed of static, discrete traits moved from one locale to another. It is constantly changing and transforming, as new forms are created out of old ones. Thus culture . . . does not arise out of nothing: it is created and modified by material conditions (Mullings, 1986:13). Accordingly, culture is never fully essentializable, but rather inherently incorporates hybridity. W ith awareness of such matters has come increased focus in some academic and political circles on the notion of the cosmopolitan. Cosmopolitanism, having taken multiple forms throughout history, derives from the Greek word kosmopolites, which literally means citizen of the cosmos, or universe (Heater, 2004:40). It may be broadly defined as belonging to all parts of the w orld (O xford E ng lish D iction ary, 1989, http://dictionary.oed.com.ezproxy.library.wisc.edu/cgi/entry/50051138?single=1 & query_type=w ord& queryw ord=cosm opolitan& first=1& max_to_show=10). Among various interpretations of cosmopolitanism is a perspective that involves two intertwined strands: the notion that we have obligations to other human beings above and beyond those to whom we are related by ties of family, kinship or formal citizenship; and an attitude that values others not just as specimens of universal humanity but as having lives whose meaning is bound up with particular practices and beliefs that are often different from our own (Appiah, 2006). Thus, a cosmopolitan citizen is one type of personhood advocated by some in reaction to the present realities of globalization. Overlapping such considerations, Davidson (2000) aptly points out that in a global context, it is no longer feasible to consider citizenship within the

The Obama Administrations Federal Educational Policy

13

terms of the nation as something whose parameters are national (Davidson, 2000:5). Rather, citizenship becomes a world-wide public value. Likewise, the Citizenship Education Policy Study Project (Cogan, 1997) was undertaken to explore the demands of citizenship in the early Twenty-first century from a global society perspective. Policy experts (n=182) from nine countries identified several international trends that they deemed of highest priority for policy makers. The leaders suggested the following characteristics, in descending order of importance: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Approaching problems as a member of a global society W orking cooperatively with others and taking responsibility for ones roles and responsibilities in society Understanding, accepting, and tolerating cultural differences Thinking in a critical and systematic way Resolving conflict in a non-violent manner Adopting a way of life that protects the environment Respecting and defending human rights Participating in public life at all levels of civic discourse Making full use of information-based technologies (Cogan, 1997 as cited in Narvaez, Bock, & Endicott, 2003:46-47).

W ithin a planetary worldview, educating for peoplehood and global citizenship presupposes a relational understanding of flourishing that recognizes the fundamental interconnectivity of the human condition. This approach is contrary to the pure individualism of modernity in that commitments are made toward a self-understanding that appreciates how people often become most fully ourselves through participation in the multiple communities of which we are a part (Glaser, 2011:8-9). As citizens within pluralistic domains, it matters whether we are merely promoting (intentionally or not) our own interests or are acting as well for the good of others within various collective, ever-changing, and often fuzzy-bounded spheres. Such consciousness does not mean that there will not be tensions or that every controversial issue will be fully resolvable in all times and spaces. Yet, global citizenship insists that we place our own interests, desires, and choices, to the degree we have some awareness of and pragmatic agency regarding them, in the context of the flourishing of a larger whole. Educating toward appreciation of such interdependency requires helping students to see that their partial and relative autonomy is itself a product of being nurtured within a community of others (Glaser, 2011:8-9). As is the case with other persons too, it is within some sense of community that students apply and polish their ethical competencies. Hence, citizenship education in large part fosters skills, attitudes and knowledge in students that enable them to effectively and responsibly participate in civic life (Narvaez, Bock, & Endicott, 2003:46). Such education additionally supports students to understand themselves as participants in the ongoing conversations and dynamic cultural

14

Stefan Brueck & Carl A. Grant

traditions that provide them language and additional ways of knowing and being through which to make sense of and experience the world. This necessitates that we make space for our students to imagine and dream pace for our students to develop a vision of the common good that speaks to our mutual flourishing in a shared and diverse world. So too must we engage with our students around issues of justice and inclusion as we help them to develop a vision of society that includes the flourishing of diverse communities (Glaser, 2011:9). Social justice and equity deal not just with aspects of income but dimensions connected with quality of life. Equity might be interpreted to be just and fair inclusion, whereby all can participate and prosper in society. Furthermore, creating conditions that allow all to reach their full potential is important to the realization of such goals (Equity Definition, 2011) Thus, for a flourishing society to emerge requires not just tackling poverty but also inequality and social divisions. Such a society seeks, as much as possible, to ensure that all children can flourish, appreciating differentiation along the journey. Overlapping with such a vision, Grant (2010) focuses on a robust social justice approach to cultivate flourishing lives, attending to children, diversity, and citizenship in the process. He proposes seven constituents that he believes influence a flourishing life: personal freedom; positive identity; cultural appreciation and recognition; family and friends support; meaningful employment; moral/ethical values; financial stability; good mental and physical health; and education (Grant, 2010:8). He (Gibson & Grant, 2010) states that a multicultural democratic education puts the cultivation of and attention to students flourishing and whole lives front and center. This requires that educators work from a place of authentic, critical caring; that high-quality learning experiences are prioritized; that authentic, cooperative communities are built in classrooms; that lives and communities are connected to a broader global context; and that students connect school learning to social action and citizenship. Together, these orientations and emphases encourage students to grapple with what it means to be human (W est, 2004:217), to understand democracy not only in terms of government action but in terms of an orientation to the world, and a commitment to equity and justice (Parker, 2003; Perlstein, 2000) (Gibson & Grant, 2010:5-6). Ultimately, Grant (2010) argues that five core values are essential to prepare students for a U.S. society that has yet to have freedom, justice and equality for everyone: self assessment, critical questioning, practicing democracy, social action, and developing criteria for adjudication (Grant, 2010: 13). Marmots (2004) work additionally helps tie a well-being educational agenda to wider questions of social justice, citizenship, and flourishing. He

The Obama Administrations Federal Educational Policy

15

makes links between mental and physical health and well-being on the one hand and inequality or social hierarchy on the other. For him, the mediating factors are degree of control over ones life and opportunities for full social participation (Marmot, 2004:16). Furthermore, Ben-Arieh and Boyer (2005) claim that children who are active and involved have their wellbeing safeguarded. W e want our children to participate not only in order to train them to become good citizens in the future but as means for securing their well-being as children in the present (Qvortrup, 1997 as cited in Ben-Arieh & Boyer, 2005:47). Citizenship as a practice is thus important to well-being in its eudemonic sense of the fulfillment of ones distinctively human potentialities or self-realization (Kymlicka & Norman, 1995p Shah & Marks, 2004; and Marks, Shah, & W estall, 2004 as cited in Lister, 2005). Such sentiments reinforce as well as extend the aforementioned work of Brighouse. So too might they continue being considered along with other issues and perspectives involving citizenship, flourishing, and education.

I N TE RSE CT IO N A LIT Y A S A L E NS W hen considering education and schooling especially in a contemporary milieu, one additional investigative approach to utilize in tandem with citizenship and a flourishing ethos is the perspective of intersectionality. Over the last thirty plus years in the social sciences, intersectionality as a concept, research paradigm and theory, and/or as a lens for analyzing the in te ra c tio n s o f d iffe r e n t c u ltu r a l a n d s o c ia l c a t e g o rie s o f discrimination/oppression has developed and expanded. This has been so both within the United States and internationally. Intersectionality is being used as a tool for situating normative theoretical arguments and as an approach to conducting empirical research, and for framing and analyzing policy (Hancock, 2007; McCall, & Skrtic, 2010; Grant & Zwier, in press). Many definitions of intersectionality describe it as a social science theory which is used to examine cultural and social categories of discrimination and exclusion, and their multiple and simultaneous interactions that contribute to/produce systematic social inequality (Collins, 1998; Crenshaw, 1991, de Nobrega, 2010; Hancock, 2007). Intersectionality is a theory that seeks to examine the ways in which various socially and culturally constructed categories interact on multiple levels to manifest themselves as inequality in society. Intersectionality holds that the classical models of oppression within society, such as those based on race/ethnicity, gender, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, class, species or disability do not act independently of one another; instead, these forms of oppression interrelate creating a system of oppression that reflects the "intersection" of multiple forms of discrimination (Intersectionality,

16 2011).

Stefan Brueck & Carl A. Grant

There is not one theory of intersectionality, but different conceptualizations and theoretizations of it, including different terms/phrases (e.g., vectors of oppression and privilege (Ritzer, 2007:204), interlocking system (Louise-Fellows & Razack, 1998), and multiple jeopardy (King, 1988:47). Theories and definitions can be differentiated with regard to which societal level they attend to: identity representation or structures, and/or if they offer a multilevel approach (Baer, Keim, & Nowottnick, 2009). Intersectionality provides a schema for understanding how different forms of disadvantage and privilege interact in the spaces we inhabit: personhood, communities, and institutions (Grabham, Cooper, Krishnadas, & Herman, 2008).

F UNCTIO NS O F E DUCATIO NAL P O L IC Y Educational policy refers to the collection of laws and rules that govern the operation of education systems. Such policy attends to the values that schools are expected to uphold and model. Embedded in the crafting process of all educational policy texts are ideological and epistemological assumptions of authors regarding their sense of the aims and purposes of education. W hile those persons involved with discourse analysis and deconstruction projects have rightly shown that actual values are not themselves inherently located in such treatises, the discourse of these documents may significantly influence interpretations of them and subsequent actions and/or behaviors of various educational actors. Indeed creators of such policies typically seek to maximize such potential influential power of those encountering their texts, and real consequences may result from how such actors do so. Again, if the primary aims of education and schooling are largely to foster citizenship and further flourishing (both present and future), then the purpose and effects of educational policy, including at the federal level, should align with this as well. In a related vein, the New Economics Foundation (NEF) poignantly inquires, W hat would policy look life if it were seeking to promote well- being? (Shah & Marks, 2004:17). Likewise, evidence of an intersectionality lens, which can assist in identifying barriers to rich citizenship education and flourishing, would also supplement and demonstrate support for such an overarching ethos and worldview. Contemporary National Educational Policy in the U.S.: Race to the Top and Executive Order for the White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for Hispanic Americans Overview As a direct response to the economic crisis, on February 17, 2009 President Obama signed into law the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). This historic legislation was designed to stimulate the economy, support job creation, and invest in critical sectors. W hile many

The Obama Administrations Federal Educational Policy

17

ARRA projects are focused more immediately on jumpstarting the economy, others, especially those involving infrastructure improvements, are claimed to contribute to economic growth for many years. (One Hundred and Eleventh United States Congress, 2009). The ARRA also claims to lay the foundation for education reform by supporting investments in innovative strategies that are most likely to lead to improved results for students, long-term gains in school and school system capacity, and increased productivity and effectiveness (Race to the Top Program Executive Summary, 2009:2). The act provides $4.35 billion for the Race to the Top (RTtT) fund, a competitive grant program designed to encourage and reward states that are creating the conditions for education innovation and reform; achieving significant improvement in student outcomes, including making substantial gains in student achievement, closing achievement gaps, improving high school graduation rates, and ensuring student preparation for success in college and careers; and implementing ambitious plans in four core education reform areas: ! ! ! ! Adopting standards and assessments that prepare students to succeed in college and the workplace and to compete in the global economy; Building data systems that measure student growth and success, and inform teachers and principals about how they can improve instruction; Recruiting, developing, rewarding, and retaining effective teachers and principals, especially where they are needed most; and Turning around our lowest-achieving schools (Race to the Top Program Executive Summary, 2009:2).

Additionally, RTtT stresses commitment to six priorities. These include: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Comprehensive Approach to Education Reform Emphasis on Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM ) Innovations for Improving Early Learning Outcomes Expansion and Adaptation of Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems P-20 Coordination, Vertical and Horizontal Alignment School-Level Conditions for Reform, Innovation, and Learning (Race to the Top Program Executive Summary, 2009:4-5).

Race to the Top, issued as federal educational policy by the Department of Education (DoE), partners with and builds upon other initiatives, including those that emerged during the 1960s. As evidence of this, RTtT is referenced as the model for the 2010 DoE publication entitled A Blueprint for Reform: the Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. This text serves as the Obama administrations visionary plan intending to foster a worldclass education for American students (United States Department of Education, 2010:1-2). The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), initiated during President Johnsons era, authorized large amounts of federal funds to

18

Stefan Brueck & Carl A. Grant

states and school districts in an effort to improve the education of low-income and minority children. Federal policy makers mandated that school programs be evaluated to determine whether children were improving academically. Standardized tests were used to measure student performance. From these efforts to monitor student achievement eventually came the idea, given that data was already collected, to utilize such information to hold schools accountable for producing academic results. Minimum competency tests identified and measured skills that had to be learned by each grade level and where efforts were needed to improve teaching and learning. Accordingly, since the mid1960s, the conservative idea of a successful school has thus been transformed into one in which student performance on norm-referenced achievement tests is the primary indicator (Cuban, 2000:163-5). It is from these ideas and conditions that the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) emerged. According to the U.S. DoE, NCLB had six priorities: (1) higher accountability for results; (2) more choices for parents; (3) teachers who were highly qualified; (4) the encouragement of scientifically proven educational methods; (5) greater freedom for states and communities; and (6) flexibility of funds. NCLB sought to make fundamental changes in public education with an explicit intent to close the achievement gap (referring primarily to racial and lower-income learners). The act considerably increased the role of the federal government in state education policy, authorizing both penalties and rewards based on participation and achievement levels, and called for intervention for students and schools who did not meet expectations (Nagle & Crawford, 2004:1). Such are some of the earlier U.S. federal policy incarnations that helped to influence Race to the Top. These other policies provide some important context, ideas, and commitments from which its creators have drawn upon. Such connections have become manifest in much of the language and multiple other features of the Race to the Top text. Yet, in addition to these influences and similarities, educational policy is never just made by the federal government. Rather, policy authors know and depend upon other contributors, including massive funders, to hopefully assist in accompanying their objectives. For example, the DoE has developed a strong partnership with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation which itself has developed and advocated a particular educational agenda. The educational strategy of the foundation proclaims, we are working to ensure that a high school education results in college-readiness and that a postsecondary education results in a degree or certificate with value in the workplace. (Education Strategy Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, 2011). Toward advancing such a vision, the organization additionally notes that it is committed to focusing on shared goals. This primarily involves the areas of

Developmental Education - Our research shows that improving remedial, or academic catch up, programs is the most important thing

The Obama Administrations Federal Educational Policy

19

that community colleges can do to improve their graduation rates. Effective Teaching - Teachers matter most when it comes to student achievement. Common Core State Standards - Governors and state education commissioners are developing a common core of state standards in English-language arts and mathematics for grades K-12. These standards are research and evidence-b ased, internationally benchmarked, and aligned with college and work expectations. (Education Strategy Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, 2011).

Another federal educational reform measure, the White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for Hispanic Americans, was established in September 1990 by President George H.W . Bush. Its initial purpose was to provide advice and guidance to the secretary of education on education issues related to Hispanics and to address academic excellence and opportunities for the Hispanic community. During the Clinton administration, the commission was tasked with: eliminating education inequities and disadvantages faced by Hispanic Americans; increasing Hispanic participation in federal education programs; eliminating unintended regulatory barriers to Hispanic participation in federal education programs; promoting and publicizing education opportunities and programs of interest to Hispanics; and encouraging private sector, state and community involvement in improving education for Hispanics. During the Bush administration, the commission was tasked with examining the underlying causes of the existing education achievement gap between Hispanic American students and their peers. W hen the commission dissolved in 2003, the White House Initiative's focus shifted to community outreach and the establishing of its partnership program, Partnership for Hispanic Family Learning. On Oct. 19, 2010, President Obama renewed the White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for Hispanics. This event was an attempt to demonstrate the president's strong support for the critical role Hispanics play in the overall prosperity of the nation and sought to highlight the Administration's commitment to expanding education opportunities and improving education outcomes for all students. New elements of the executive order claimed to place a high priority on action, such as: ! W orking directly with communities nationwide in public-private partnerships, linking together key individuals and organizations from within and outside the education system to increase capacity and announce communitywide education initiatives; Establishing a Presidential Advisory Commission and national network of community leaders that will provide real-time input and advice on the development, implementation and coordination of education policy and programs that impact the Hispanic community;

20 !

Stefan Brueck & Carl A. Grant Forming a Federal Interagency W orking Group to exchange resources and address issues impacting the lives of Hispanics nationwide, including housing, health, finance, employment and education, among others (White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for Hispanics, 2011, http://www.2.ed.gov/about/inits/list/hispanic-initiative /index.html).

Additionally, to mark the next step in connecting communities nationwide with information, resources and people to improve the academic achievement and lives of Hispanics, the W hite House Initiative convened a number of Education Department and Administration officials, national Hispanic education advocates, as well as community and business leaders for a National Education Summit and Call to Action (White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for Hispanics, 2011, http://www2.ed.gov/about/inits/list/hispanicinitiative/index.html).

A N A LY ZIN G A N D E VALUATING E D U CA TIO N P O L IC Y Main Points and Primary Themes

THE

O B AM A A DM INISTRATIO N S N A TIO N A L

Our text-based analysis of the documents summarized above reveal several prominent themes of the Obama administrations national educational policy. Particularly evident is strong support for education that spawns economic growth and boosts U.S. global competitiveness for the future. Such commitment is demonstrated via W in the Future-type language intended to jumpstart the currently weakened economy within a globalized milieu. These beliefs are reinforced in part through the promotion of education certificates that are intended to carry value in the workplace and world financial system. Even support for the development of democratic citizenship and exposure to a range of educational subjects are tied to such monetary-based spheres. For example, the Blueprint for Reform states that students need a well-rounded education to contribute as citizens in our democracy and to thrive in a global economy from literacy to mathematics, science, and technology to history, civics, foreign languages, the arts, financial literacy, and other subjects (United States Department of Education, 2010:4). In a related vein, significant attention in the Obama administrations educational discourse is also paid to improving student academic performance and closing achievement gaps. This emphasis promotes improved results for students, long-term gains in school and school system capacity, and increased productivity and effectiveness. Student growth and success at the K-12 levels is largely gauged in relation to and funneled toward development for college readiness.

The Obama Administrations Federal Educational Policy

21

To advance and measure such goals, particular kinds of assessment tools are utilized, namely norm-referenced achievement tests that measure performance and are supplemented by data-driven accountability. Moreover, common core K-12 standards that are substantially identical across all states in a consortium define what students must know and be able to do. So too are such efforts connected to research that is expected to be evidence-based as well as internationally benchmarked. Additionally complementing such priorities, the Obama administration utilizes a neoliberal meme. This mantra is exhibited through the establishing of grant awards and school choice policies. Overall, the approach of the Obama administrations educational policy appears largely aligned with human capitol theory. Having been widely employed in national and international policy, this theory concentrates primarily on the instrumental importance of schooling usually framed in terms of economic growth. The paradigm argues that the value of education is in growing private and social rates of return, generally measured in terms of increased incomes to individuals, families, and states (Olaniyan & Okemakinde, 2008:158). Degree of Overlap with Intersectionality and Flourishing In light of such main points and primary themes, how might the Obama administrations educational policy overlap, or not, with dimensions associated with intersectionality and flourishing? Race to the Top claims to be a comprehensive approach to education reform. Indeed, the Obama administration professes an avowed commitment to providing a world-class education as a moral imperative the key to securing a more equal, fair, and just society. Associated with this, we must support families, communities, and schools working in partnership to deliver services and supports that address the full range of student needs (United States Department of Education, 2010:1). Contemporary national educational policy documents hint at potential acknowledgement of connections between social and cultural categories that either reproduce or establish discrimination, exclusion, and oppression. For example, attention is given to high-need students, deemed to be at risk of educational failure or otherwise in need of special assistance, who are more specifically referred to those who might be living in poverty, who attend highminority schools, who have disabilities, or who are English language learners. A similar commitment is exemplified by the following: from English learners and students with disabilities to Native American students, homeless students, migrant students, rural students, and neglected or delinquent students, our proposal will continue to support and strengthen programs for these students and ensure that schools are helping them meet college- and career-ready standards (United States Department of Education, 2010:5).

22

Stefan Brueck & Carl A. Grant

Obama administration education policy documents do demonstrate recognition of some imbalance in schooling contexts, aspects related to inequality, fairness, and flourishing. Efforts to recruit, develop, reward, and retain effective teachers and principals, especially where they are needed most, are promoted. So too is there a strong attempt to turn around the lowestperforming schools. The Recovery Act also offers some tax cuts for working families and businesses ($288 billion); increases federal funds for education and health care as well as entitlement programs such as extending unemployment benefits ($224 billion); and provides some money for federal contracts, grants and loans ($275 billion) (One Hundred and Eleventh United States Congress, 2009). The Federal Interagency W orking group associated with the Hispanic Initiative also suggests some linkages between ethnicity, class, and health. Scattered throughout other national educational texts is some additional mentioning of safety, health, and well-being as well. What Is Lacking and Several Suggestions for Improvement In studying the Obama Administrations national educational policy from a framework principally attending to intersectionality, citizenship, and flourishing, several facets seem to be noticeably absent. Significantly, minimal substantive connections between social markers and cultural categories are evident. Moreover, what diversity of identity markers there is appears to remain framed as rather essentialized and fixed group categories. Dynamic, everchanging and often hybrid constructions of self-understandings as well as various socially grouped categories is lacking in the discourse. Meanwhile, there is also no mention of issues associated with gender, LGBTQQIA life, or spirituality/religion. Such absences represent a troublesome divergence with intersectionality theory. In this way, the Obama administrations national educational policy initiatives demonstrate a narrow-minded analysis and inadequate appreciation to complexity. The multifaceted interdependence of personal, social, organizational, institutional, and even environmental relationships are not present within the documents we reviewed. Correlated with this insufficiency, it would have been helpful to better address various opportunities, capacities, and conditions necessary for quality education and an expanded conception of life success. Increasingly questioning the range of real educational choices that have been available to people; whether they have the genuine capability to achieve dignity and optimally valued educational functionings, would have been useful (Unterhalter, Vaughan, & W alker, 2007:14). Having schools compete for funds is not aligned with such commitments. Hence, national educational policy texts might have better articulated and committed to an intentional appreciation of how individuals and society could develop valued beings and doings beyond just job preparation, work, and training for economic competitiveness (Unterhalter, Vaughan, &

The Obama Administrations Federal Educational Policy W alker, 2007:15).

23

So, the Obama administrations national educational policy embodies a flawed and limited system of reasoning regarding the aims and purposes of public schooling itself. By fixating almost exclusively on winning the future in a globalized marketplace, additional rich and good values as to why we have, and need, public education are missing. For example, democracy and world citizenship are only marginally attended to in Race to the Top and the Hispanic Initiative. Thicker descriptions and promotion of each might have been affirmed. Furthermore, the good life is not appropriately mentioned or discussed in relation to why we should have public education. Such minimal substantive attention to quality of life and ethical matters is unfortunate. Despite passing attention to a well-rounded education, the whole child and holistic education are not adequately flushed out. An enhanced articulation of well-being, both in the present moment and for longevity over time, might have been presented. Ties could be made to the Preamble and Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution, which discuss the role of government to serve the general welfare of citizens. As this means everyone, matters of justice and intersectionality come into play. With this in mind, an argument could reasonably be made to support public education for equitable flourishing. Similarly, the Obama administration could have advocated for a public educational policy focused on thriving. This might have included awareness of positive emotion plus engagement plus meaning plus achievement in entire populations (Jayawickreme, Pawelski, & Seligman, 2009:32-33). Accompanying such dimensions, the Obama administrations national educational policy could have highlighted a more diverse palette of knowledge, skills, and dispositions for students to cultivate. The intense focus on STEM subjects does not allow much space for the arts and other areas such as multilingualism. Connected too with a more robust sketching of democracy, greater support might have been affirmed for students to become positive and impactful planetary citizens in the twenty-first century. Problem-solving, empathy, courageous leadership, and development of the inner life are some of the realms that might accompany such worthwhile goals. Greater recognition might have also been demonstrated of the need for students to develop the ability to adapt to change as well as cope with adversity. Similarly, nurturing positive psychological and social functioning in life could have been integrated into the discourse (Keyes, 2007:98). Human diversity insists that learners have different needs, and different interests. Yet, current national educational discourse deficiently attempts to identify student needs and wants. Taking into account individual experiences, conceptions of personal fulfillment, and other variations within student groups is important (Unterhalter, Vaughan, W alker, 2007:15). These pluralistic aspects might be concomitantly balanced with those of parents, teachers, administrators, and others in society who individually and collectively try to be globally aware

24 and locally active.

Stefan Brueck & Carl A. Grant

C O NCLUSIO N Race to the Top certainly conveys some aspects of good sense as a federal proposal for educational reform. It is true that the policy provides a somewhat more expansive lens than its immediate predecessor, No Child Left Behind. So too are there a few positive signs evident within the Executive Order for the White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for Hispanic Americans. However, much of positive value is yet omitted and excluded from this approach for educational adjustment, if not overhaul. Unfortunately, significant valuing of intersectionality appears to be absent from the worldviews of federal education policy designers. As oppression hurts everyone (Kumashiro, 2008), such problematic analysis and framing has troublesome consequences. Indeed, altering a conceptual frame is itself social change (Lakoff, 2004). W ere the Obama administration to do this, their federal education policy might better contribute to cultivating improved student citizenship and equitable flourishing.

N O TE Brighouse notes that this concept is socially constructed and somewhat artificial yet claims it is still a real need.
1

R EFERENCES Appiah, K. (2006). Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a world of strangers. New York City: W .W . Norton. Baer, S., Keim, J., & Nowottnick, L. (2009). Intersectionality in gender training. Retrieve from http://www.google.com/search?q=Baer%2C+K eim%2C+Nowottnick--intersectionality&ie=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozil la:en-US:official&client=firefox-a Ben-Arieh, A. & Boyer, Y. (2005). Citizenship and childhood: The state of affairs in Israel. Childhood, 12. Brighouse, H. (2006). On education. London: Routledge. _______. (2008). Education for a flourishing life. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 107(1). Brown, I.C. (1963). Understanding other cultures. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Cogan, J. (1997). Multicultural citizenship: Educational policy for the 21 st century. Minneapolis, Minnesota: University of Minnesota.

The Obama Administrations Federal Educational Policy

25

Cosmopolitan. (n.d.). http://dictionnary.oed.com.ezproxy.library.wisc.edu/cgi/ entry/50051138?single=1&query_type=word&queryword=cosmopolita n&first=1&max_to_show=10 Collins, P.H. (1990, 2000). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness and the politics of empowerment. Boston: Unwin Hyman. Crenshaw, K.W . (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6). Cuban, L. (2000). Why is it so hard to get good schools? Reconstructing the common good in education: Coping with intractable American dilemmas. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Davidson, A. (2000). Fractured identities: Citizenship in a global world. In E. Vasta (Ed.), Citizenship, community, and democracy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Davis, P. (2011). A field guide to the commons. http://www.shareable.net/blog /field-guide-to-the-commons. de Nobrega, C. (2010). Intersectionality and human rights: Law, theory and praxis. Retrieve from http://www.iss.nl/DevISSues/Articles/Intersec tionality-and-human-ri-law-theory-and-praxis Education Strategy - Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Retrieve from http://w w w .gatesfoundation.org/united-states/Pa ges/united-stateseducation-strategy.aspx Equity Definition. (n.d.). Retrieve from http://equityblog.org/equitydefinition Glaser, J. (2011) Educating for Global Citizenship. Sh'ma: A Journal of Jewish Responsibility, 41(677, February). Grabham, E., Cooper, D., Krishnadas, J., & Herman, D. (2008). Intersectionality and beyond: Law, power and the politics of location. New York: Routledge-Cavendish. Grant, C.A. (2010). Cultivating flourishing lives: A Robust social justice Vision of Education. Social Justice Lecture, American Education Research Association Annual Conference, April 30, Denver, CO. Grant, C.A. & Zwier, E. (in press). Education and Intersectionality, in J. Banks, (Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational diversity. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hancock, A.M. (2007). Intersectionality as a Normative and Empirical Paradigm. Politics & Gender, 3(2). Heater, D. (2004). A brief history of citizenship. New York: NYU Press. Hunter, J.D. (2000). The death of character: Moral education in an age without good or evil. New York: Basic Books. Intersectionality. (2011). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality Jayawickreme, E., Pawelski, J., & Seligman, M.E.P. (2009). Happiness: Positive psychology and Nussbaums capabilities approach. In R. Auxier (Ed.), Library of living philosophers: The philosophy of Martha Nussbaum (in press). Chicago: Open Court. http://homepage.uab.edu/ angner/SW B/Jayawickreme&al.pdf Keyes, C.L. (2007). Promoting and protecting mental health as flourishing.

26

Stefan Brueck & Carl A. Grant

American Psychologist, 62(2February-March). King, D. (1988). Multiple jeopardy, multiple consciousness: The context of Black feminist ideology. Signs, 14(1, Autumn). Kumashiro, K. (2008). The seduction of common sense: How the right has framed the debate on Americas schools. Teachers College Press. New York. Kymlicka, W . & Norman, W . (1995). Return of the citizen: A survey of recent work on citizenship theory. In R. Beiner (Ed.), Theorizing citizenship. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press Lakoff, G. (2004). Dont think of an elephant: Know your values and frame the debate. (New York: Chelsea Green. Layard, R. (2005). Happiness. London: Penguin. Lister, R. (2005). Children, well-being and citizenship. Paper presented to Social Policy Association Annual Conference, University of Bath, June. Louise-Fellows, M. & Razack, S. (1998) The Race to innocence: Confronting hierarchical relations among women. Journal of Gender, Race, and Justice, Spring. Macedo, S. (2000). Diversity and distrust: Civic education in a multicultural democracy. Harvard University Press. Marks, N. Shah, H, & W estall, A. (2004). The power and potential of wellbeing indicators. London: New Economics Foundation. Marmot, M. (2004). Status syndrome. London: Bloomsbury. McCall, Z. Skrtic, T.M. (2010). Intersectional needs politics. Multiple Voices for Ethnically Diverse Exceptional Learners, 11(2). Mullings, L. (1986). Anthropological perspectives on the Afro-American family. American Journal of Social Psychiatry, 6. Nagle, K. & Crawford, J. (2004). Opportunities and challenges: Perspectives on NCLBA from Special Education Directors in Urban School Districts. Institute for the Study of Exceptional Children and Youth. College Park, MD: Educational Policy Reform Research Institute, April. Narvez, D. (2002). Integrative ethical education: Putting flourishing back into character education. Center for Ethical Education and Development, Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame. Narvaez, D., Bock, T., & Endicott, L. (2003). W ho should I become? Citizenship, goodness, human flourishing, and ethical expertise. In W . Veugelers & F.K. Oser (Eds.), Teaching in moral and democratic education. Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang Publishers. Olaniyan. D.A. & Okemakinde. T. (2008). Human capital theory: Implications for educational development. European Journal of Scientific Research, 24(2). One Hundred and Eleventh United States Congress. (2009). American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Retrieve from http://www.rec overy.gov/About/Pages/The_Act.aspx Parker, W .C. (2003). Teaching democracy: Unity and diversity in public life. New York: Teachers College Press.

The Obama Administrations Federal Educational Policy

27

Perlstein, D. (2000). There is no escape from the ogre of indoctrination: George Counts and the civic dilemmas of democratic educators. In L. Cuban & D. Shipps (Eds.), Reconstructing the common good in education: Coping with intractable American dilemmas. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press. Qvortrup, J. (1997). Indicators of childhood and the intergenerational dimension. In A. Ben-Arieh & H. W intersberger (Eds.), Measuring and monitoring the state of children beyond survival. Vienna: European Centre for Social W elfare Policy and Research. Ritzer, G. (2007). Contemporary sociological theory and its classical roots. Boston: McGrawHill. Rose, M. (2010). Education policy 2010: Big goals, little vision. Retrieve from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-rose/education-policy-2010big_b_411926.html Shah, H. & Marks, N. (2004). A well-being manifesto for a flourishing society. London: New Economics Foundation. United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Culture Organization (UNESCO) (2001, November 2). General Conference - UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Culture Organization. Retrieve from http://unesdoc.unes co.org/images/0012/001271/127160m.pdf United States Department of Education. (1965). The Elementary and Secondary School Act. Public Law 89-10. W ashington, D.C.: United States Department of Education, April. _______. (2001). The Elementary and Secondary School Act (No Child Left Behind Act of 2001). W ashington, D.C.: United States Department of Education. _______. (2009). Race to the Top Program Executive Summary. W ashington, D.C.: United States Department of Education, November. _______. (2010). A Blueprint for Reform: The Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. W ashington, D.C.: United States Department of Education. _______. (2011). ExecutiveOrder for the White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for Hispanic Americans. Washington, D.C.: U nited States D epartm ent of Education. Retrieve from http://www2.ed.gov/about/ inits/list/hispanic-initiative/index.html. Unterhalter, E., Vaughan, R., & W alker, M. (2007). The capability approach and education. Prospero, 13(3). W aghid, Y. (2009). Education for responsible citizenship. Perspectives in Education, 27(1, March). W est, C. (2004). Democracy matters: Winning the fight against imperialism. New York: Penguin. W hite, J. (2007). W ellbeing and Education: Issues of Culture and Authority. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 41(1).