Framing Democratic Proceduralism in Education Reform: No Child Left Behind and Common Core State Standards

Abstract

This paper aims to frame democratic proceduralism in education policy. This is shown by giving a background of research on how a robust civil society is contingent on an inclusive citizenship and further why the public sphere must be in balance with the state and market. The democratic process of deliberation is presented as a representational, inclusive, and non-coercive democratic process. The process of deliberation is then used to investigate the uptake of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and Common Core State Standards (CCSS). It is shown that neither policy initiative followed a deliberative process, and the implications that this might hold for future reform is discussed.

Keywords

• Education Policy,Democratic Proceduralism,Civil Society

References

1. Abowitz, K. K. (2013). Publics for public schools: Legitimacy, democracy, and leadership. Boulder: Paradigm Publishers.
2. Alexander, J. C. (2006). The civil sphere. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
3. Arce, J., Luna, D., Borjian, A., & Conrad, M. (2005). No Child Left Behind: Who wins? Who Loses? Social Justice, 32(3), 101st ser., 56-71. Retrieved July 3, 2019, from https://www.jstor.org/stable/29768321.
4. Au, W., & Ferrare, F. J. (2014). Sponsors of Policy: A Network Analysis of Wealthy Elites, their Affiliated Philanthropies, and Charter School Reform in Washington State. Teachers College Record, 116(8), -. Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org/
5. Bohman, J. (1996). Public deliberation: Pluralism, complexity and democracy. Cambridge: MIT Press.
6. Bulton, S. R. (2016, January 14). Case No.MC16-00002-PHX-SRB. Retrieved November 12, 17, from https://consumermediallc.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/ftc-v-apollo-order.pdf
7. Burch, P., Donovan, J., & Steinberg, M. (2006). The new landscape of education privatization in the era of NCLB. Phi Delta Kappan, 88(2), 129-135. Retrieved July 3, 2019, from https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170608800210.
8. Chambers, S. (2002). A critical theory of civil society. In S. Chambers & W. Kymlicka (Eds.), Alternative conceptions of civil society (pp. 90-110). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

9. Chappell, Z. (2012). Deliberative democracy: A critical introduction. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
10. Eubanks, J. P. (2014). Potential ramifications of common core state standards adoption on information literacy. Communications in Information Literacy, 8(1), 23-31. Retrieved from http://www.comminfolit.org/index.php?journal=cil
11. Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. F. (2004). Why deliberative democracy?. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
12. Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
13. Hess, F. M. (2014). How the common core went wrong. National Affairs, (21), 3-19. Retrieved from http://www.nationalaffairs.com/
14. Kornhaber, M.L., Griffith, K., & Tyler, A. (2014). It’s not education by zip code anymore – but what is it? Conceptions of equity under the Common Core. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22 (4). http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v22n4.2014
15. Levine, M. (2016, August 22). Pennsylvania Study Contrasts Charter and Public School Spending. Retrieved July 3, 2019, from https://nonprofitquarterly.org/pennsylvania-study-contrasts-charter-and-public-school-spending/
16. Marsh, J. A. (2007). Democratic dilemmas: Joint work, education politics, and community. Albany: State University of New York Press.
17. Murguia, M. H. (2011, June). EEOC and Thornton, et al, v. University of Phoenix, Inc. and Apollo Group, Inc. Retrieved November 12, 2017, from http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1153&context=condec
18. Piller, I., & Cho, J. (2013). Neoliberalism as language policy. Language in Society, (42), 23-44. doi:10.1017/S0047404512000887PSBA special report: Charter school revenues, expenditures and transparency. (2016, August 17). Retrieved July 3, 2019, from Pennsylvania School Board Association website: https://www.psba.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Charter-School-RtK-08172016.pdf
19. Rycik, J. A. (2014). Support continues to erode for common core standards and assessments. American Secondary Education, 42(3), 52-54. Retrieved from https://www.ashland.edu/coe/about-college/american-secondary-education-journal
20. Somers, M. R. (2008). Genealogies of citizenship: Markets, statelessness, and the right to have rights. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
21. Strike, K. A. (2010). Small schools and strong communities: A third way of school reform. New York: Teachers College Press.Student loans owned and securitized, outstanding. (2019, June 7). Retrieved July 3, 2019, from https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?id=SLOAS,#0
22. Wolf, M. K., W, Y., Huang, B. H., & Blood, I. (2014). Investigating the language demands in the common core state standards for English language learners. Middle Grades Research Journal, 9(1), 35-52. Retrieved from http://www.infoagepub.com/middle-grades-research-journal.html
23. U.S. Department of Education. (2004, September 15). Title I - Improving The Academic Achievement Of The Disadvantaged. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg1.html