The Obama Administrations Federal Educational Policy, Intersectionality Citizenship, And Flourishing

8/2/2019 The Obama Administrations Federal Educational Policy, Intersectionality Citizenship, And Flourishing

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-obama-administrations-federal-educational-policy-intersectionality-citizenship 1/21

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

Race, Gender & Class Website: www.rgc.uno.edu

THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION’S

FEDERAL EDUCATIONAL POLICY,

INTERSECTIONALITY, CITIZENSHIP,

AND FLOURISHING

Stefan Brueck and Carl A. Grant

Department of Curriculum and InstructionUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison

Abstract: In this article we analyze, evaluate, and critique contemporary federal

educational policy in the United States. We 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. We then provide an overview of Race to the Top , the federal

Department of Education’s 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 H ispanics 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 administration’s 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 Wisconsin-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,



8 Stefan Brueck & Carl A. Grant

intercultural education, and equitable flourishing

Address: 218 S. Bassett Street, Apt. 103, Madison, WI 53703. Ph.: (608)-630-

4798, Fax: 608-263-9992, Email: [email protected]

Carl A. Grant is Hoefs-Bascom Professor of Teacher Education in the

Department of Curriculum and Instruction at the University of Wisconsin-

Mad ison. 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,

Wisconsin 53706. Ph. (608) 263-65 86, Fax: (608)-263-9992, Email:[email protected]

This 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. Accord ingly, in this paper we seek to analyze, evaluate, and critique

contemporary federal educational policy in the United States. We 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 believecould 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. We follow with an overview of

Race to the Top, the federal Department of Education’s recent proposal for

educational reform in the United States of America. Our synopsis includes

attention to the proposal’s 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. We 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 administration’s current federal educational policy

inadequately co ntributes to the cultivation of citizenship and flourishing.



T he O bam a Ad min is tr ation ’s Feder al Ed uca tio na l Po licy 9

P R I M A R Y A I M S O F E D U C A T I O N A N D P U R P O S E S O F

SCHOOLING —FLOURISHING AND CITIZENSHIP

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

Western constitutional republic. Accompa nying 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 another’s

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. Conseque ntially,

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 enhancedattention to issues regarding quality of life.

Similarly, political philosopher Harry Brighouse (e.g., 2006, 2008) is

also concerned with many existing dimensions in Western 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. Brighouse’s 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




relevance to the child’s immediate surroundings and to the economy’s short-

term 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: “We 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)

acknowle dges 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



T he Ob am a Ad min is tr ation ’s Feder al Ed uca tio na l Po licy 1 1

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 one’s 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 thisinvolves, and the less he or she is led astray by misconceptions of it, the better

for the polity (White, 2007:7-8). As part of this process, it is the community

who assists in establishing and nourishing the individual’s moral voice,

providing a moral ancho r. 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.




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, meaning-

making, 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 conce pt, “culture”

has been pluralistically conceived, such that numerous definitions for the notionhave been proposed. For example, culture has been suggested as “a body of

common understandings… (that are) the sum total and…arrangement of… (a)

group’s 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). According ly,

culture is never fully essentializable, but rather inherently incorporates hybridity.

With 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

p a r t s o f t h e w o r l d ” (O x f o r d E n g l i s h D i c t i o n a r y , 1 9 8 9 ,

http://dictionary.oed.com.ezproxy.library.wisc.edu/cgi/entry/50051138?single=1

&query_type=word&queryword=cosmopolitan&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 personho od 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




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. Approaching problems as a member of a global society

2. Working cooperatively with others and taking responsibility for one’s

roles and responsibilities in society

3. Understanding, accepting, and tolerating cultural differences

4. Thinking in a critical and systematic way5. Resolving conflict in a non-violent manner

6. Adopting a way of life that protects the environment

7. Respecting and defending human rights

8. Participating in public life at all levels of civic discourse

9. Making full use of information-based technologies (Cogan, 1997 as

cited in Narvaez, Bock, & Endicott, 2003:46-47).

Within a planetary worldview, educating for peoplehood and global

citizenship presupposes a relational understanding of flourishing that recognizes

the fundamen tal 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 weare 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




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 andattention 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’ (West, 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 (G rant, 2010: 13).

Marmot’s (2004) work additionally helps tie a well-being educational

agenda to wider questions of social justice, citizenship, and flourishing. He




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 one ’s 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. “We

want our children to participate not only in order to train them to become good

citizens in the future but as mea ns for securing their well-being as c hildren 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 one’s distinctively human potentialities” or “self-realization”

(Kymlicka & Norman, 1995p Shah & Marks, 2004; and Marks, Shah, & Westall,

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.

INTERSECTIONALITY AS A LEN S

When 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

i n t e r a c t i o n s o f d i f f e r e n t c u l t u r a l a n d s o c i a l c a t e g o r i e 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 atool 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,”




2011).

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).

FUNCTIONS OF EDUCATIONAL POLICY

“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. Embedde d 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. While 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 thoseencountering 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 Found ation (NEF)

poignantly inquires, “What 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 Ed ucational Policy in the U.S.: Race to the Top and

Executive Order for the W hite 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. While many




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 schoolgraduation 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. Comprehensive Approach to Education Reform

2. Emphasis on Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics

(STEM)

3. Innovations for Improving Early Learning Outcomes

4. Expansion and Adaptation of Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems

5. P-20 Coordination, Vertical and Horizontal Alignment

6. 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 administration’s visionary plan intending to foster a world-

class education for American students (United States Department of Education,

2010:1-2). The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), initiated

during President Johnson’s era, authorized large amounts of federal funds to




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 mid-

1960s, 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) morechoices 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

achievemen t 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

accompan ying 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—B ill 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




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 mathemat ics for grades K-12. These

standards are research and evidence-based, internationally

benchmarked, and aligned with college and work expectations.”

(“Education Strategy – Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation,” 2011).

Another federal educational reform measure, the White Hous e 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. When 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:

! Working directly with communities nationwide in public-private

partnerships, linking together key individuals and organizations from

within and outside the education system to increase capacity andannounce 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;




! Forming a Federal Interagency Working 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 White 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/hispanic-initiative/index.html).

ANALYZING AND EVALUATING THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION ’S NATIONAL

EDUCATION POLICY

Main Points and Primary Themes

Our text-based analysis of the documents summarized above reveal

several prominent themes of the Obama administration’s national educational

policy. Particularly evident is strong support for education that spawn s

economic growth and boosts U.S. global competitiveness for the future. Such

commitment is demonstrated via “Win the Future”-type language intended to jumpstart the currently weakene d 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 administration’s

educational discourse is also paid to improving student academic performance

and closing achievemen t 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.




To advance and measure such goals, particular kinds of assessment

tools are utilized, namely norm-referenced achievement tests that measure

performance and are supplemen ted by data-driven accountability. Moreov er,

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 benchmarke d. 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 administration’s 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

administration’s educational policy overlap, or not, with dimensions associated

with intersectionality and flourishing? Race to the Top claims to be a

comprehen sive 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 high-

minority 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).




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 “lowest-

performing 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 Working 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 Administration’s 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. Moreove r, what diversity of identity markers there is appears to remain

framed as rather essentialized and fixed group categories. Dynamic, ever-

changing 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 administration’s national

educational policy initiatives demonstrate a narrow-minded analysis and

inadequate appreciation to complexity. The multifaceted interdependenc e 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 conc eption 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, &

Walker, 2007:14). Having schools compete for funds is not aligned with such

commitments. Hence, national educationa l 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, &




Walker, 2007:15).

So, the Obama administration’s 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 everyon e, 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 administration’s 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 multi-

lingualism. Connec ted 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 accompa ny such worthw hile 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 , Walker, 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




and locally active.

CONCLUSION

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 O rder

for the White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for Hispanic

Americans. Howev er, 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

consequen ces. Indeed, altering a conceptual frame is itself social change

(Lakoff, 2004). Were the Obama administration to do this, their federal

education policy might better contribute to cultivating improved student

citizenship and equitable flourishing.

NOT E

Brighouse notes that this concept is socially constructed and somewhat1

artificial yet claims it is still a real need.

R EFERENCES

Appiah, K. (2006). Cosmo politanism: Ethics in a world of strangers. New

York City: W.W. Norton.

Baer, S., Keim, J., & Nowottnick, L. (2009). Intersectionality in gender

training . R etrieve from http://www.google.com /search?q= Baer%2 C+K

eim%2C+N owottnick--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. Englewoo d Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice-Hall.

Cogan, J. (1997). Multicultural citizenship: Educational policy for the 21 st

century. Minneap olis, Minnesota: University of Minnesota.




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 M acmillan.Davis, P. (2011). A field guide to the commons. http://www.shareab le.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/A rticles/Intersec

tionality-and-human-ri-law-theory-and-praxis

“Education Strategy - Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.” Retrieve from

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/united-states/Pages/united-states-

education-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: R outledge-Cav endish.

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.

Hancoc k, A.M. (2007). Intersectionality as a Normative and Empirica l

Paradigm. Politics & G ender , 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

Jayawickrem e, E., Pawelski, J., & Seligman, M.E.P. (2009). Happiness:

Positive psychology and Nussbaum’s capabilities approach. In R.

Auxier (Ed.), Library of living philosophers: The philosophy of Martha

Nussbaum (in press). Ch icago: Open Court. http://homepage.uab.edu /

angner/SWB/Jayawickreme&al.pdf

Keyes, C.L. (2007). Promoting and protecting mental health as flourishing.




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 commo n sense: How the right has

framed the debate on America’s 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). Don’t 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 innocenc e: Confronting

hierarchical relations among women. Journal of Gender, Race, and

Justice, Spring.

Maced o, S. (2000). Diversity and distrust: Civic education in a multicultural

democracy . Harvard University Press.

Marks, N. Shah, H, & Westall, A. (2004). The power and potential of well-

being indicators. London: New Economics Foundation.

Marmot, M. (2004). Status syndrome. London: Bloomsbury.

McC all, 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-America n

family. American Journal of Social Psychiatry , 6 .

Nagle, K. & Crawford, J. (2004). Opportunities and challenges: Perspectiveson 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.

Narváez, 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). Who 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. & Okemak inde. 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.




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. Wintersberger (Eds.), Measuring

and monitoring the state of children beyond survival . Vienna:

European Centre for Social Welfare Policy and Research.

Ritzer, G. (2007). Contemporary sociological theory and its classical roots.

Boston: McGraw–Hill.

Rose, M. (2010). Education policy 2010: Big goals, little vision. Retrieve

from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-rose/education-policy-2010-

big_b_411926.htmlShah, H. & Marks, N. (2004). A well-being ma nifesto 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 Cu ltural Diversity. Paris: United Nations Educational,

Scientific, and Culture Organization. Retrieve from http://unesdoc.unes

co.org/images/0012/001271/127160m.pdf

United States Departmen t of Education. (1965). The Elementary and Secondary

School Act . Public Law 89-10. Washington , D.C.: United States

Department of Education, April.

_______. (2001). The Elementary and Secondary School Act (No Child Left

Behind Act of 2001). Wash ington, D.C.: United States Department of

Education. _______. (2009). Race to the Top Program Executive Summary . Washington,

D.C.: United States Departmen t 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. Washingto n, D.C.:

United States Departme nt of Education. Retrieve from

http://www2.ed.gov/about/ inits/list/hispanic-initiative/index.html.

Unterha lter, E., Vaugha n, R., & Walker, M. (2007). The capability approach

and education. Prospero, 13(3).

Wagh id, Y. (2009). Education for responsible citizenship. Perspectives in

Education, 27(1, March).

West, C. (2004). Democracy matters: Winning the fight against imperialism.

New York: Penguin.

White, J. (2007). Wellbeing and Education: Issues of Culture and Authority.

Journal of Philosophy of Education , 41(1).

Documents

The Obama Administrations Federal Educational Policy, Intersectionality Citizenship, And Flourishing