A challenge for teachers who support teaching for and about democracy is doing so while being pressed into directives rooted in corporatocracy, a political manifestation of neoliberalism. The accountability movement today, particularly No Child Left Behind, is rooted in much more firmly in corporatocracy than democracy. Democratically minded teachers face two tasks: negotiating increasingly undemocratic systems in order to find space for democratic teaching, and critically examining what democracy is, including gaps between its ideals and actual practice.
Purpose
This article explores the extent to which teachers can enact democratic practice in their classrooms in the current accountability context, and limits that context places on them.
Setting and Participants
Participants included two strong classroom teachers in California, both of whom were teaching English language learners from low-income backgrounds, in schools that did not meet Adequate Yearly Progress targets for 2003-2004.
Research Design and Data Collection
A case-study design was used for this study. Data included six hours of observation in each teacher's classroom, an hour-long interview with each teacher, papers they had completed while they were students in my graduate courses, and their masters theses.
Conclusions
While the teachers were able to use standards strategically to enact a limited form of democratic teaching, both, particularly the teacher who had more experience with democratic teaching, felt thwarted by accountability pressures. I argue that, while democratically minded teachers can navigate accountability pressures up to a point, No Child Left Behind, rooted in corporatocracy, limits teachers’ ability to enact democratic teaching, particularly in schools not meeting test score targets.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AppleM. W. (2001). Educating the “right” way. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
2.
BanksJ. A. (2004). Introduction: Democratic citizenship in multicultural societies. In and and BanksJ.A. (Ed.), Diversity and citizenship education (pp. 1—16). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
3.
BartonP. E. (2006). The dropout problem: Losing ground. Educational Leadership, 63(5), 14—18.
4.
BeaneJ. A., and AppleM. W. (1999). The case for democratic schools. In AppleM.W., and BeaneJ.A. (Eds.), Democratic schools (pp. 1—12). Buckingham, England: Open University Press.
5.
BergerR. (2003). An ethnic of excellence. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
6.
BerlinerD. C. (2005). Our impoverished view of educational review. Teachers College Record, August 2, 2005. Retrieved August 20, 2005, from http://www.tcrecord.org
7.
BoyteH. C. (2003). Civic education and the new American patriotism, post-9/11. Cambridge Journal of Education, 33(1), 85—100.
DeakinC. R., CoatesM., TaylorM., and RitchieS. (2004). A systematic review of the impact of citizenship education on the provision of schooling. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education.
12.
DeweyJ. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Touchstone.
13.
FeeneyT. (2004). Principles count (Heritage Lecture #854). The Heritage Foundation. Retrieved February 21, 2006, from http://www.heritage.org
14.
FreireP. (1973). Education for critical consciousness. New York: Seabury Press.
15.
FullerE. J., and JohnsonJ. F.Jr.. (2001). Can state accountability systems drive improvements in school performance for children of color and children from low-income homes?Education and Urban Society, 33(3), 260—283.
EmeryK., and OhanianS. (2004). Why is corporate America bashing our public schools?Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
18.
Hauser-CramP., SirinS. R., and StipekD. (2003). When teachers’ and parents’ values differ: Teachers’ ratings of academic competence in children from low-income families. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 813—20.
19.
HaycockK. (2001). Closing the achievement gap. Educational Leadership, 58(6), 6—11.
20.
HessF. M. (2001). The work ahead. Education Next, 1(4), 8—13.
21.
HillocksG. (2002). The testing trap; How state writing assessments control learning. New York: Teachers College Press.
22.
JohnsonD. D., and JohnsonB. (2002). High-stakes. Boulder, CO: Rowman & Littlefield.
23.
JonesM. G., JonesB. D., and HargroveT. Y. (2003). The unintended consequences of high-stakes testing. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
24.
KliebardH. M. (1982). Education at the turn of the century: A crucible for curriculum change. Educational Researcher, 11, 16—24.
KohnA. (2002). Poor teaching for poor kids. Language Arts, 79(3), 251—255.
27.
LeeO., and LuykxA. (2005). Dilemmas of scaling up innovations in science instruction with nonmainstream students. American Educational Research Journal, 42(3), 411—438.
28.
LinnR. L. (2005, June 28). Conflicting demands of No Child Left Behind and state systems: Mixed messages about school performance. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(33). Retrieved October 10, 2005, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v13n33/
29.
LipmanP. (2004). High stakes education. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
30.
McChesneyR. W. (2001). Global media, neoliberalism, and imperialism. Monthly Review, March, 1—19.
31.
McCombsB. L. (2003). A framework for the redesign of K-12 education in the context of current educational reform. Theory into Practice, 42(2), 93—101.
32.
McNeilL., and ValenzuelaA. (2001). The harmful impact of the TAAS system of testing in Texas: Beneath the accountability rhetoric. In OrfieldG., and KornhaberM.L. (Eds.), Raising standards or raising barriers: Inequality and high-stakes testing in public education (pp. 127—150). New York: Century Foundation Press.
33.
MeierD. (2004). NCLB and democracy. In MeierD., and WoodG. (Eds.), Many children left behind (pp. 66—78). Boston: Beacon Press.
34.
MeyerR. J. (2002). Phonics exposed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
35.
MilesM. A. (2006). Introduction. In MilesM.A., O'GradyM.A., and HolmesK.R. (Eds.), 2006 index of economic freedom (pp. 1—26). Washington, DC: Heritage Foundation.
MoonT. R., BrightonC. M., and CallahanC. M. (2003). State standardized testing programs: Friend or foe of gifted education?Roeper Review, 25(2), 49—60.
38.
NogueraP. A., and AkomA. (2000). Disparities demystified. Nation, 270(22).
39.
OakesJ., BlasiG., and RogersJ. (2004). Accountability for adequate and equitable opportunities to learn. In and and SirtonikK. (Ed.), Holding accountability accountable: What ought to matter in public education. New York: Teachers College Press.
40.
PalmaffyT. (1998). The gold star state: How Texas jumped to the head of the class in elementary-school achievement. Policy Review, 88, 30—38.
41.
PangV. O., and SablanV. A. (1998) Teacher efficacy. In and and DilworthM.E. (Ed.), Being responsive to cultural differences (pp. 39—58). Washington, DC: Corwin Press.
42.
ParkerW. C. (2003). Teaching democracy. New York: Teachers College Press.
43.
PerkinsJ. (2004). Confessions of an economic hit man. San Francisco: Berrett Koehler Publishers.
44.
PetersonK. (2005). Higher bar tripping schools. Stateline.org. Retrieved August 21, 2005, from http://www.stateline.org
45.
PipesT. (2002). Beneath the surface: Middle school students and diversity. Unpublished master's thesis, California State University, Monterey Bay.
46.
RavitchD. (2001). Ex uno plures. Education Next, 1(3), 27—29.
47.
RavitchD. (2002). September 11: Seven lessons for the schools. Educational Leadership October, 6—9.
48.
RoderickM., JacobB. A., and BrykA. S. (2002). The impact of high-stakes testing in Chicago on student achievement in promotional gate grades. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(4), 333—357.
SchoenfeldA. H. (2004). The math wars. Educational Policy, 18(1), 253—286.
51.
SkrlaL., ScheurichJ. J., JohnsonJ. F.Jr., and KoschoreckJ. W. (2001). Accountability for equity: Can state policy leverage social justice?International Leadership in Education, 4(3), 237—260.
52.
SleeterC. E. (2002). State curriculum standards and the shaping of student consciousness. Social Justice, 29(4), 8—25.
53.
SleeterC. E. (2005). Un-standardizing curriculum: Multicultural teaching in the standards-based classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.
54.
SooHooS. (2004). We change the world by doing nothing. Teacher Education Quarterly, 31(1), 199—211.
55.
StecherB. (2001). The effects of the Washington reform policies on school and classroom practices, 1999–2000. Politics of Education Bulletin, 25(1), 5—14.
56.
TaylorB. M., PearsonP. D., PetersonD. S., and RodriguezM. C. (2003). Reading growth in high-poverty classrooms: The influence of teacher practices that encourage cognitive engagement in literacy learning. Elementary School Journal, 104(1), 3—28.
57.
TooleyJ., and DixonP. (2006). The failures of state schooling in developing countries and the peoples’ response. In MilesM.A., O'GradyM.A., and HolmesK R. (Eds.), 2006 index of economic freedom (pp. 27—37). Washington, DC: Heritage Foundation.
ValenzuelaA. (2005). Accountability and the privatization agenda. In and and ValenzuelaA. (Ed.), Leaving children behind (pp. 263—294). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
60.
WoodG. (2004). A view from the field: NCLB's effects on classrooms and schools. In MeierD., and WoodG. (Eds.), Many children left behind (pp. 33—52). Boston: Beacon Press.
61.
WoodruffP. (2005). First democracy: The challenge of an ancient idea. New York: Oxford University Press.
62.
YeakeyC. C., and BennettC. I. (1990). Race, schooling and class in American society. Journal of Negro Education, 59(1), 3—18.
