High-stakes, standardized testing is regularly used within in accountability narratives as a tool for achieving racial equality in schools. Using the frameworks of “racial projects” and “neoliberal multiculturalism,” and drawing on historical and empirical research, this article argues that not only does high-stakes, standardized testing serve to further racial inequality in education, it does so under the guise of forms of anti-racism that have been reconstituted as part of a larger neoliberal project for education reform. This mix of neoliberalism, high-stakes testing, and official anti-racisms that are used to deny structural, racialized inequalities are a manifestation of what the author calls, “Meritocracy 2.0.”
AnyonJ. (2005). Radical possibilities: Public policy, urban education, and a new social movement. New York, NY: Routledge.
2.
AppleM. W. (2006). Educating the “right” way: Markets, standards, god, and inequality (2nd ed.). New York, NY: RoutledgeFalmer.
3.
AppleM. W.AuW. (2009). Politics, theory and reality in critical pedagogy. In KazamiasA.CowenR. (Eds.), International handbook of comparative education (pp. 991-1007). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
4.
AppleM. W.PedroniT. C. (2005). Conservative alliance building and African American support of vouchers: The end of Brown’s promise or a new beginning?Teachers College Record, 107, 2068-2105.
5.
AuW. (2007). High-stakes testing and curricular control: A qualitative metasynthesis. Educational Researcher, 36, 258-267.
6.
AuW. (2009a). High-stakes testing and discursive control: The triple bind for non-standard student identities. Multicultural Perspectives, 11(2), 65-71.
7.
AuW. (2009b). Unequal by design: High-stakes testing and the standardization of inequality. New York, NY: Routledge.
8.
AuW. (2010). Neither fair nor accurate: Research based reasons why high-stakes tests should not be used to evaluate teachers. Rethinking Schools, 25(2), 34-38.
9.
AuW. (2011). Teaching under the new Taylorism: High-stakes testing and the standardization of the 21st century curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 43, 25-45. doi:10.1080/00220272.2010.521261
10.
AuW. (2013). Hiding behind high-stakes testing: Meritocracy, objectivity and inequality in U.S. education. The International Education Journal: Comparative Perspectives, 12(2), 7-19.
11.
AuW. (in press). Techies, the tea party, and the common core: The rise of the new upper middle class and tensions in the rightist politics of federal education reform. The Educational Forum.
12.
AuW.FerrareJ. 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/content.asp?contentid=17387
13.
AuW.FerrareJ. J. (Eds.). (2015). Mapping corporate education reform: Power and policy networks in the neoliberal state. New York, NY: Routledge.
14.
BakerO.LangK. (2013). The effect of high school exit exams on graduation, employment, wages and incarceration. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
BarrowL.RouseC. E. (2006). The economic value of education by race and ethnicity. Economic Perspectives, 30(2), 14-27.
17.
BerlinerD. C. (2012). Effects of inequality and poverty vs. teachers and schooling on America’s youth. Teachers College Record, 116(1). Available from http://www.tcrecord.org
18.
BisseretN. (1979). Education, class language and ideology. Boston, MA: Routledge.
19.
Bonilla-SilvaE. (2013). Racism without racists: Color-blind racism and the persistence of racial inequality in America. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Center on Education Policy. (2007). Choices, changes, and challenges: Curriculum and instruction in the NCLB era. Washington, DC: Author. Available from www.cep.org
26.
ChapmanP. D. (1988). Schools as sorters: Lewis M. Terman, applied psychology, and the intelligence testing movement, 1890-1930. New York: New York University Press.
DarderA.TorresR. D. (2004). After race: Racism after multiculturalism. New York: New York University Press.
29.
Darling-HammondL. (2004). From “separate but equal” to “No Child Left Behind”: The collision of new standards and old inequalities. In MeierD.WoodG. (Eds.), Many children left behind: How the not child left behind act is damaging our children and our schools (pp. 3-32). Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
30.
Darling-HammondL. (2007). Race, inequality and educational accountability: The irony of “No Child Left Behind.”Race, Ethnicity, and Education, 10(3), 245–260.
DumasM. J. (2008). Theorizing redistribution and recognition in urban education research: “How do we get dictionaries at Cleveland?” In AnyonJ. (Ed.), Theory and educational research: Toward critical social explanation (pp. 81-103). New York, NY: Routledge.
33.
DumasM. J.AnyonJ. (2006). Toward a critical approach to education policy implementation. In HonigM. I. (Ed.), New directions in education policy implementation: Confronting complexity (pp. 149-186). Albany: State University of New York Press.
34.
FabricantM.FineM. (2013). The changing politics of education: Privatization and the dispossessed lives left behind. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.
35.
FarleyT. (2009). Making the grades: My misadventures in the standardized testing industry. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
FeinbergC. (2004, April29). Rod Paige offers high praise for No Child Left Behind: Education secretary marks 50th anniversary of Brown decision with Kennedy School keynote address. Harvard University Gazette. Retrieved from http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/2004/04.29/09-brown.html
FoucaultM. (1995). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (2nd Vintage Books ed.) (SheridanA., Trans.). New York, NY: Vintage Books.
41.
GillbornD. (2013). Interest-divergence and the colour of cutbacks: Race, recession and the undeclared war on Black children. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 34, 477-491. doi:10.1080/01596306.2013.822616
42.
GiordanoG. (2005). How testing came to dominate American schools: The history of educational assessment. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
43.
GouldS. J. (1996). The mismeasure of man (Rev. & Expanded.). New York, NY: W.W. Norton.
44.
GuthrieR. V. (1998). Even the rat was white: A historical view of psychology (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
45.
HagopianJ. (Ed.). (2014). More than a score: The new uprising against high-stakes testing. Chicago, IL: Haymarket Books.
HaneyW. (1984). Testing reasoning and reasoning about testing. Review of Educational Research, 54, 597-654.
48.
HansonA. F. (2000). How tests create what they are intended to measure. In FilerA. (Ed.), Assessment: social practice and social product (pp. 67–81). New York, NY: RoutledgeFalmer.
49.
HarveyD. (2007). Neoliberalism as creative destruction. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 610, 22-44.
50.
HerrnsteinR. J.MurrayC. A. (1996). The bell curve: Intelligence and class structure in American life (1st Free Press pbk). New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
51.
HeubertJ. P. (2001). High stakes testing and civil rights: Standards of appropriate test use and a strategy for enforcing them. In OrfieldG.KornhaberM. L. (Eds.), Raising standards or raising barriers? Inequality and high-stakes testing in public education (pp. 179-194). New York, NY: New Century Press.
KarierC. J. (1972). Testing for order and control in the corporate liberal state. Educational Theory, 22, 159-180.
54.
KarpS. (2003). Let them eat tests: NCLB and federal education policy. In ChristensenL.KarpS. (Eds.), Rethinking school reform (pp. 199-213). Milwaukee, WI: Rethinking Schools.
KretchmarK.SondelB.FerrareJ. J. (2014). Mapping the terrain: Teach for America, charter school reform, and corporate sponsorship. Journal of Education Policy, 29, 742-759. doi:10.1080/02680939.2014.880812
57.
Ladson-BillingsG. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding achievement in U.S. schools. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 3-12.
58.
LeeJ. (2006). Tracking achievement gaps and assessing the impact of NCLB on the gaps: An in-depth look into national and state reading and math outcome trends. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Civil Rights Project.
59.
LeonardoZ. (2011). After the glow: Race ambivalence and other educational prognoses. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 43, 675-698. doi:10.1111/j.1469-5812.2010.00645.x
60.
LeonardoZ. (2012). The race for class: Reflections on a critical raceclass theory of education. Educational Studies, 58, 427-449.
61.
LemannN. (1999). The big test: The secret history of the American meritocracy. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.
62.
LipmanP. (2011). The new political economy of urban education: Neoliberalism, race, and the right to the city. New York, NY: Routledge.
63.
MadausG. F.ClarkeM. (2001). The adverse impact of high-stakes testing on minority students: Evidence from one hundred years of test data. In OrfieldG.KornhaberM. L. (Eds.), Raising standards or raising barriers? Inequality and high-stakes testing in public education (pp. 85-106). New York, NY: Century Foundation Press.
64.
McNeilL. M. (2000). Contradictions of school reform: Educational costs of standardized testing. New York, NY: Routledge.
65.
MelamedJ. (2011). Represent and destroy: Rationalizing violence in the new racial capitalism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
66.
National Research Council. (2011). Incentives and test-based accountability in education (HoutM.ElliottS.W., Eds.). Washington, DC: Committee on Incentives and Test-Based Accountability in Public Education, Board on Testing and Assessment, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education.
67.
NicholsS. L.BerlinerD. C. (2007). Collateral damage: How high-stakes testing corrupts America’s schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
68.
NicholsS. L.GlassG. V.BerlinerD. C. (2005). High-stakes testing and student achievement: Problems for the No Child Left Behind Act (No. EPSL-0509-105-EPRU). Tempe: Education Policy Research Unit, Education Policy Studies Laboratory, College of Education, Division of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies, Arizona State University.
69.
OmiM.WinantH. (2015). Racial formations in the United States. New York, NY: Routledge.
70.
RavitchD. (2010). The death and life of the great American school system: How testing and choice are undermining education (e-book). New York, NY: Basic Books.
71.
RavitchD. (2013). Reign of error: The hoax of the privatization movement and the danger to America’s public schools. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.
72.
RenterD. S.ScottC.KoberN.ChudowskyN.JoftusS.ZabalaD. (2006). From the capital to the classroom: Year 4 of the No Child Left Behind Act. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy. Available from http://www.cep-dc.org
73.
RosenbuschM. H. (2005). The No Child Left Behind Act and teaching and learning languages in U.S. schools. The Modern Language Journal, 89, 250-261.
74.
RushtonP. J.JensenA. R. (2005). Thirty years of research on race differences in cognitive ability. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11, 234-294.
75.
SacksP. (1999). Standardized minds: The high price of America’s testing culture and what we can do to change it. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.
76.
SaltmanK. J. (2012). The failure of corporate school reform. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.
77.
ScottJ. T. (2013). Rosa parks moment? School choice and the marketization of civil rights. Critical Studies in Education, 54, 5-18. doi:10.1080/17508487.2013.739570
78.
ScottJ. T.JabbarH. (2014). The hub and the spokes: Foundations, intermediary organizations, incentivist reforms, and the politics of research evidence. Educational Policy, 28, 233-257.
79.
SeldenS. (1999). Inheriting shame: The story of eugenics and racism in America. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
80.
SpenceL. K. (2013). The neoliberal turn in Black politics. Souls: A Critical Journal of Black Politics, Culture, and Society, 14, 139-159. doi:10.1080/10999949.2012.763682
81.
StoskopfA. (1999). The forgotten history of eugenics. Rethinking Schools, 13, 12–13.
82.
StovallD. (2015). Mayoral control: Reform, whiteness, and critical race analysis of neoliberal educational policy. In PicowerB.MayorgaE. (Eds.), What’s race got to do with it? How current school reform policy maintains racial and economic inequality (pp. 45-58). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
83.
TaylorS. (1997). Critical policy analysis: Exploring contexts, texts, and consequences. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 18, 23-35.
TyackD. (1974). The one best system: A history of American urban education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
86.
U.S. Department of Education. (2009). Race to the Top program executive summary. Washington, DC: Author.
87.
VinsonK. D.RossE. W. (2003). Controlling images: The power of high-stakes testing. In SaltmanK. J.GabbardD. A. (Eds.), Education as enforcement: The militarization and corporatization of schools (pp. 241-258). New York, NY: RoutledgeFalmer.
88.
von ZastrowC. (2004). Academic atrophy: The condition of the liberal arts in America’s public schools. Washington, DC: Council for Basic Education. Retrieved from http://www.ecs.org/html/Document.asp?chouseid=5058
89.
ZabalaD. (2007). State high school exit exams: Gaps persist in high school exit exam pass rates—Policy brief 3. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy.
90.
ZeichnerK. M.Pena-SandovalC. (2015). Venture philanthropy and teacher education policy in the U.S.: The role of the New Schools Venture Fund. Teachers College Record, 117(6). Available from http://www.tcrecord.org
