Currently, educational reform has been narrowly defined to mean a combination of essentialism and market forces, thereby removing from our national dialogue other philosophical traditions, each having its own rich tradition and potential for guiding policy and practice. The purpose of this article is to problematize the concept of a monolithic definition of reform by providing multiple perspectives and thereby creating the basis for a robust debate among those holding opposing ways of seeking what they call educational reform. Specifically, I propose to accomplish in three ways. First, I briefly describe four philosophical traditions that have shaped education reform debates for the past century along with a newer force that has energized the debate. Second, I demonstrate the marriage between two of these traditions and how their ascendency now threatens to eclipse all other perspectives, thereby precluding a robust democratic debate about the future of education in America. Third, I conclude with suggestions to bring other reform philosophies back into our national debate so that we can return to a democratic national dialogue.
FinnC. E., MannoB. V., & VanourekG. (2000, April 26). Accountability via transparency: Solving a charter school puzzle. Education Week, pp. 43–45.
28.
FriedmanM. (1962). Capitalism and freedom.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
29.
GodwinW. (1976). Enquiry concerning political justice.Hammondsworth, England: Pelican Classics.
30.
GoldmanE. (1970). Living my life (Vol. 2). New York: Dover.
31.
GoodmanP. (1962). Compulsory mis-education and the community of scholars.New York: Vintage Books.
32.
GreenbergD. (2000). A clearer view: Insights into the Sudbury school model.Framingham, MA: Sudbury Valley School Press.
33.
GreeneM. (1988). The dialectic of freedom.New York: Teachers College Press.
34.
GrossS. J. (1998). Staying centered: Curriculum leadership in a turbulent era.Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.
35.
GrossS. J. (2001). Crafting one's own curriculum: The story of students who design their own learning agendas. Journal for Critical Inquiry in Curriculum and Instruction, 2, 38–44.
36.
GrossS. J., & ShapiroJ. P. (2005). Our new era requires a New DEEL: Towards democratic ethical educational leadership. The UCEA Review, 1–4.
37.
GrossS. J., ShawK. M., & ShapiroJ. P. (2003). Deconstructing accountability through the lens of democratic philosophies: Toward a new analytic framework. Journal of Research for Educational Leaders, 1(3), 5–27.
38.
HargreavesA., & GoodsonI. (2006). Educational change over time? The sustainability and non-sustainability of three decades of secondary school change and continuity. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(1), 3–41.
39.
HarmanL. B. (Ed.). (2006). Ethical challenges in the management of health information (2nd ed.). Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett.
40.
HarveyD. (2005). A brief history of neo-liberalism.Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
41.
HirschE. D. (1988). Cultural literacy: What every American needs to know.New York: Vintage Books.
42.
HoltJ. (1964). How children fail.Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
43.
HoltJ. (1967). How children learn.New York: Pitman.
44.
HoltJ. (1974). Escape from childhood.New York: Dutton.
45.
HookS. (1946). Education for modern man.New York: Dial Press.
46.
HutchinsJ. M. (1936). The higher learning in America.New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
JonesE. (2009, Winter). Progressive goals: What is the future of progressive education and what does it mean for Putney?Putney Post, pp. 14–15.
49.
KahneJ. E. (1994). Democratic communities, equity, and excellence: A Deweyan reframing of educational policy analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 16(3), 233–248.
50.
KahneJ. E., & SporteS. E. (2008). Developing citizens: The impact of civic learning opportunities on students’ commitment to civic participation. American Educational Research Journal, 45(3), 738–766.
51.
KilpatrickW. H. (1918). The project method. Teachers College Record, 19, 319–335.
52.
KilpatrickW. H. (1925). Foundations of method.New York: Macmillan.
53.
KliebardH. M. (2004). The struggle for the American curriculum: 1893-1958.New York: Routledge Falmer.
54.
KohlH. (1994). I won't learn from you!New York: New Press.
KwakD. J. (2010). Teaching to unlearn community in order to make a claim to community. Educational Theory, 60(4), 407–417.
57.
LevinH. M. (Ed.). (2001). Privatizing education: Can the marketplace deliver choice, efficiency, equity, and social cohesion?Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
58.
MaxcyS. (1994). Democracy, design, and the new reflective practice. NASSP Bulletin, 78(46), 46–50.
59.
MaxcyS. (1995). Democracy, chaos, and the new school order.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
60.
McCormickR. (Ed.). (1982). Calling education to account.London: Heinemann Educational Books.
61.
MorganG. (2006). Images of organizations.Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage.
62.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform.Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
63.
NeilA. S. (1992). Summerhill: A new view of childhood.New York: St. Martin's Press.
O'HairM. J., McLaughlinH. J., & ReitzugU. C. (2000). Foundations of democratic education.Cambridge, MA: Thomson Wadsworth.
66.
OhanianS. (2010, September). “Race to the Top” and the Bill Gates connection. Extra.
67.
OlssenM. (2010). Liberalism, neoliberalism, social democracy: Thin communitarian perspectives on political philosophy and education.London: Routledge.
68.
RickoverH. (1959). Education and freedom.New York: Dutton.
69.
RotellaC. (2010). Class warrior: Arne Duncan's bid to shake up schools. New Yorker, 85(4), 24–29.
70.
RousseauJ. J. (1974). Emile.Letchworth, England: Dent.
71.
RuggH. (Ed.). (1927). The foundations of curriculum-making: Twenty-sixth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education.Bloomington, IL: Public School.
72.
RuggH. (1929). Man and his changing society.Boston: Ginn.
73.
RuggH., & ShumakerA. (1928). The child-centered school: An appraisal of the new education.Yonkers-on-Hudson, NY: World Book.
74.
SaltmanK. J. (2010). The gift of education: Public education and venture philanthropy.New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
75.
SernakK. (1998). School leadership: Balancing power with caring.New York: Teachers College Press.
76.
ShapiroJ. P., & GrossS. J. (2013). Ethical educational leadership in turbulent times: (Re)Solving moral dilemmas (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
77.
ShapiroJ. A., & StefkovichJ. A. (2010). Ethical leadership and decision making in education (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.
78.
SkerrettA., & HargreavesA. (2008). Student diversity and secondary school change in a context of increasingly standardized reform. American Educational Research Journal, 45(4), 913–945.
79.
SpringJ. (1975). A primer of libertarian education.Montreal, Canada: Black Rose Books.
80.
SpringJ. (1984). Education and the Sony war. Phi Delta Kappan, 65(8), 534–537.
WebbL., & McCarthyM. C. (1998). Ella Flagg Young: Pioneer of democratic school administration. Educational Administration Quarterly, 34(2), 223–242.
85.
WestheimerJ. (2005). Schooling for democracy: One size does not fit all. Our Schools Ourselves, 15(1), 25–39.
86.
WestheimerJ. (2009). Unfit for mature democracy: Dissent in the media and the schools. In GordonM. (Ed.), Reclaiming dissent (pp. 1–23). Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense.
87.
WestheimerJ., & KahneJ. (2004). What kind of citizen? The politics of educating for democracy. American Educational Research Journal, 41(2), 237–269.
88.
WhiteheadA. N. (1929). The aims of education.New York: Macmillan.
89.
WiggintonE. (1986). Sometimes a shining moment: The foxfire experience.Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.
WrightF. L. (1958). The living city.New York: New American Library.
92.
YoungM. D., PetersenG. J., & ShortP. M. (2002). The complexity of substantive reform: A call for interdependence among key stakeholders. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(2), 137–175.
