I’ve been going back and forth a bit on Twitter with David Cohen and Rachel Levy about the term “politicization” when applied to education policy, with Cohen and Levy arguing that the high-stakes accountability policies they dislike represent politicization.
As an historian, I’m skeptical of the term “politicization” in policy discourse for two reasons: first, we’ve had more than a century of debate in education where that term has been used as a trump card (or the use as a trump has been attempted) against arguments or practices that the speaker/writer has opposed. Thus, the arguments in favor of small, unelected school boards in the early 20th century were based on the argument that the change would remove politics from education. (See Tyack’s One Best System for the classic account.) This is one of the great American irregular verbs: I stand up for principle, you’re influenced by special interests, and he’s politicizing.
More fundamentally, perhaps, education is now accepted as part of citizenship, perhaps the first accepted component of social citizenship in the United States that developed in the 19th century. You know what goes along with citizenship? Politics! Having tax-supported public schools was a political act, as was desegregation. Even if you don’t agree with the 1960s-wave feminist adage that the person is political, certainly schooling is political, and avoiding that legacy is unrealistic.
I think it is also ineffective. You can badger and poke with process-oriented arguments, but the reason why Cohen and Levy dislike certain policies is because they dislike them. Period. That doesn’t mean that the rhetoric being tossed around today by advocates of higher-stakes testing is any paragon (especially “status quo” when high-stakes testing is the status quo). And I understand that Cohen and Levy find ideological attacks on public schools as inappropriate as I do. But for several reasons it’s better to go straight for the jugular: my opponents are wrong because they’re wrong, not because they’re political.
Thanks for taking the time to expand the discussion beyond Twitter. 140 characters at a time gets tedious in a situation like this. I appreciate your skepticism about leveling the charge of “politics” in a political process, and the long term perspective you bring to the issue. Ultimately, I agree, and think we may have gotten wound up in this discussion due to having used “political” as sloppy shorthand for the various reasons I object to certain policies. Just to elaborate on a couple points I tried to make on Twitter:
1. I accept that my participation in a political debate or process is inherently political. However, I think it’s fair to say that I’m motivated to enter the political arena due to concerns about how students learn and how teachers teach. I have not engaged in debates or taken positions that affect my income or the performance of my stock portfolio. I think it’s fair to criticize some people who disagree with me as people who’ve entered into education discussions due to their political interests and concerns, and I think it’s fair to point out that they stand to gain financially if they prevail politically. As you’ve pointed out, that doesn’t make them wrong. We still might examine their arguments or weigh options with that information in mind.
2. I posted a comment saying that you could look at debates about creationism in the science classroom and observe that its inclusion or exclusion is political either way, but they’re not equally valid positions from a scientific standpoint. That idea would, I think, bring us around to your point about “going for the jugular.”
Yes, thanks for the shout out, Sherman. I follow your blog and I’m (sincerely) flattered to be worthy of a mention.
1) What David says.
2) I think we are talking apples and oranges (and in this case your apples are just as appealing as my oranges). I agree that first and foremost a policy should be pointed out as wrong because it’s wrong, and not because it’s political. And political doesn’t necessarily mean wrong. Nor do I deny that the stands that I take are often political in nature.
(In case anyone reading this is curious, here’s the tweet & link from me via@ SOSMarch that started all of this: “The infusion of politics into public schooling is, indeed, doing great harm. http://bit.ly/fXniFP ” )
2) I am saying that there’s been a political incursion into pedagogy where those intruding are gaining politically (and in some cases financially) while there is no demonstrated benefit to learning. For example, high scores on standardized tests will benefit the politicians or public figures promoting them because they can run for office or fundraise based on those scores (“I’m tough on education” or “I am doing what’s best for kids” or whatever.) But centering our education system around standardized tests leads to low-quality teaching and meaningless learning.
Politicians & public figures either know this or they choose to ignore the experts & professionals telling them this. That’s why they obscure their policies by labeling them as “reforms” and use words like “performance” and “achievement” when what they really mean are test scores (and not indicators of actual high performance or real achievement).
So, yes, the policies are wrong because they are wrong, and we all point that out. Beyond that, they are wrong because they benefit those promoting them without benefiting public schooling in any meaningful way. Where I come from, that is also a jugular worth going for.