| |
Smith, Mary Lee with Miller-Kahn, Linda; Heinecke, Walter;
Jarvis, Patricia F; and Noble, Audrey. (2003). Political
Spectacle and the Fate of American Schools. New York:
Routledge/Falmer.
282 pp.
$26.95 ISBN 0415932009
Reviewed by Joanne Bookmyer
University of California, Davis
August 3, 2004
The prologue of Political Spectacle informs readers
that the authors are neither “sworn enemies of tests or
standards or accountability or charter schools,” nor are
they “radical skeptics or constructivist or postmodern
nihilists or hopeless idealists” (p. x). What they purport
to be are policy scholars in pursuit of a transparent, rational
and democratic system of public education. That said, the text
that follows this statement is not what one commonly associates
with the rational or objective writing of a scholar. The
ideological position of Mary Lee Smith and her fellow authors is
clear. At the heart of the book is an argument that politics in
the United States has become distorted and detached from its
democratic foundations, and that education policies serve the
special interests of the privileged, hiding behind a mask of
common sense and the common good. Both the authors’ use of
language and the case studies selected to illustrate their
positions are indicative of partisan positions. In making their
argument, the authors stand in company with a group of
progressives educators including Michael Apple and David
Berliner, calling for readers to question their assumptions about
education policies that forsake equalitarian, compensatory, and
communitarian values.
To provide some perspective and to prevent the casual reader
from categorizing this book as radical propaganda, know that the
primary author, Mary Lee Smith, is a Regents Professor in the
College of Education, Arizona State University. She is a well
respected researcher whose long history of contributions to the
field of education has included work in the areas of
meta-analysis, alternative methodologies, including the
integration of quantitative and qualitative research and
evaluation; research on a number of social and education policies
including class size, grade retention and school readiness
practices, and high stakes testing; and, more recently, on the
intersection of politics and policy. She is, by definition, a
scholar, defined by Webster's 3rd New International
Dictionary (1993) as “one who has engaged in advanced study
and acquired the minutia of knowledge in some special field along
with accuracy and skill in investigation and powers of critical
analysis in interpretation of such knowledge.”
Most scholars define conventional policy “as the
authoritative and rational allocation of values,” or in
more general terms, as “the rules by which society is
governed” (p. 6). Most policy analysts, and to a large
extent the general public, have been led to believe that these
values and rules are above politics and that the policy process
is relatively linear and straight-forward. Smith, building on the
work of Deborah Stone, suggests that this conventional view of
policy fails to take politics into account. In fact, Smith
asserts, contemporary education policy is more often in line with
Murray Edelman’s alternative policy theory that asserts the
policy process is like a public theatrical display, with
directors, stages, casts of actors, and narrative plots, hence
the term political spectacle (p. 11). Unfortunately, this
is not theatre that ends with “and they all lived happily
ever after” but slight of hand, involving a clever
manipulation of the audience and even the actors themselves, with
the real and often sordid story taking place behind the
scenes.
As Smith writes, policies are typically more than text; they
also encompass the ideas and discourse that underlie the policy,
as well as the instrument used to carry the policy out. Mandates
and inducements, such as incentives and penalties, are commonly
used policy instruments. If there are adequate means to attain
the goals of the policy, the policy instruments result in some
type of action. Policies with effects that are consonant with the
original intentions and ideas are referred to as
instrumental policies. Policies that lack an instrument,
or that provides a weak instrument, fall into the category of
hortatory or symbolic.
Smith uses one of the national goals, that all children would
enter school “ready to learn” by the year 2000, in
Bill Clinton’s Goals 2000 as an example of a symbolic
policy. Because no instrument or practical means for achieving
the policy was ever developed, it certainly meets the criteria.
Should the Clinton administration be faulted for sending a
message that clearly values the public education system? Should
symbolic messages be avoided or be required to carry a disclaimer
– this is what we believe even though we don’t have
the means to support it? Of course not and any attempt to do this
would surely border on the ludicrous. Smith is not so much
interested in symbolic policy in its purest sense as she is in
uncovering and understanding the effects of what is labeled as
symbolic policy.
Smith delineates three such types of policy. The first is
policy that starts out as instrumental and later becomes
symbolic. The actual effects may vary, but having become symbolic
all such policies fail to meet their original stated goals. A
second type is policy that is constructed so that it is virtually
impossible to judge or even know its effects or to participate in
any debate over its values. The third type is policy that is what
Smith calls “unintentionally deleterious;” producing
unanticipated effects or effects contrary to the policy
goals.
Political Spectacle looks at how the nuances of the policy
process is used to confuse the public and uses a number of case
studies to illustrate how symbolic policy is purposely
misrepresented to the advantage of politicians, the mass media,
researchers, and the corporate world. Taken from this
perspective, Goals 2000 takes on a different meaning. The actual
effects of Goals 2000 went well beyond a symbolic commitment to
academic standards and public schools. According to Smith, Goals
2000, along with the Reading Excellence Act, and No Child Left
Behind, displaced all other purposes of public education (civic
preparation, education in liberal arts and humanities, etc.), led
to mandated testing, and ultimately changed school
governance.
Chapter two of Political Spectacle provides an excellent
example of an instrumental policy that became symbolic. Smith
devotes this chapter to assessment policy, using the history of
the Arizona Student Assessment Program (ASAP) and the Arizona
Instrument to Measure Standards (AIMS) as a case study to
illustrate her message. While far too complex to do justice to in
this review, the gist of the case is that in the early
1990’s the Arizona Department of Education developed an
assessment policy supported by a reform coalition that
“soft-pedaled accountability and emphasized progressive
reform through assessment” (p. 53). As Smith writes,
“They envisioned classrooms where instruction could be more
holistic, thematic than it was and where teachers could encourage
students to be actively engaged and able to make connections,
solve complex problems, and communicate their thoughts” (p.
53).
Over time, the Arizona Department of Education staff that had
supported this progressive education agenda were replaced by
people more committed to traditional teaching and testing and
whose agenda was more closely aligned with a conservative,
Republican legislature who “complained more often about the
‘subjective’ scoring of the performance tests and
about the ‘anti-business and environmental activist
attitudes’ that had crept into the contents of the
tests” (p. 53). When given the means, in this instance low
1993 ASAP test results and a new Superintendent of Education who
promised her conservative supporters that she would return to
standardized tests, ASAP was suspended and several years later
was replaced by a new instrument, AIMS, without ever being given
a legitimate opportunity to prove its effect.
Smith states that certain elements must be present to qualify
a policy as a true spectacle rather than rational policy.
Political spectacle theory is comprised of the following
elements: the use of symbolic language; casting political actors
as leaders, allies, and enemies; dramaturgy (staging, plotting,
and costuming); the illusion of rationality; the illusion of
democratic participation; disconnection between means and ends;
and distinctions between onstage and backstage action.
Again drawing on Chapter two to provide an example, the case
study on Arizona assessment policy shows how one element,
casting, fits into political spectacle theory. While ASAP fell
from public memory without a great amount of public awareness,
the contentious history of the AIMS test was often front-page
news as politicians, policy makers, educational researchers,
educators, and students were cast into roles as the ‘good
guys’ and the ‘bad guys.’ For example, Design
Teams were orchestrated to develop standards on which to base the
AIMS instrument. Curriculum and assessment specialists were
noticeably absent from these teams and the Arizona Department of
Education made it clear that “loading the teams with
non-specialists would have the effect of reducing educational
jargon and making the standards clear and measurable” (p.
60). Inflammatory language such as this attributed to many
Arizona education specialists and experts being viewed, and
viewing themselves, as the enemy. A view that the Secretary of
Public Instruction apparently bought into as well if the quote,
“It wouldn’t have mattered what assessment it
was….The education community is strongly anti-test”
(p. 68) was indicative of her general opinion. The media,
catching scent of a good storyline introduced the public as both
spectators and minor actors. The media also cast the Secretary of
Instruction in a defensive light. For instance, at one point an
Arizona newspaper wrote that relentless criticism had forced the
Secretary of Instruction to wave “the red flag” (p.
69).
Smith suggests that by proposing an assessment policy, the
politicians that supported AIMS were able to give the public the
impression that they personally were doing something to address
the ‘crisis’ that threatened public education.
However, evidence that there was ever an achievement crisis in
Arizona is thin and evidence that the results of the emerging
assessment policies brought about change that resulted in greater
school achievement is thinner. After several years of debate,
during which the requirement that students pass the test in order
to graduate was repeatedly extended, the Secretary of Public
Instruction announced her resignation. Her replacement
immediately announced his intention to reconfigure
Arizona’s assessment policy. From the perspective of
political spectacle theory, the effect of the AIMS test on public
education and student achievement was inconsequential. What did
matter is what happened behind the scene. The idea, not the
reality, of AIMS served to preserve the symbolic value of the
assessment policy. In other words, politicians were able to use
AIMS to promote their position on public school accountability.
It served the cause of those who believe that control of public
education should be transferred to the private sector. Another
effect of AIMS was that it placed the Secretary of Instruction in
the national spotlight; helping her to fulfill her political
aspirations.
Other chapters showcase equally dramatic cases. Chapter three
presents a case about how elite parents in a Colorado school
district manipulated school choice policy to serve their own
interest. Smith shows how public claims of using school choice to
enhance equity hid what was actually happening behind the scenes
in a decidedly undemocratic process. Chapter four presents a
“case history of a school in the throes of
desegregation” (p.xv) and showcases the role of mass media
in influencing policy outcomes. Smith describes how focusing
public perception on flawed indicators (perceptions of racial
tension, perceived violence and gangs) to the exclusion of
anything positive allowed policy makers to tweak, inflate, and
manipulate outcomes for political purposes. As examples of
symbolic policy gone awry (depending on one’s point of view
as Smith might argue that the effects were both intended and
predictable) each of the cases presented are interesting in their
own right. However, their main function is to illustrate the
prevalence of public displays as the cornerstone of education
policy and to show how political spectacle theory makes sense of
these events – something rational policy theory fails to
do.
Chapter five presents “the tawdry history of research on how
to teach children to read” (p. 157). In this instance, Smith
shows how despite equivocal research, federal policy mandated
phonics rather than whole language as the choice for reading
instruction. The list of ways in which research functions in the
political spectacle detailed in this chapter is informative.
Political theory contends that reality is not so much a testable or
observable fact as it is the beliefs and use of language that shape
political consciousness and behavior. Stated another way, it is not
the fact itself that determines a crisis situation but the use of
language that results in an event or situation being identified as
a crisis. Smith discusses how politicians are able to manipulate
research for the purpose of advancing their interests and
ideologies, for instance the simple act of political actors calling
for research “symbolizes that a problem or crisis already
exits” (p. 177).
While it is useful for politicians to support the notion that
researchers operate according to scientific ideals, Smith points
out that the choice of whom to hire and fund is typically a
political decision, and in many instances a knowledgeable reader
can safely predict the results of a study based on the ideology of
the institution commissioned to complete that study. And, state
agencies can and do withhold reports that run counter to the party
line, or overstate findings consistent with their cause. The list
of how the illusion of rationality is applied to policy goes on,
leaving even the most optimistic reader with the feeling that
research, like politics, is a “dirty business” and that
the general public is being duped.
Smith acknowledges that research and evaluation meeting the
characteristics she spells out is representative of irrational
behavior based on a rational policy theory model, but that it is
perfectly logical within the political spectacle policy theory.
Smith laments the loss of rationality but she writes that this loss
is not an excuse for passive acceptance. “Never has it been
more urgent for the public to know about what is happing in the
everyday life of classrooms,” to “discover the
consequences of policies such as the No Child Left Behind
act,” or to “learning who benefits and who loses in the
allocation of material values backstage” (p. 185).
Smith, asserting that the corporate sector has had more
influence over education policy than any other entity, uses
chapter six to explore ways in which business affects education
policy. The chapter touches on the use of metaphors and how they
influence education policy. Smith’s comments regarding how
laissez-faire capitalism has been marketed as the only viable
alternative to a socialist state aren’t quite scathing but
it is apparent that she believes many supporters of free-market
theory have less than “honorable motives and
intentions” (p. 209). While business can play a legitimate
role in helping schools to pursue their purposes, there is, she
suggests, a subversive and often hidden agenda that is centered
on the privatization of “public institutions to reduce
public expenditures and also to transfer greater wealth into
private hands” (p. 213).
Regardless of whether or not one agrees with Political
Spectacle, it does requires an acknowledgment of one’s
ideological position on current educational debates, as well as
more global issues such as the relationship between public
schools and a healthy democracy. Curious as to what the general
public might have to say about political spectacle theory I
conducted a quick on-line search of Yahoo and Google that yielded
one noteworthy ‘hit.’ In 2002, a woman by the name of
Marianna Scheffer wrote “the 60’s picture Edelman
presents is of the elite setting public policy with the
acquiescence of the supine masses, who would be bought off”
(in Scheffer’s commentary with tax-supported programs).
Continuing she added, “Times have certainly changed; I
don’t think anyone would seriously make this argument
today” (Scheffer, 2002).
Scheffer’s argument that the marginal masses as well as
experts have either acquiesced or been lulled into passivity is
exactly the argument that Smith is making today. “It is
important,” Smith writes, “to be clear-eyed and wide
awake about how the real allocation of values occurs largely out
of sight of the public and benefits the few while burdening the
many” (p. 251). Certainly, Smith is not alone in taking
this position. Amy Goodman, host of Democracy Now and
author of The Exception to the Rulers: Exposing Oily
Politicians, War Profiteers and the Media That Loves Them
(2004) stated over the airwaves that politicians in this country
are treated like royalty with no one questioning their position,
when in fact they are public servants. She argues that the media
and the public must take responsibility for ensuring that the
public is exposed to a full diversity of opinion and that the
public must begin to “read between the lies.”
Smith implicitly if not explicitly suggests that her
colleagues, scholars and an informed public must do the same,
reading between the lies to shed light on how school reform has
become little more than a political tool, rather than continuing
in their role as observers and objective analysts. This is an
intriguing issue, and in my mind stands as one of the most
important contributions of this book. When, if ever, is it
appropriate for policy scholars to become action researchers?
What is the overlap between the role of a citizen and the role of
a scholar? Smith concludes Political Spectacle by offering three
antidotes to the political spectacle: clarity, art, and political
action and suggests that direct action and grassroots efforts may
have an effect on education policy whereas research and rhetoric
about education and education policy have had little. To this end
Smith details a number of “projects” that might
provide an antidote to the “perverse, irrational, and
anti-democratic form of politics” (p. 227) that has taken
over education policy.
I found Political Spectacle to be a complex, sometimes
frustrating, book to read and fully comprehend. While I admit to
finding myself in agreement with much of what Smith writes and in
thinking that political spectacle theory is a reasonable tool to
make sense of contemporary school reform and educational policy
in general, I also had the feeling that the authors were, despite
their claims to the contrary, radical skeptics and hopeless
idealists. As many of us are aware, in action research the lines
between objective clarity and partisan opinions are blurred. I,
for one, would love to see the scholarly community engage in
public conversations that confront the ideological beliefs and
practices of everyone engaged in educational research.
While I recognize that Smith makes use of Edelman’s
political spectacle metaphor of policy as theatre, for me the
choice of language often detracted from the seriousness of the
message. There is little entertaining about the erosion of
democracy or the growing distinctions between the privileged and
the common masses. I would also have liked some assistance in
sorting out what does and not qualify as political spectacle. The
cases selected for this book are illustrative of the fact that
this is not something that happens only at the federal or even
state levels but in almost any instance where issues of power are
involved. I am left wondering if there are any rational policies
being enacted and carried out at any level. Is there a place for
symbolic policy or have we as a nation become so ideologically
divided that any and all policy must be viewed as the means to a
political end? I would also have liked Smith to address more
fully the notion of intent. While I accept the idea that
politicians and the media are in the business of manipulating the
public, I would like to believe that I could expect better from
my professional colleagues and fellow citizens.
On a technical level, I found that the transitions between the
cases and the link to political spectacle were not always clear.
Most likely, this was the result of the several authors realizing
that the case studies they had completed had political spectacle
in common rather than beginning with the intent of finding cases
that illustrated political spectacle theory. I also found that
while the amount of detail provided in some of the cases helped
to understand the case, in some instances the “story”
detracted from my ability to connect what I as reading to
political spectacle. Neither of these concerns are enough to
prevent me from suggesting that this is a book that should be
read and set aside. Rather, it should become the basis of
on-going conversation and debate among those of us who believe
that, as individuals we play a role in the construction of our
culture, be it through passive acceptance or active
engagement.
References
Goodman, Amy.(2004). The Exception to the Rulers: Exposing
Oily Politicians, War Profiteers and the Media That Loves
Them. New York: Hyperion Books.
Scheffer, Marianna. (2002). The Symbolic Uses of Politics
by Murray Edelman, University of Illinois Press: A Sixties Book
on Political Economics.
(http://www.ilhawaii.net/~mscheffe/mswsdec102002.htm)
Webster's 3rd New International Dictionary
Unabridged. (1993). Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster.
About the Reviewer
Joanne Bookmyer is an Analyst in the CRESS Center,
School of Education at the University of California, Davis, where
she conducts research and evaluation in the areas of
school-community partnerships, professional development, and
school reform.
| |
No comments:
Post a Comment