Educational Policy as Political Spectacle
This article draws upon Edelman’s (1988) theory of political spectacle, as applied to educational policy by Smith (2004). Political spectacles are, according to these scholars, political constructions of reality that “resemble theater, complete with directors, stages, casts of actors, narrative plots, and (most importantly) a curtain that separates the action onstage—what the audience has access to—from the backstage, where ‘real allocation of values’ takes place” (Smith 2004:11). Variations between onstage and backstage conduct and maneuverings, originally elucidated by Goffman (1959), are often concealed by the actors. Presented to the public, through the media, as serving their good, spectacles serve to obscure the ways in which they sustain inequalities and maintain power differentials.
In political spectacle applied to policy, dramaturgy includes staging “policy events that are carefully crafted and planned for the purpose of media attention” (Wright 2005: 664). Onstage, props are strategically selected and deployed as symbolic objects imbued with meaning. “Characters are cast to play certain roles” (Smith 2004:16) that are infused with power and significance. The roles of policy actors—leaders, enemies, and allies—are socially constructed by political interest groups. These actors generate and repeat their plot lines to garner support for their positions, creating for the public the illusion that they are participants, rather than just spectators. Narratives or story lines that support and oppose a policy are plotted and delivered. In this case, narratives range from “blaming the victim” for not learning English to the manufacturing of a crisis, in which emergent bilinguals and their immigrant families are destroying our global competitiveness.
The theatrics are for public consumption; however, backstage, actors (who are far less numerous than spectators) “negotiate for themselves material benefits using the informal language of barter, in contrast to the stylized, formal, abstract, ambiguous language characteristic of the performance onstage” (Smith 2004:32). Benefits can include material profits, political influence, or increased opportunities. Tangible benefits often go to those who identify potential profit from the adoption and implementation of a policy and also to those using the policy to further their careers. For example, Ron Unz, a California millionaire who authored and financed two “English-only” propositions, has used the resulting recognition to mount his political campaigns.
Political spectacles are interpretations of public policy that aim to systematically strengthen particular political ideologies while creating illusions of democracy. Winton (n.d.) notes that “even when citizens vote or participate in policy discussions, the details of polices are worked out [backstage, away from] the public’s view” (6). The spectacles present distortions of public policy to the public, concealing costs and benefits through a dramatization of particular ideas and values. In the case of bilingual education or language policies in the United States, English becomes inextricably bound to national allegiance and democratic values while other languages, such as Spanish, are positioned as a threat to the strength and integrity of the nation.
Deception in political spectacle hinges upon the use of symbolic language, which is ambiguous, metaphorical, and open to multiple interpretations. Policy-targeted problems are situated vague claims; “A central theme of this analysis, then, is the diversity of meanings inherent in every social problem, stemming from the range of concerns of different groups, each eager to pursue courses of action and call them solutions” (Edelman 1988: 15). Ill-defined terms such as “national identity” and “democratic citizenry” are employed to evoke emotional responses. Words, figures, and numerical data used by political leaders to support policies are presented as precise and absolute, rather than subjectively contextualized. Paradoxically, “political language bemuses, obfuscates, befogs, mystifies, lulls, [and] glosses” (Smith 2004:16), while garnering consensus through its vagueness.
Utilizing a political spectacle framework to examine bilingual education policy in the United States illuminates not only how policy develops its “own momentum inside the state” (Ball 2006:45), but more explicitly elucidates how particular politicians, with the enlistment of the media and corporate investment, capitalize on the power of policy to produce particular versions of truth and knowledge. The spectacle perspective exposes the ways in which national and local government officials, influential businessmen, and influential policy stakeholders collude in staging policy in a political climate, best described as the marketization of education and the depoliticization of citizens (Koyama, forthcoming; Ball 2006; Ozga 2000; Smith 2004).
Bilingual Education as Political Spectacle
Federally, bilingual education is inextricably linked, through legislation, court decisions, and executive action, to the country’s “war on poverty,” and it has been “largely a compensatory program to remediate the language deficits of limited English speakers” (Gándara and Gomez 2009:582). Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), often referred to as the Bilingual Education Act (BEA), was added in 1968 and became the first official federal bilingual education policy in the United States. As a political spectacle, despite its misleading name, the BEA focused not on developing bilingualism, but rather on eliminating poverty among “deprived” children who presumably suffered from an English language deficit. The narrative or story line of the Act was one of intervention in the (political and media manufactured) “crisis” of rising Mexican immigration (García and Gonzalez 1995). It was a law of remediation, ambiguously written and variably enacted “during a time of great domestic upheaval and demographic transformations, including the civil rights movement and the federal War on Poverty” (Reyes 2006:370). Ten years after its inception, Title VII was reauthorized in a version that explicitly denied native language maintenance in favor of federal funding for transitional programs, in which children were to learn English as quickly as possible. By 1994, Title VII was renewed and the cap on the quantity of English-only programs was lifted, thus paving the way for districts who claimed they could not support bilingual programs to proceed with English only (Gándara and Gomez 2009).
In the early 1980s, amidst the rapid increase of a Spanish speaking immigrant population, the English-only movement reframed bilingual education as a bane to cultural assimilation and citizen participation. The movement swelled and gained increasing media coverage, especially in California and the Southwest, states with large Mexican immigrant populations. While unsuccessful in getting federal legislation passed, the movement did secure measures in twenty-eight states (García 2009). California and Arizona, which have the large populations of emergent bilinguals, have eliminated bilingual education. In California, Proposition 227, an English-only state school accountability program, supported by district-level policies, mandated movement toward English-only reading programs (Stritikus 2002). Arizona’s Proposition 203, entitled “English for Children,” restricts bilingual and English-as-a-second-language programs in favor of English-only education.
In the staging of the Proposition 203 and Proposition 227 spectacles, immigrant families and local Latino officials were used as props, appearing in campaign television advertisements. Attached to the families was the following rhetoric: immigrant parents want their children to learn English. The primary author of both propositions, Ron Unz, cast the federal government and public schools as culpable; the narrative he and his followers created was that public schools, which share a moral obligation to teach all children English, had failed to educate immigrant children because of costly experimental language programs—i.e. bilingual education. Political hopefuls, turned policy leaders made public (and publicized) alliances with local Latino government official, creating the symbolic illusion that initiatives had grassroots Latino support.
Nationally, the political spectacle of bilingual education policy continued to be staged. In 2002, Title VII was eliminated under the reauthorization of ESEA as No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). It was replaced by Title III (Public Law 107-110), in which all references to bilingual instruction were eliminated. In fact, the word “bilingual” was removed not only from the law, but also from any government offices associated with it (García 2009). Ambiguous language and grandiose titles that conflated different educational foci were generated; the Office of English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and Academic Achievement for Limited-English Proficient Students replaced the Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Language Affairs. Through Title III, federal funding shifted from competitive grants to formula grants allocated to states based on enrollments of students designated as “Limited English Proficient” (LEP)—and has resulted in a reduction of per student funding (García 2009).
The political spectacle of NCLB has been widely noted, although not all scholars have used that framing. Relying on persuasive ambiguous clusters of keywords, such as “nation” and “democracy,” NCLB is packaged and performed for the American public as a ‘common sense’ education reform. According to the NCLB narrative, it is time to rationally address all of the children and help those who need it most. Common sense, “a culture-driven commodity” (Weiss 2005: 79), tells the public that those children who are failing in school need to be identified and “helped.” In the media, NCLB is portrayed by its supporters as a “civil rights” measure that conflates public education issues with the unattainable goal of 100% proficiency in mathematics and English by 2014. The public is told that the crisis in American public education is so severe that the deficiency of achievement (which has supposedly reduced the U.S.’s global economic competitiveness) requires federal intervention.
As the main concepts of NCLB—high-stakes assessments, increased productivity, and accountability of work—have become cornerstones in the current neoliberal climate, NCLB operates at some common sense level and its basic assumptions are increasingly unchallenged (Koyama, forthcoming). Further, stating that “no child” will be ignored, or conversely that “all children” will be addressed, hides categories by naturalizing them, disguising the fact that NCLB is premised upon the disaggregation of children and their test scores into race, ethnicity, class, language, and cognitive and physical abilities so that much can be made of their differential test results. Under NCLB, bilingual education or what Crawford (2004) has aptly named the “B-word,” has been replaced with English as a Second Language (ESL) programs and references to bilingual education have been silenced in mainstream media, as well as in federal, state, and district educational agencies.
Bilingual education in New York State has not fallen prey to English-only campaigns, although changes have occurred. The Aspira Consent Decree (1974) that ensures transitional bilingual education as a legal entitlement for students has become, through a lack of funding, a symbolic, rather than a material policy. Recently, “as in other locations, standardized testing has affected bilingual education” (García and Bartlett 2007:4) in New York City. In particular, the imposition of the state English Regents exam—a six-hour exam, which is taken over two days—as a high school graduation requirement has resulted in reduced instruction time in languages other than English (Menken 2005) and increased the intensity of English instruction, essentially eliminating substantive bilingual education in high school (García and Menken, 2006). In the context of these policies regarding assessment and bilingual education, schools in New York City have struggled to educate Latino English language learners.
References (from entire article)
Anderson, G. L. 2007. Media’s impact on educational policies and practices: Political spectacle and social control. Peabody Journal of Education, 82(1): 103-120.
Ball, S.J. 2006. Education policy and social class: The selected works of Stephen ball (World Library of Educationalists). London: Routledge.
Bartlett, L., M. Frederick, T. Gulbrandsen, and E. Murillo. 2002. The marketization of education: Public schools for private ends. Anthropology and Education Quarterly 33, 1: 5-29.
Bartlett and García. forthcoming. Additive Education in Subtractive Times
Brutt-Griffle, J. 2004. World English. A study of its development. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Crawford, J. 2000. At war with diversity: US language policy in an age of anxiety. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Crawford, J. 2004. Educating English learners: Language diversity in the classroom (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Bilingual Educational Services.
Cummins, J. 1992. Bilingual education and English immersion: The Ramirez report in theoretical perspective. Bilingual Research Journal: The Journal of the National Association for Bilingual Education, 16(1-2): 91-104.
De Jesús, A., and D.W.Vásquez. 2005. Exploring the Latino education profile and pipeline for Latinos in New York State. New York Latino Research and Resources Network Policy Brief: Centro de Estudios Puertorriqueños, 2(2):1-14.
Dillon, S. 1994. Report faults bilingual education in New York. New York Times, June 8, 1994.
Edelman, M. 1988. Constructing the political spectacle. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Edmonston, B. and R. Lee, eds. 1996. Local fiscal effects of illegal immigration: Report of a workshop. Washington DC: National Academy Press.
Fernandez, J.A. with J. Underwood.1993. Tales out of school: Joseph Fernandez’s crusade to rescue American education. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
Fine, M., R.Jaffe-Walter, P.Pedraza, V.Futch, and B.Stoudt. 2007. Swimming: On oxygen, resistance, and possibility for immigrant youth under siege. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 38(1): 76-96.
Freedman, S. G. 2004. On education; It’s Latino parents speaking out on bilingual education failures. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/14/nyregion/on-education-it-s-latino-parents-speaking-out-on-bilingual-education-failures.html?pagewanted=1
Fry, R. 2005. The higher dropuot rate of foreign-born teens: The role of schooling abroad. Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center.
Gándara, P. and M. C. Gómez. 2009. Language policy in education. In AERA handbook on educational policy research, eds. B. Schneider, G. Sykes, and D. Plank. Pp. 581-595. Washington DC: AERA.
Garcia, O. 2009. Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
García, O., J. A.Kleifgen, and L.Falchi. 2008. Equity in the education of emergent bilinguals: The case of English language learners. The Campaign for Educational equity research (Vol. 1). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
García, O., and L.Bartlett. 2007. A speech community model of bilingual education: Educating Latino newcomers in the US. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 10: 1-25.
Garcia, E. E., and R.Gonzalez. 1995. Issues in systemic reform for culturally and linguistically diverse students. Teachers College Record, 96(3): 418-431.
García, O., and K.Menken. 2006. The English of Latinos from a plurilingual transcultural angle: Implications for assessment and schools. In Dialects, Englishes, Creoles, and education, ed. S. Nero, Pp. 167-184.Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Goffman, E. 1959. The presentations of self in everyday life. Garden City, NJ: Doubleday Anchor.
Hernandez, R. and F. L. Rivera-Batiz. 1997. Dominican New Yorkers: A socioeconomic profile 1997, Dominican Research Monographs, Dominican Studies Institute, City College, City University of New York, November.
Kasinitz, P., J. Mollenkopf, M. C. Waters, and J. Holdaway. 2008. Inheriting the city: The children of immigrants come of age. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Koyama, J. P. forthcoming. Making failure pay: For-profit tutoring, high-stakes testing, and public schools. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Levinson, B. A. U., and M.Sutton. 2001. Introduction: policy as/in practice—A sociocultural approach to the study of educational policy. In Policy as practice: Toward a comparative sociocultural analysis of educational policy, eds. M. Sutton and B. Levinson, 1–22. Westport, CT: Ablex.
Linares, G. 1989. Dominicans in New York: Superando los obstáculos y adquiriendo poder: The struggle for community control in District 6. Centro Bulletin, 2(5): 78-84.
Menken, K. 2005. When the test is what counts: How high-stakes testing affects language policy and the education of English language learners in high school. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Teachers College, Columbia University.
Menken, K. 2008. English learners left behind: Standardized testing as language policy. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Ozga, J. 2000. Policy research in educational settings: Contested terrain. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Pessar, P. 1995. A visa for a dream: Dominicans in the United States. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Phillips, R. 1992. Linguistic imperialism. New York: Oxford University Press.
Pita, M., and S. Utakis. 2002. Educational policy for the transnational dominican community. Journal of Language, Identity and Education, 1(4): 317-328.
Reyes, L. O. 2006. The Aspira Consent Decree: A thirtieth-anniversary retrospective of bilingual education in New York City. Harvard Educational Review 76(3):369-400.
Ricento, T. 1998. National language policy in the United States. In Language and politics in the United States and Canada: Myths and realities, eds. T. Ricento and B. Burnaby, 85-112. Lawrence Erlbaum.
Rosenbaum, E., and R. Cortina. 2004. The schooling of immigrants in New York: Graduating high School Cohort of 1999. New York: Final report submitted to the Russell Sage Foundation (RSF Project # 88-03-01).
Siegel, S., and E.Skelly. 1992. An open letter: New York to Adelaide. In Negotiating the curriculum: Educating for the 21st century, eds, G. Boomer, N. Lester, C. On- ore, and J. Cook, 78-90. London: The Falmer Press.
Smith, M. L. with L. Miller-Kahn, W. Heinecke, and P. F. Jarvis. 2004. Political spectacle and the fate of American schools. New York: Routledge.
Stritikus, T. 2002. Immigrant children and the politics of English-Only: Views from the classroom. New York, NY: LFB Scholarly Publishing.
Tollefson, J.W., and A.B.M.Tsui, eds. 2004. Medium of instruction policies: Which agenda? Whose agenda? Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Torres-Saillant, S., and R.Hernandez. 1998. The dominican Americans. Westport, CN: Greenwood.
Trotta, L. 2003. N.Y. mayor overhauls bilingual education. The Washington Times.
Weiss, Beth. 2005. Teachers, unions, and commercialism. In Many children left behind: How the No Child Left Behind Act is damaging our children and our schools, ed. D. Meier and G. Wood, 69-81. Boston: Beacon Press.
Wells, A. S. 2009. “Our children’s burden”: A history of federal education policies that ask (now require) our public schools to solve societal inequality. In NCLB at the crossroads: Reexamining the federal effort to close the achievement gap, eds. M. A. Rebell and J. R. Wolff, 1-42. New York: Teachers College Press.
Winton, S. 2008. Character education: Implications for democracy. International Critical Childhood Policy Studies, 1(1): 42-63.
Wright, W. E. 2005. The political spectacle of Arizona’s proposition 203. Educational Policy, 19(5): 662-700.