POLITICS IN

CURRICULUM

John Mick E. Fernandez

Objectives
• Cite different myths about US schools.
• Explain the political implications for school administrators.
• Share one’s ideas on the effects of politics to education.
• Demonstrate appreciation of the importance of knowing the different
influences that shaped the education in US at present times.
Questions Addressed in this Chapter:
• most notable myths about American schools
• role of the federal government in curriculum change, and how has this
changed over the years
• general role of safe governments in curriculum change today, and how has this
changes over the years
• roles of educational organizations, courts, educational leaders, and classroom
teachers in current curriculum development
 r a l Po
uc tu l it i
ca l
Str ange Ch
Ch an ge
Myths About U.S. Schools
• We don’t know what works

• A single reform will move the needle.

• One improvement is as good as another.

• Researchers agree about what’s needed most.

• Educators resist accountability.

Myths About U.S. Schools
• myths of American schools will continue to be abundant
• but facts still matter to critical thinking
• the key is to develop and deepen the dialogue
• as well as the understanding, of what is happening and thus respect the facts
as they become evident
Political, Cultural, and
Socioeconomic Realities
It is difficult to envision a period when teaching in the
US has been more difficult, more riddled with pressure
or more laden with tension that it is now. The reasons
are many- societal, political, economic, structural, and
personal (Tomlinson, 2016)
Confluence of Conflicting Factors
• State and federal government
• Professional organizations
• Local school boards
• Textbooks and software companies
• Accrediting and international organizations
• Parent and community groups
• School administrators
• Classroom teachers
An Overview of the
Curriculum Influence
Process
• This struggle for power in the curriculum-making process occurs at the
federal, state, and local district levels.
• This struggle often affects—in some cases positively—the recommended, the
written, and the taught curricula.

How can struggle for

power in curriculum-
making process affect
positively written and
taught curricula?
• At the federal level, the struggle for power occurs chiefly behind the scenes, as
several influence groups and individuals attempt to persuade members of both the
executive and legislative branches to adopt their position.
• Lobbying groups play an important role in this hidden power struggle at the
federal level.
• The same picture of policy being made in a highly charged and politicized
environment with much behind-the-scenes lobbying is seen at the state level.
• The governor published his own recommendations for “turning the tide,” the
House passed legislation mandating increased curriculum rigor and an
emphasis on traditional subjects (not competencies), the Senate passed a
resolution directing the state board of education to take action, and the state
board adopted revised curriculum regulations—all within six months’ time.
• In such a politicized environment at the state level, numerous groups and
individuals had a differential impact.
• It was during this time that an attempt was made to introduce international
achievement testing as a measure of excellence.
• Nonetheless, this assault on progressive education worldwide continues.
• Over the past several decades, at the local level, there has been the same
interplay of conflicting and coalescing influences.
• Once general policy has been determined at the district level, key decisions
are made about the written curriculum by curriculum specialists, school
administrators, and teacher-leaders.
• The picture changes somewhat at the school level. In elementary schools, the
principal and teacher-leaders seem to play a key role in determining curricular
priorities and in monitoring the curriculum.
 • It should be noted that in the past, when the classroom door closed, the
teacher could, at times, become the curriculum.

Explain this line.

• The dynamics of curriculum politics as to what is taught and what should be
taught is key to school reform. Most assuredly, then, successful curriculum
specialists, administrators, and teacher-leaders are those who continually learn
and follow the regulations.
• If we consider the impact of new technologies and data-driven curricula, as
well as charts and graphs of student achievement, it is conceivably more
difficult for teachers to dictate their own curriculum from behind closed
doors.
The Role of the Federal Government
• Educators collaborating in different states and districts need to successfully
design, revise, and implement common curriculum strategies that work
toward meeting standards (Vasudeva & Slamp, 2016).
Federal Government Legislations
Federal Government Legislations
Federal Government Legislations
Federal Government Legislations
Federal Government Legislations
Federal Government Legislations
Prior to the early 1960s, there was little federal involvement in curriculum.
Other than the National Defense Education Act of 1958, federal activity in
education was primarily limited to convening prestigious groups, creating
professional societies, and disseminating the recommendations of prominent
individuals.
Federal Government’s Role in the Five
most Recent Periods
Scholarly Structuralism (1957–1967)
• “catch up with the Russians.”
• Largely instigated by the launching of Sputnik,
• A time of intensive and extensive federal intervention in curriculum.
Political Implications for School
Administrators
Political Implications for School
Administrators
Political Implications for School
Administrators
Political Implications for School
Administrators
Political Implications for School
Administrators
• The federal government's primary strategy for educational intervention during
this period was the creation and dissemination of generic curricula. The aim
was to integrate the recommended, written, and taught curricula, with the
hope that district curriculum guides and teachers would implement these
idealistic recommendations. The focus was on course content, developed by
scholars who understood their disciplines, excluding "educationists" from the
process.

• .
• Efforts to promote these curricula included articles in professional journals,
sessions at major conferences, summer institutes for teacher training with
stipends, and over 30 regional laboratories to aid development and
dissemination. These materials initially seemed successful, especially in
science and mathematics, and were incorporated into conventional textbooks,
gaining enthusiasm from early adopters.
• However, resistance grew due to concerns about reduced local curricular
autonomy and the complexities of implementing the federally developed
curricula.

To what extent can

curricular autonomy be
practiced by school
leaders?
Romantic Radicalism (1968–1974)
• The national political and social agenda shifted
• While international issues such as the war in Vietnam dominated the
headlines, at the grassroots level, people also became more concerned with
individual freedoms.
• It was a time when rights, not responsibilities, was the dominant slogan: Black
people, handicapped individuals, homosexuals, women, and nonnative groups
all asserted their rights to liberation and to greater power.
English Language Learners
• Ravitch (1983) pointed out that the demand for bilingual education (currently
English language learner, or ELL, programs) seemed to result from a surge of
new ethnic pride that argued that ethnicity should be considered in creating
public policy.
Educating the Disabled
• In many ways, federal intervention in the education of the disabled seemed to
parallel its activities on behalf of nonnative children. What began as a
relatively small effort became a major initiative supported with federal funds.
Prior to 1965, there seemed to be almost no concerted effort to secure federal
funds to aid in education of the physically disabled. The leaders of
organizations such as the National Association for Retarded Citizens and the
Council for Exceptional l Children, however, viewing the success of the civil
rights movement, began to coordinate their lobbying efforts. These efforts
quickly paid off. In 1966, Congress established the Bureau of Education for
the Handicapped within the Office of Education and, in 1970, passed new
legislation increasing the amount of aid for the education of the handicapped
and expanding the definition of the term handicapped to include the learning
disabled as well as the socially and emotionally disturbed.
Privatistic Conservatism (1975–1989)
• This period, of course, was followed by the emergence of a conservative
movement that culminated in the election of President Ronald Reagan, who
used his considerable leadership skills to implement a conservative platform.
Technological Constructionism (1990–
1999)
• Throughout much of the 1990s, conservatives addressed their concerns with
education via teacher certification (national board certification), standards-
based curriculum (America’s Choice), and other similar programs. The
standards-based and technological reform movement continued to gain
support at the national, state, and local levels. This was especially true with
regard to having chief state officers (politically elected state commissioners of
education) disseminate and enforce tests and measures of educational
competency. With more interest focused on standards and student
achievement, the U.S. Department of Education and Congress began looking
at more effective ways to close the achievement gap between students in
wealthy and poor communities.
Modern Conservatism (2000–2009)
• In 2001, educational reform moved away from Technological Constructionism
and returned to a more privatistic and conservative nature. This was especially
the case with President George W. Bush’s move toward charter schools,
vouchers, and tax credits. Supporters of charter schools, vouchers, and tax
credits believed that the government should not be in the business of running
schools. State-funded vouchers would pay for education at private schools,
parochial schools, charter schools, homeschooling, or whatever schools parents
choose. Charter schools were generally considered publicly funded and publicly
controlled schools that were privately run. They were usually required to adhere
to fewer district rules than were regular public schools. Over time, the strengths
and weaknesses of these hybrid public schools came into sharp focus, and
charter schools became a cornerstone of the multibillion-dollar federal education
reform agenda (Toch, 2010).
Technological Functionalism (2010–
Present)
• As previously mentioned, NCLB was replaced with the passage of the Every
Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) in December 2015. ESSA provides an
unprecedented opportunity for states to create a new framework of
accountability that has continuous improvement at its core and local context
as its foundation. The act requires reporting to the public on outcomes and
opportunities to learn for all students, including per pupil expenditures, access
to rigorous coursework, and measures of school climate. Each state must
establish its own statewide accountability system and related school support
and improvement activities (Elgart, 2016).
Common Core State Standards
• The purpose of the Common Core Standards Initiative was to teach our
students the kinds of skills needed for the 21st century. The standards were
drafted by experts and teachers from across the country and are designed to
ensure students are prepared for today’s entry-level careers, freshman-level
college courses, and workforce training programs. The Common Core focuses
on developing the critical-thinking, problem-solving, and analytical skills
students will need to be successful.
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
• With the passage of the 2015 Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), many
district and school leaders are now facing numerous decisions on curriculum
adoption, assessment, and professional learning. According to Hoerr (2016),
ESSA encourages a smarter approach to testing by moving away from a sole
focus on standardized tests to drive decisions around the quality of schools.
ESSA, then, allows for the use of multiple measures of student learning and
progress, along with other indicators of student success, to make school
accountability decisions. These decisions will have tremendous long-term
impacts.
State Role in Curriculum
• States are now in a greater position to dedicate allowable funds to curriculum
development as well as to professional learning due to the passage of Every
Student Succeeds Act (Connelly, 2016). In this regard, many states are now
focusing on standards as drivers of school improvement. Yet, when examining
the role of the states in curriculum, two problems present themselves. The first
is that the states differ significantly in the extent to which they are centralized
—retaining authority at the state level—or decentralized—delegating
authority to the local districts. The second is that the patterns of state
influence have shifted in response to ESSA. As a result, most state
departments of education are now creating their own expanded roles in
ensuring compliance with a variety of standards.
Education Is Becoming a State Function
• According to Rothman and Marion (2016), ESSA may very well represent the
next generation of state assessment and accountability.
The Role of Professional Organizations
• When gauging the impact of professional organizations, many educators
wonder at times who is really controlling public schools. It is therefore
important to review the roles of international, national, and state professional
organizations and their impact on public schools. The way professional
organizations come together to influence schools often differs from the
formalized and regulated procedures involved with governmental agencies.
National Accreditation and Teacher
Preparation
• As mentioned in previous chapters, it is important to reiterate that NCATE
merged with the Teacher Education Accreditation Council (TEAC) to form the
Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP, 2014).
Accreditation Options of the Council for the Accreditation of Educator
Preparation
Guiding Preservice Teachers
• Preparing teacher candidates for professional practice is crucial. For example,
edTPA, formally called TPA (Teacher Performance Assessment), calls on
candidates to demonstrate their performance in three tasks: planning,
instruction, and assessment. Although there is some disagreement among
educators about the role of edTPA, the program provides an avenue in
meeting strict eligibility standards (Adkins, 2016).
Model for Preservice Teachers to Integrate
Technology in Education
 Increasing Role of the Courts and Congress
• The U.S. Supreme Court has an incredible effect on American law and public
policy and thus on our public schools. One cannot overstate its importance
(Underwood, 2016).
Top 10 educational decisions by the Supreme Court and
Congress from 1954 to 1985 and then the Top 10 decisions
from 1986 to 2009.

• The following are the court cases and significant decisions by Congress that
continue to impact education today, as well as for the foreseeable future.
Top 10 Educational Decisions by Courts
and Congress, 1954–1985
• Brown v. Board of Education (1954)
Top 10 Educational Decisions by Courts
and Congress, 1954–1985
• Civil Rights Act of 1964
Top 10 Educational Decisions by Courts
and Congress, 1954–1985
• Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969)
Top 10 Educational Decisions by Courts
and Congress, 1954–1985
• Leman vs. Kurtzman (1971)
Top 10 Educational Decisions by Courts
and Congress, 1954–1985
• San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez (1973)
Top 10 Educational Decisions by Courts
and Congress, 1954–1985
• Public Law 94–142 (passed November 29, 1975)
Top 10 Educational Decisions by Courts
and Congress, 1954–1985
• Goss v. Lopez (1975)
Top 10 Educational Decisions by Courts
and Congress, 1954–1985
• Mt. Healthy School District v. Doyle (1977)
Top 10 Educational Decisions by Courts
and Congress, 1954–1985
• Board of Education v. Rowley (1982)
Top 10 Educational Decisions by Courts
and Congress, 1954–1985
• New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985)
10 Educational Decisions by Courts and
Congress, 1986–2009
• Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
10 Educational Decisions by Courts and
Congress, 1986–2009
• Missouri v. Jenkins II (1990) and Missouri v. Jenkins III (1995)
10 Educational Decisions by Courts and
Congress, 1986–2009
• Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA; 1990) and ADA Amendments (2008)
10 Educational Decisions by Courts and
Congress, 1986–2009
• Lee v. Weisman (1992)
10 Educational Decisions by Courts and
Congress, 1986–2009
• Vernonia School District 47J v. Action (1995)
10 Educational Decisions by Courts and
Congress, 1986–2009
• Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe (2000)
10 Educational Decisions by Courts and
Congress, 1986–2009
• Board of Education v. Earls (2002)
10 Educational Decisions by Courts and
Congress, 1986–2009
• Gebser v. Lago Vista School District (1998)
10 Educational Decisions by Courts and
Congress, 1986–2009
• Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education (1999)
10 Educational Decisions by Courts and
Congress, 1986–2009
• No Child Left Behind Act (2001)
10 Educational Decisions by Courts and
Congress, 1986–2009
• Zelman v. SimmonsHarris (2002)
10 Educational Decisions by Courts and
Congress, 1986–2009
• Morse v. Frederick (2007)
10 Educational Decisions by Courts and
Congress, 1986–2009
• Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle District No. 1 (2007)
10 Educational Decisions by Courts and
Congress, 1986–2009
• Arizona Christian School v. Winn (2011)
10 Educational Decisions by Courts and
Congress, 1986–2009
• Fisher v. University of Texas, Austin (2014)
Local Education
• Past educational reforms have failed because of a lack of focus on local
solutions and an unwillingness to meet teachers where they are (Star, 2016).
This notion of local control runs deep. For much of the nation’s history, local
boards were solely responsible for school funding, standards, instruction, and
outcomes (Toch, 2012). According to Levin (2013), local governance of
education can act as a useful countermeasure to central government policies
that may be poorly conceived or badly implemented. What one level sees as
resistance to change may be seen by the other level as standing up for
important principles.
A Principal’s Political View of Schools
• The role of the principal is clearly changing, as are the expectations of the
community, both internally and externally. With federal and state legislative
mandates, building-level principals are taking a collaborative role in
establishing a multitude of achievement expectations. To meet these new
challenges, principals are seeking assistance from teacher-leaders, team
leaders, and data specialists. Each of these positions can provide needed
assistance to the principal to further efforts on assisting faculty on
instructional leadership initiatives.
Principal
Balancing
Political
Issues
The Classroom Teacher
• It is no secret that teacher-led reforms have a big advantage (Stanulis, Cooper,
Dear, Johnston, & Richard-Todd, 2016). Great teachers know how to focus on
helping students learn how to savor their newfound expertise as consumers of
knowledge (Gardner & Powell, 2013–2014). Research suggests that teachers
providing positive relationships with students have a tendency to promote
higher engagement, have fewer resistant behaviors, and are able to improve
achievement. Clearly, successful teachers are finding positive attitudes and
reinforcement to be extremely beneficial and effective in the classroom.
Internal Pressures
• To build trusting relationships with teachers, it is important to be clear and
transparent (Finkelstein, 2016). Although high-quality teachers are a key to
success, a variety of political and socioeconomic issues loom as barriers to
teaching and learning. Creating conditions under which teachers can be
effective requires strategies and partnerships that address both in-school as
well as out-of-school concerns.

• Allowing shared leadership to “drive” professional learning is a key to any

internal change.
External Pressures
Technology and Elements of Change
• Along with focusing on internal and external issues, it is important to realize
that the purpose of technology is not just to have it. Rather, it’s a means by
which educators can achieve their goals (Ford, 2016). With that said,
reviewing some of the key elements impacting 21st-century learning today is
crucial. For example, administrators and teacher-leaders need to adjust to new
technology and ideas centering on effective data analysis and use.
• The key is to learn how new technologies plug in to existing practices. With this in mind,
Whitehead, Jensen, and Boschee (2013) provide a partial list of the key elements involved
in technology and learning. These elements include the following:
Summary
• International organizations, countries, federal governments, state
governments, professional organizations, local school boards, textbook
publishers, accrediting organizations, parent groups, community groups,
school administrators, teacher-leaders, teachers, politics of curriculum,
curriculum leaders, curriculum development, influences, federal government,
state governments, educational organizations, courts, educational leaders,
classroom teachers.
How important it is to know the
different influences that shaped the
education in US at present times?
Thank you!