帕金斯III重新授权的四个关键主题:政治分析

Richard D. Lakes
{"title":"帕金斯III重新授权的四个关键主题:政治分析","authors":"Richard D. Lakes","doi":"10.21061/JCTE.V23I1.447","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Contemporary standards-based educational reform has been touted by a number of U.S. presidents in the past thirty years, particularly at a time when the nation first was awakened to the charge that schools were doing a mediocre job in preparing students for the global workforce. The federal role in educational policymaking over that time has been guided by a conservative sensibility among a centrist accord of Republican and Democratic legislators that focuses upon accountability through higher standards and testing, privatization efforts including vouchers and choice plans, and the reduction of funding governmental social services including education.Apple (1996)has described this trend in education as theconservative restorationformed by a right-leaning hegemonic alliance among two groups: neoliberals and neoconservatives. The former group, neoliberals, embraces market values maximizing individuals’ choices and desire a weakened federal role in the funding and direction of educational affairs. The latter group, neoconservatives, view the moral authority of an idealized past and wish to maintain a strong federal presence in the control and management of public schooling. Although legislators in Washington DC exhibit an uneasy alliance of competing views on the role of the state in educational affairs, they are unified in the call for business-like managerialism: “a perspective that considers restructuring, accountability, performance or ‘performativity,’ and measurement of educational activities as solutions to both social and educational problems” (Stromquist, 2002, p. 40).","PeriodicalId":170496,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Career and Technical Education","volume":"52 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2007-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Four Key Themes in Perkins III Reauthorization: A Political Analysis\",\"authors\":\"Richard D. Lakes\",\"doi\":\"10.21061/JCTE.V23I1.447\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Contemporary standards-based educational reform has been touted by a number of U.S. presidents in the past thirty years, particularly at a time when the nation first was awakened to the charge that schools were doing a mediocre job in preparing students for the global workforce. The federal role in educational policymaking over that time has been guided by a conservative sensibility among a centrist accord of Republican and Democratic legislators that focuses upon accountability through higher standards and testing, privatization efforts including vouchers and choice plans, and the reduction of funding governmental social services including education.Apple (1996)has described this trend in education as theconservative restorationformed by a right-leaning hegemonic alliance among two groups: neoliberals and neoconservatives. The former group, neoliberals, embraces market values maximizing individuals’ choices and desire a weakened federal role in the funding and direction of educational affairs. The latter group, neoconservatives, view the moral authority of an idealized past and wish to maintain a strong federal presence in the control and management of public schooling. Although legislators in Washington DC exhibit an uneasy alliance of competing views on the role of the state in educational affairs, they are unified in the call for business-like managerialism: “a perspective that considers restructuring, accountability, performance or ‘performativity,’ and measurement of educational activities as solutions to both social and educational problems” (Stromquist, 2002, p. 40).\",\"PeriodicalId\":170496,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Career and Technical Education\",\"volume\":\"52 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2007-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"9\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Career and Technical Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21061/JCTE.V23I1.447\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Career and Technical Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21061/JCTE.V23I1.447","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

摘要

在过去的30年里,许多美国总统都在吹捧以标准为基础的当代教育改革,特别是在这个国家第一次意识到学校在为学生准备全球劳动力方面做得平庸的时候。在这段时间里,联邦政府在教育政策制定方面的作用一直受到共和党和民主党议员中间中间派共识的保守敏感性的指导,他们注重通过更高的标准和测试、包括代金券和选择计划在内的私有化努力以及减少包括教育在内的政府社会服务的资金来承担责任。Apple(1996)将这种教育趋势描述为新自由主义者和新保守主义者这两个群体之间的右倾霸权联盟形成的保守主义复归。前一派是新自由主义者,他们信奉市场价值观,将个人选择最大化,并希望削弱联邦政府在资助和指导教育事务方面的作用。后者是新保守主义者,他们认为理想化的过去具有道德权威,并希望联邦政府在控制和管理公立学校方面保持强大的影响力。尽管华盛顿特区的立法者对国家在教育事务中的作用表现出不同的观点,但他们在呼吁商业式管理主义方面是一致的:“一种将重组、问责制、绩效或‘绩效’以及教育活动的衡量视为社会和教育问题解决方案的观点”(Stromquist, 2002年,第40页)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Four Key Themes in Perkins III Reauthorization: A Political Analysis
Contemporary standards-based educational reform has been touted by a number of U.S. presidents in the past thirty years, particularly at a time when the nation first was awakened to the charge that schools were doing a mediocre job in preparing students for the global workforce. The federal role in educational policymaking over that time has been guided by a conservative sensibility among a centrist accord of Republican and Democratic legislators that focuses upon accountability through higher standards and testing, privatization efforts including vouchers and choice plans, and the reduction of funding governmental social services including education.Apple (1996)has described this trend in education as theconservative restorationformed by a right-leaning hegemonic alliance among two groups: neoliberals and neoconservatives. The former group, neoliberals, embraces market values maximizing individuals’ choices and desire a weakened federal role in the funding and direction of educational affairs. The latter group, neoconservatives, view the moral authority of an idealized past and wish to maintain a strong federal presence in the control and management of public schooling. Although legislators in Washington DC exhibit an uneasy alliance of competing views on the role of the state in educational affairs, they are unified in the call for business-like managerialism: “a perspective that considers restructuring, accountability, performance or ‘performativity,’ and measurement of educational activities as solutions to both social and educational problems” (Stromquist, 2002, p. 40).
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信