Organizational Decision Making

EDUCATIONAL STUDIES, 48: 76–102, 2012 Copyright C© American Educational Studies Association ISSN: 0013-1946 print / 1532-6993 online DOI: 10.1080/00131946.2011.637257

Anarchist, Neoliberal, & Democratic Decision-Making: Deepening the Joy

in Learning and Teaching

Felecia M. Briscoe

UTSA

Using a critical postmodern framework, this article analyzes the relationship of the decision-making processes of anarchism and neoliberalism to that of deep democ- racy. Anarchist processes are found to share common core principals with deep democracy; but neoliberal processes are found to be antithetical to deep democracy. To increase the joy in learning and teaching, based upon this analysis, practical anarchist guidelines for school decision-making are suggested.

You ever been in a place, where everybody is real depressed, but they don’t really know it. It is where the tedious and mundane are worshipped. . . . The least bit of creativity and inspiration has been excised. People rule through fear and intimidation. The staff is treated like children. People wonder what is wrong with our kids. We aren’t doing them any favors, except making them sick of school. We have tested them to death. When we aren’t testing them, we are pre-testing them or teaching them test strategies. Richmond worships at the altar of standardized testing. There is no room for heretics or non-believers.1

In the opening quote, Arter Jackson (personal communication 2008) describes his experience teaching third grade in an urban school. Excited and passionate as a beginning teacher, with each passing year, he became increasingly discouraged. His experience is not an anomaly (Pesavento-Conway 2008). How has the joy that learning and teaching could offer students and teachers turned into intolerable tedium? Writers from a variety of eras and fields (e.g. Steven Shukaitis 2009 or Emma Goldman 1907 in anarchism; John Dewey 1916 or Walt Whitman 1959 in

Correspondence should be addressed to Felecia M. Briscoe, UTSA, ELPS, One UTSA Circle, San Antonio, TX 78249. E-mail: Felecia.Briscoe@utsa.edu

EDUCATIONAL STUDIES 77

democracy; and Paulo Freire 1970 or Alistair Pennycook 2001 in critical theory) all claim that such feelings emerge when people are denied the opportunity of acting in accordance with their own judgment, will, and interests—in other words, when people are denied autonomy and do not directly participate in the decisions that shape their lives. The power relations of a society affect its decision-making processes, the degree to which a person participates in that process, and thus the type of decisions made.

The power relations of a democracy are affected by its political and economic systems as well as its dominant ideology. To be a democracy, a political system must include all citizens by some means in the social decision-making, but the manner in which a particular individual participates depends upon the type of democracy. For example, the decision-making processes in direct democracy are different than those of a democratic republic. Likewise, the economic system of a democracy also affects the degree of participation that different individuals have in social decision-making. In a capitalist economy, like the United States, the degree to which someone participates in social decision-making is largely dependent upon one’s economic status. For example, running for state or national office generally requires an expensive advertising campaign to be successful; thus, only those with access to substantial money are likely to run for these offices. Finally, the dominant ideologies of a democracy also affect the processes and types of decisions made. Ideologies both make sense of the world and point to the type of actions needed. Thus, ideologies act positively and negatively, inducing some actions and subjectivities, but inhibiting others (Foucault 1980a, 1980b). In this article, I examine neoliberal and anarchist ideologies and their relationships to educational decision-making in a democracy. This examination indicates that the power relationships fostered by a neoliberal ideology fit with those of superficial, formal democracy, yet the power relationships fostered by an anarchist ideology fit with those of deep democracy. I then propose guidelines for educational decision- making based upon this examination.

A critical postmodernism frames the analysis. For the analysis of the power relations and their effects, I use Michel Foucault’s (1980a, 1980b) ideas on how power relations act to induce certain types of subjectivities, decisions, and thus ac- tions, while proscribing others. Alistair Pennycook’s (2001) description of critical postmodernism is problematizing: “insist[ing] on the notion of critical as engag- ing with the questions of power and inequality, but . . . [rejects] any possibility of critical distance or objectivity” (4). A postmodern critical perspective

raise[s] questions about the limits of its own knowing [but also operates] with some sort of vision of what is preferable. Perhaps the notion of preferred futures offers us a slightly more restrained and plural view of where we might want to head. Such preferred futures, however, need to be grounded in ethical arguments for why alternative possibilities may be better. (8)2

78 BRISCOE

In this article, the preferred future is one that fosters the development of deep democracy and is grounded in an ethical argument for ameliorating the current oppressive tedium experienced by students and teachers, allowing the inherent joy of learning and teaching to emerge. By inherent joy, I mean the inner deep satisfaction a person feels when they have learned something that they wished to learn and the similar satisfaction teachers feel when they have successfully taught something of worth to their students. However, my claim is offered with radical uncertainty. By radical uncertainty I mean that the preferred future described is not definitive, but rather a starting point, open to challenge, change, and refinement. Furthermore, Pennycook (2001) argues that postmodern critical theory should be, “an ethics of compassion and a model of hope and possibility” (9). Thus, although anarchist theory occupies a space between nihilism (e.g., Kahn 2009) and hope (e.g., Shukaitis 2009), I anchor my analysis in hope and possibility.

In this analysis, I first briefly describe neoliberalism and its growing influence. Second, I distinguish the differences between superficial and deep democracy, ending with a summary of the essential characteristics of deep democracy. Third, I outline important differences between anarchism and neoliberalism. Fourth, I delineate core principals shared by anarchism and deep democracy, linking the productive and proscriptive aspects of these core principles to human wellbeing. Fifth, I delineate neoliberalism’s antithetical relationship to deep democracy, as exemplified by “No Child Left Behind” (NCLB). Finally, based upon this exami- nation, I suggest guidelines for educational decision-making to deepen democracy and allow for greater joy in learning and teaching.

NEOLIBERALISM

Rife with phrases such as free choice, individualism, competition, and freedom, neoliberalism deemphasizes or rejects positive government intervention, focusing instead on achieving progress and even social justice by encouraging free-market methods. In other words, neoliberalism asserts that the divine hand of the mar- ket is best able to determine optimal economic and social policies on a national and global scale. Created as a framework for economic policy, neoliberalism has grown to influence most social decision-making, the types of choices and therefore actions taken; thus acting to create the reality it purports to describe (Clarke 2004). Neoliberalism describes and structures society as a web of social relations medi- ated by market exchange.3 Since the 1970s, according to Michael Apple (1999), neoliberalism has gained ascendancy and become hegemonic increasingly able to “win the battle over common sense” (5). The hegemonic sway of neoliberalism is felt deeply in schools. Hill and Boxley (2009) describe neoliberalism’s effects upon the US schooling system:

EDUCATIONAL STUDIES 79

The neoliberal project for education is part of the bigger picture of the neoliberal project of global capitalism. Markets in education worldwide, combined with so- called “parental choice” of a diverse range of schools, are only one small part of the education strategy of the capitalist class, with its Business Agenda for Education [what it requires education to do] and its Business Agenda in Education [how it plans to make money out of education]. (28–29; italics in original)

The privatization of schools (Hill and Boxley 2009) and the development of schools as a market for testing products4 are examples of markets in education. Although neoliberal ideology in theory eschews government intervention, it nevertheless coerces decision-making through surveillance techniques (e.g. the mandated test- ing in NCLB).5 Along with the growth of neoliberalism has been a corresponding global expansion of inequality. Since the 1970s, the inequality of wealth has in- tensified, both within and between nation states.6 During this same time-period, democracy became the dominant form of government throughout the world.

DEMOCRACY AND INEQUALITY?

Presumed by many to be the most egalitarian form of government, how is it possible that inequalities are increasing along with democracy? Some analysts (e.g., Giroux 2002) claim that the corresponding increases in democracy and inequality are unrelated. Rather, they claim it is the increasing global dominance of transnational capitalism producing the growing inequalities, not the increase in democracies. This argument is tenable because transnational capitalism has also intensified during this same period. Likewise, Hill and Boxley’s (2009) description of neoliberal influences over schooling suggests that neoliberalism is the offspring of global capitalism. However, de Oliver (2008) reveals that vanguard democracies, throughout history and by way of a variety of imperialist projects, have all created greater internal and external inequalities in the distribution of wealth; thus, he claims that democracy itself leads to greater inequalities. For example, in Ancient Greece and the United Kingdom during the 1800s, the advent of democracy signaled a decrease in the equal distribution of wealth within the nation states, but even more so between nation states, primarily due to the colonial relationships they established with the countries they annexed to their democratic empires. If de Oliver (2008) is correct, then democracy can no longer be regarded as a means to equitable power relations.

Judith Green’s (1999) trenchant analysis of the different types of democracy provides an alternative explanation. She describes an array of possible and exist- ing democracies, each providing different participatory opportunities and effects. Pertinent to the present topic are her descriptions of deep democracy and super- ficial democracy, which she calls formal democracy.7 Formal democracies limit

80 BRISCOE

most citizens’ participation to voting from a given list of options developed by an elite subset of the electorate. Green (1999) notes that, “the United States of America, a nation widely regarded as democracy’s world historic model, suggests that a purely formal democracy is ideologically hollow and operationally sub- vertible” (iv) and thus, is conducive to a number of social pathologies including poverty and a market motivated hyper consumerism fostered by a mass media. But, democracies need not remain purely formal.

Societies, including democracies, are dynamic and changing. There are points in time when change is dramatic. In the United States, roughly between 1880 and 1920, with the closing of the frontier, the United States and other countries underwent rapid processes of demographic transformation. During this period, many different futures became possible. As people struggled to develop relations and process appropriate to the new context, open conflict over emergent possibil- ities occurred. Conflict occurred around ideas such as: hierarchical versus direct participation as a way of organizing societal processes; the degree of inclusiveness in decision-making; and the distribution of wealth produced by industries. Anar- chism8 and deep democracy9 were two of the many viable ideological alternatives for guiding social decision-making. Both ideologies advocated full, direct, and more inclusive participation, as well as a more equitable distribution of wealth. However, hierarchies, smaller groups of expert decision-makers for the masses, and an unequal distribution of wealth continued and even intensified—all of which are symptomatic of a superficial democracy. The struggle has not ended10 but, al- though some aspects of anarchism and deep democracy have periodically emerged, democratic relations within the United States largely have remained formal and therefore superficial. Green’s (1999) analysis indicates that a formal democracy is subvertible and conducive to neoliberal market ideologies. Deep democracy, however, is less open to subversion due to its essential characteristics (as detailed later).

Garrison and Schneider (2008), drawing from Walt Whitman’s conception of a spiritual democracy, summarize the essential characteristics of deep democracy:

Everyone is equally moral and has the right to actualize whatever powers he or she has to make a contribution. Secondly . . . each individual is unique and should have the right to exercise his or her creative individuality. Finally, there is adhesion, by which he meant love, [care, and respect of others].” (11–12)

For Dewey (1916), these essential characteristics are fundamentally dependent upon a fairly equal spread of wealth and authentic communication11 (described later), based on an understanding that the individual and society are not bina- ries, but rather intimately related to one another. If deep democracy represents a preferred future, how do we progress in that direction? From Foucault’s (1980a, 1980b) perspective, the various aspects of deep democracy are mutually dependent

EDUCATIONAL STUDIES 81

upon each other and it is difficult for one aspect to emerge all by itself; however, at the same time, changing one aspect of current power relations will affect other aspects due to their connectedness.12 I argue that schools are a promising begin- ning point. Schools are charged with inculcating appropriate knowledge and social behavior in children (Dewey 1916). Thus, schools are key to the development of deep democracy.

DIFFERENCES IN ANARCHIST AND NEOLIBERAL IDEOLOGICAL FRAMEWORKS

Both neoliberalism and anarchism claim to be based upon concepts of freedom, free choice, and individualism. Thus, it may be difficult to imagine how anarchism could be conducive to deep democracy but neoliberalism opposes it. However, anarchism and neoliberalism interpret free choice, freedom, and individualism differently, due to their different ideological frameworks and the relative emphasis that neoliberalism and anarchism place on cooperation versus competition.13

There are four aspects of the ideological framework of anarchism that set the parameters for its interpretation of individualism, freedom, and free-choice. These four aspects are: the importance of joy and creativity, the relationship of the individual to society, the uniqueness of each individual, and the need for equal power relations. Anarchism seeks to create a greater possibility for joy in the world for each and every individual, and thus for society. Anarchism’s premise that the individual and society are inextricably linked promotes a pro-social perspective of individualism, in which individual and societal well-being cannot be separated. Therefore, anarchism opposes advancing one individual’s interest at the expense of another’s. Thus, anarchism fosters a cooperative approach to social decision- making. Furthermore, anarchists believe that people should creatively develop their unique individualism, rather than selecting from the set of mass-produced individualism produced by the market. This individualism is much like what Dewey (1916) advocates in the freedom to fully develop one’s unique potential. For anarchism, freedom and free choice are based on the premise of approximately equal power (e.g., resources, wealth, and status) for everyone. From this equal positioning of power, no one person or group is positioned to set out the options from which others must choose, and each person in the society has full opportunity to participate in decision-making that affects them.

On the other hand, a neoliberal framework bases the concepts of individualism, freedom, and free choice upon market mechanisms, which means that the degree of freedom and free choice are based upon what the market offers (e.g., who is running for office or which textbooks are selected by the state) and what one can afford (how much money or power one has). This conjunction, in effect, makes every individual responsible for the choices they make, despite the fact that many do not have the

82 BRISCOE

means to take advantage of their free choices. Thus, from a neoliberal perspective, those who find themselves in undesirable circumstances in our market-based world have only themselves to blame.14 The neoliberal version of individualism, thus, is antisocial. It is antisocial because there is an indifference to how the rest of society is affected by one’s efforts to compete successfully. At best, people feel free to pursue their own interest without care for others, based on the belief that somehow the individual’s selfish pursuit of one’s own interests will ultimately benefit society and that everything can be reduced to a price. Likewise, neoliberalism rarely takes into account long-term damages.15 This type of antisocial individualism perpetuates the idea that being purely self-interested and competing for individual success will magically take care of all social problems, in spite of considerable evidence to the contrary. Because of the aforementioned ideological differences (among others), the essential characteristics of deep democracy are shared with anarchism, but neoliberalism is antithetical to deep democracy.

ANARCHISM AND DEEP DEMOCRACY

Deep democracy emphasizes autonomy by recognizing the equal moral right of all to actualize their potentials and by recognizing that each individual is unique, having the right to exercise his or her creative individuality. Other core characteristics of deep democracy include love, care, and respect of others; a fairly equal spread of wealth; and authentic communication between people based on the understanding that what harms or benefits one person likewise harms or benefits the rest of society16 and, therefore, takes into consideration others’ interests, desires, and goals.17 Furthermore, these core characteristics are interdependent. I draw upon diverse social, political, and psychological research and theory to argue that these common core characteristics, shared in both anarchism and democracy, are beneficial to both the individual and society.18 Like deep democracy, anarchism advocates:

• a more equal distribution of resources; • each person directly participates in decisions affecting her or his life (auton-

omy); • authentic communication; • celebrating the joyful exercise of each person’s unique creative individuality;

and • love, respect, and caring of others.

Paralleling this order, each of these points is discussed in the following sections.

EDUCATIONAL STUDIES 83

A More Equal Distribution of Resources

Emma Goldman describes anarchism as “an order that will guarantee to every human being free access to the earth and full enjoyment of the necessities of life” (1907, 68). Rocker (1938) describes the effects of acute inequality in the distribution of resources:

Our present economic system, leading to a mighty accumulation of social wealth in the hands of a privileged minority and to a continuous impoverishment of the great masses of the people . . . sacrificed the general interests of human society to the private interests of individuals and thus systematically undermined the relationship between man and man [sic]. People forgot that industry is not an end in itself, but should be only a means to insure to man his material subsistence and to make accessible to him the blessings of a higher intellectual culture. Where industry is everything and man is nothing begins the realm of ruthless economic despotism whose workings are no less disastrous than political despotism. (2)19

Although Rocker wrote in 1938, the polarization of wealth20 and the elevation of industry (or business/corporate interests) over human interests remain true.21 An equal distribution of economic power or resources is fundamental to equalizing power relationships. One anarchist, Fotopoulos (2008), describes this necessary “economic democracy . . . as the authority of the people demos in the economic sphere, implying the existence of economic equality in the sense of an equal distribution of economic power” (442). Without equal power relations brought about by a fairly equal distribution of wealth, the individual autonomy advocated by deep democracy and anarchism cannot be operationalized.

Each Person Directly Participates in Decisions Affecting Her or His Life (Autonomy)

Anarchism’s and deep democracy’s call for a more equal distribution of resources helps to create the conditions necessary for autonomy. Perhaps the single most important foundation of anarchist thought is autonomy, as described by Anna Goldman (2010):

[Anarchism is] based in the understanding that we are best qualified to make decisions about our own lives. Anarchists believe that we must all control our own lives, making decisions collectively about matters, which affect us. Anarchists believe and engage in direct action. (para 7)

Several scholars have analyzed the importance of autonomy to human experience. Although Paulo Freire (1970) does not describe himself as an anarchist, his analysis of autonomy in regards to determining one’s own thoughts and actions is often

84 BRISCOE

quoted by anarchists such as Spring (2008). Freire (1970) discusses the death that occurs without autonomy:

Overwhelming control—is necrophilic; it is nourished by love of death, not life. Based on a mechanistic, static, naturalistic, spatialized view of consciousness; it transforms students into receiving objects. It attempts to control thinking and action, leads men to adjust to the world, and inhibits their creative power. (64)

Freire’s description of overwhelming control resonates with Mr. Jackson’s descrip- tion of his experience in an urban school, with students being “tested to death” under the current policies. A number of scholars22 note that without equal power relationships, there is little autonomy; without autonomy, authentic communica- tion becomes impossible.

Authentic Communication

Emma Goldman and Max Baginsky (1907) describe the importance of mutual understanding:

The problem that confronts us today, and which the nearest future is to solve, is how to be one’s self and yet in oneness with others, to feel deeply with all human beings and still retain one’s own characteristic qualities. This seems to me to be the basis upon which the mass and the individual, the true democrat and the true individuality, man and woman, can meet without antagonism and opposition. The motto should not be: Forgive one another; rather, Understand one another. (77)

Understanding one another requires authentic communication—taking into ac- count others’ well-being, desired ends, and eschewing purposeful deceit. It also means recognizing the relationship between the quality of one individual’s life and that of other individuals, as well as that what damages one individual or one group damages everyone in society. This anarchist principle is integrated into several social theories. For example, Kant ([1785]1879) incorporates this prin- cipal into his categorical imperative. Likewise, Dewey (1916) notes the intrinsic relationship of the individual and society and the falsity of privileging one over the other. Understanding that relationship reveals the importance of considering each individual’s desires, wants, and aims in decision-making that affects them. This understanding goes beyond the toleration or mere acceptance of another’s individuality into celebrating the joyful exercise of that unique individuality.

EDUCATIONAL STUDIES 85

Celebrating the Joyful Exercise of Each Person’s Creative Individuality

Shukaitis (2009), an anarchist, describes people whose autonomy has been excised as zombies and extols the importance of imagination and joyful exploration:

“The task is to explore the construction of imaginal machines, comprising the socially and historically embedded manifestations of the radical imagination. Imagination as a composite of our capacities to affect and be affected by the world” (15); and “One would not want to abandon the inquisitiveness and joy of ‘uncovering’ something precious” (10).

The dearth of joy and creativity that Mr. Jackson laments is at least in part due to the lack of control over their lives experienced by students and teachers in schools. For Emma Goldman (1907) shucking off this zombihood dramatically changes the nature of all aspects of life, including work: “Anarchism aims to strip labor of its deadening, dulling aspect, of its gloom and compulsion. It aims to make work an instrument of joy, of strength, of color, of real harmony, so that the poorest sort of a man should find in work both recreation and hope” (68). Anarchists, like Goldman, claim that autonomous people are creative and find joy in their work, including learning and teaching. Ignoring students’ and teachers’ unique abilities, interests, and will denies the creative expression of their unique individualism, which damages the individual and, therefore, the social. Coercing people to conform to anothers’ will kills their creativity. In squelching the creative individuality society loses the diversity that such unique contributions would bring to it. With a loss of diversity, society loses its ability to solve problems or adapt to new conditions. Likewise, Dewey (1916) noted that schools fail in their aim to educate for a democracy when “what is distinctively individual in a young person is brushed aside” (10). Instead, claimed Dewey (1916), students learn to ignore their own judgment and conform mindlessly to authority; under such conditions, the knowledge students learn is dead and inert, useless in making life decisions. Allowing students to learn, based upon their unique interests and abilities, permits the exercise of individual creativity, while demonstrating and modeling love, care, and respect for students.

Promoting Love, Care, and Respect of Others

The pro-social individualism of anarchism is concerned with the well-being of others. Both anarchism and deep democracy promote love, care, and respect of others or pro-social individualism in two ways. First both advocate that social processes and interactions take into account the goals, desires, and wants of all of those affected. Martin Buber (1937) referred to such social relationships as Ich–du (I–thou) relationships. Intrinsic to an I-thou relationship is respect and

86 BRISCOE

care. Buber (1937), Dewey (1916), and Freire (1970) all distinguish between the orientation appropriate to person–person (I–thou) relationships and that appropri- ate to human–object (I–it) relationships. When interacting in an I–it relationship, one merely uses or manipulates the object for one’s own purposes and has no concern for the interests, desires, or goals of the object. To treat someone as an object is dehumanizing and oppressive—the opposite of loving. When interacting in an I–thou relationship, one always takes into consideration the desires, interests, and goals of the other person. Buber (1937) points out that maintaining the I–thou relationship is especially important in the teacher-student relationship.

Second, treating others with love, respect, and care becomes both logical and common-sensical to anarchists, who clearly articulate the interdependent nature of the individual and society. Both Dewey (1916) and Goldman (1907) maintain that the individual and the society are not separate phenomenon (also in keeping with postmodern thought23), but rather aspects of the same phenomenon. According to Emma Goldman (1907), the individual and the social should be understood,

as closely related and truly harmonious, if only placed in proper environment: . . .

because each was blind to the value and importance of the other. The individual and social instincts, —the one a most potent factor for individual endeavor, for growth, aspiration, self-realization; the other an equally potent factor for mutual helpfulness and social wellbeing. . . . There is no conflict between the individual and the social instincts, any more than there is between the heart and the lungs: . . . The individual is the heart of society, conserving the essence of social life; society is the lungs, which are distributing the element to keep the life essence—that is, the individual—pure and strong. (4–5)

From an anarchist viewpoint then, society ought to be promoting the love, care, and respect of all; processes and relations ought to be largely cooperative rather than competitive.

In sum, both anarchism and deep democracy emphasize autonomy by recog- nizing the equal right of all to actualize their potential and abilities, celebrating the right of each individual to exercise his or her creative individuality. Furthermore, both anarchism and deep democracy espouse love, care, and respect of others; a more equal spread of wealth; and authentic communication. Very few of these ideological principles currently guide educational decision-making today. Instead, neoliberalism dominates as a global ideology.

NEOLIBERALISM IS ANTITHETICAL TO THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF DEEP DEMOCRACY

An especially powerful example in the United States of neoliberal policy affecting educational decision-making is the recent NCLB legislation; therefore, I focus

EDUCATIONAL STUDIES 87

on NCLB as an exemplar of neoliberal educational policy. In theory, NCLB provides a process whereby good schools (like good businesses) gain more students (customers) and more money, and poor schools lose students and money. Parents, no longer fettered to a particular school by governmental regulations, ostensibly are free to move their child out of their failing old school and choose a more successful school for their child to attend.24 Over time, the loss of students and funds, and eventually state decrees, force bad schools to go out of business. Under such circumstances, the school’s management and personnel are replaced by more competitive people, or the whole school can be replaced by a private for-profit educational business. Of note, although NCLB mandates a marketplace type of decision-making within education, it does so only by inducing states to further reduce the autonomy of schools, teachers, and students. As explained in the following, NCLB opposes the development of deep democracy because it:

1. perpetuates double-speak and obfuscating communication; 2. refutes an equal distribution of resources for education; 3. reduces equal opportunity to equal treatment/outcome (standardization); 4. abrogates the autonomy of students, teachers, and parents; 5. opposes students’ unique exercise of creative individuality; and 6. inhibits the development of love, respect and caring of others.

Double-Speak and Obfuscating Communication

There are many examples of obfuscating language in NCLB. One glaring example of double-speak is the informal title of the law itself: “No Child Left Behind.” Such a title would seem to claim that every child should be given an equal op- portunity to achieve academically, especially because NCLB explicitly advocates that: “All children shall meet the challenging state student academic achievement standards.”25 A seemingly integral part of enabling all children to meet challenging academic achievement standards would be to provide more resources for those who have been historically disadvantaged, but at the minimum, to ensure equal resources for all ethnic and economic groups. Yet, NCLB explicitly eliminates this as an interpretation of the law: “Nothing in this title shall be construed to mandate equalized spending per pupil for a State, local educational agency, or school.”26 Yet, Kozol (2005) shows that schools primarily serving children who have been historically, and are currently, disadvantaged by society (e.g., minority and low-income students) are in general, provided with the fewest resources to teach their students. For example, in one of the largest cities in Texas, the three of the lowest-income school districts averaged 96% minority students, but the three highest-income school districts averaged 31% minority students (Briscoe and de Oliver forthcoming). Thus, both the moniker and advocacy claims of NCLB are examples of double-speak.

88 BRISCOE

Refutes an Equal Distribution of Educational Resources

As previously noted, NCLB explicitly eliminates equal allocation of educational resources as a possible interpretation of the law. Such an explicit denial implies that many people reading the law might reasonably interpret it to mean that equal funding would be necessary to provide all children an equal opportunity to achieve. Denying an equal spread of resources is antithetical to deep democracy.

Abrogates the Autonomy of Students, Parents, and Teachers

The federal government, through its dispensing or withholding of money, coerces states into adopting particular curricular emphases, standardized testing, and the timeline of both curriculum and tests. And under the current hierarchy of school- ing, starting with students and teachers . . . up to state boards of education are enmeshed in a hierarchy of linked master–servant relationships, with those at the bottom having the least amount of autonomy. NCLB’s coercive policies leave states with little choice (given the dire condition of state budgets) but to further usurp districts,’ schools,’ teachers,’ parents,’ and students’ autonomy in determining the relative emphases in their curriculum as well as their mode of testing and testing timelines. Schools, teachers, and students are required to proceed at a uniform standardized schedule and do not have the option of conforming the curriculum to students’ interests or strengths. Nel Noddings (1992) and John Dewey (1916) describe just two of the many possible different ways that schooling could con- form to students’ interests. Instead, they must proceed in a lockstep manner. This uniformity occurs, in part, because NCLB reduces equity or equal opportunity to a standardization of treatment and outcome.

Perhaps NCLB’s most invidious subversion of autonomy is that although it es- pouses individual autonomy, NCLB premises this autonomy or free choice upon market mechanisms, which privilege the choice-making of those with more money over those with less money. This subversion holds schools, teachers, students, and parents responsible for their choices, based upon this seemingly offering auton- omy. In reality, NCLB coerces choices for those with little access to resources, while at the same time inducing blame for those forced choices. Such subver- sion counters deep democracy’s and anarchism’s mandate for real autonomy for students, parents, teachers, and schools.

NCLB Opposes Students’ Unique Exercise of Creative Individuality

Related to NCLB’s abrogation of autonomy is its opposition to exercise creative individuality. Part of deep democracy is the recognition that each person is unique and should have the right to exercise her or his creative individuality. With NCLB strong-arming states to emphasize a particular part of the curriculum in a lockstep

EDUCATIONAL STUDIES 89

manner (based upon a mandated testing timeline for all students), the teacher is unable to create a learning environment in which students can apply their particular strengths or develop academic skills in the sequence that best fits that student’s interests and abilities. Finally, under NCLB, the disregard of a student’s unique exercise of creative individuality occurs with more intensity in schools that serve economically underprivileged and minority students, as art, music, and other creative arts are expunged from the school curriculum to improve standardized test scores (Briscoe 2008). The loss of these opportunities acts to create subjectivities of compliance, as Freire (1970) put it, the curtailment of their realities. Through this process, NCLB encourages the development of citizens who participate only as voters, choosing from a slate of pre-selected candidates.

NCLB Inhibits the Development of Love, Respect and Care of Others

Inhibition of love, respect, and care of others is seen in the treatment of students and faculty, as well as in the type of subjectivities and actions NCLB induces in school members. As previously stated, NCLB mandates a lockstep curriculum and testing timeline with no concern for the individual student’s interests, desires, or abilities. Freire (1970) claims that this regime deadens the soul and mind of a person, suiting that person for subjugation. Such dehumanization of students is the opposite of loving, caring, and respect and, furthermore, induces students to treat others as objects (Foucault 1980a). Not only do NCLB policies inhibit the development of love, care, and respect among students, they also inhibit such development in educators in three ways: (a) as described by Buber (1937), NCLB policies treat teachers as objects in its insistence that they follow a lockstep curriculum for every student regardless of teachers’ judgments; (b) by demanding that teachers treat their students as objects; and (c) by fostering an antisocial individualism among the school educators. As von Humboldt (1985) points out, treating another person as an object or slave damages the perpetrator as much as the victim, in part by developing an indifference or blindness to others’ suffering. Finally, through its antisocial competitive individualism, NCLB fosters a climate of mistrust and disregard of others among schools and faculty, rather than one of mutual care and respect. This analysis of NCLB illustrates the antithetical relationship neoliberal policies have to essential characteristics of deep democracy and to human well- being. Anarchist guidelines offer an attractive alternative to the current neoliberal policies guiding educational decision-making.

AN ANARCHIST GUIDE FOR EDUCATIONAL DECISION-MAKING

Most anarchists maintain that US schools, like the rest of the state and national political system, have become subverted into servicing the interests and desires

90 BRISCOE

of the corporate elite, as seen in Goldman and Baginsky’s (1907) characterization of schools: “The school, more than any other institution, is a veritable barrack, where the human mind is drilled and manipulated into submission to various social and moral spooks, and thus fitted to continue our system of exploitation and oppression” (7). Under the current ideological hegemony of neoliberalism, this characterization remains true. Thus, some anarchists, such as Illich (1971), suggest disestablishing schools completely and letting citizens educate themselves as they wish. Such efforts, they say, will eliminate public schools’ conditioning of students for the economic and social status quo. However, eliminating free access to an education would set us back historically to when the majority of citizens simply went uneducated, as they could not afford to pay for teachers and the accoutrements of learning, rendering them even more vulnerable to the problematic conditioning of an increasingly ubiquitous mass media. Thus, my view of the state’s role in education follows Noam Chomsky’s claim that “abolishing the state is not a realistic strategy at this time” (2010),27 and Buck’s (2009) suggestion that progress toward anarchism proceed piecemeal. My presentation of anarchist guidelines is composed of two parts: First, I sketch an anarchist model of educational decision-making, suggesting it be instituted through federal legislation that would offer funds only to those states that adopt these guidelines. These guidelines are not offered as the definitive, final, or only anarchistic way in which to make educational decisions. Others can improve upon them, either generally or based upon specific contextual conditions. However, they do provide a starting point by providing practical suggestions about how schools might serve students’ and parents’ interest, rather than the elite.28 Second, I address some concerns that might arise over the guidelines.

Anarchist Educational Decision-Making Guidelines

The guidelines are simple. The state will provide equal money (per student) for all nonprofit public schools within that state and all public school teacher salaries will be paid from the same state salary schedule. The school constituents (parents and students most geographically near a given school and the teachers of that school) together decide upon the way the school is run, which includes teaching methods, curriculum, hours, teacher hiring, adequacy of teaching, and the purchase of educational supplies and services. If school constituents find someone’s teaching to be inadequate, they also determine how to address this inadequacy. In any particular school, all children will have equitable access to teachers, supplies, and services provided by the school—teachers provide advice, but a student may attend any class offered by their school that they and their parents wish. School constituents also monitor to ensure that their school funding equals that of other schools, appealing to the federal government if they find a lack of equal funding of their school or equitable access within their school. Because the teachers, students,

EDUCATIONAL STUDIES 91

and parents will be making the decisions regarding the curriculum, budgeting, and method of schooling, there is no more formalized structural hierarchy and, therefore, no need for a leader to coerce teachers and students into particular actions. Noneducational duties left to be considered include bookkeeping and organizing the use and maintenance of resources. School constituents also decide how to handle this. Among the several possibilities are having teachers and/or parents rotate into this position on a semester basis, with parents being paid or teachers being relieved of their teaching duties. Students and teachers could be responsible for the cleaning and minor maintenance of the facilities that they use. For major repairs, if a student, parent, or teacher knows how to do the repair, they may do so for whatever recompense is decided as fair or a professional could be hired.

There are two final provisos. First, as discussed later, schools are limited to 300 students (small school concepts could be used for large school buildings as the constituents of each small school retained decision-making rights over their school). Second, although schooling is not compulsory, there is no age limit to attending public schools without cost. The primary reason schooling should not be compulsory is to retain the autonomy of students and parents; thus, the decision-making of whether or not to attend school should be theirs. If those who choose not to attend school but to experience the world should ultimately decide that an education is important, they would still have free access to the public school. However, some concerns might arise over such simple guidelines: Can we really trust teachers (possibly lazy or incompetent), parents (not experts), and children (possibly pleasure-oriented, short-sighted, and ignorant) to make the best educational decisions? Why limit the number of students to 300 or less? What about previous failed attempts at integrating parents into the decision-making processes of schools? If all of these small schools are doing their own thing, what will hold society together? Each of these possible concerns is discussed in the order presented previously.

Students, Parents, and Teachers, as Educational Decision-Makers

As previously indicated, autonomy is perhaps the single most important aspect of anarchism and deep democracy.29 Joyfully exercising creative individuality entails student and teacher autonomy in making decisions about what education would look like. Students would not dictate what the teacher should do, nor would teachers dictate what students should do; they would come to a consensus about the students’ curriculum. Although others (teachers, parents, or friends) can share their observations, ideas, and advice, the student should ultimately define his or her potential and abilities. Because children lack some of the knowledge that adults have, parents should also be advocates for their children in terms of their

92 BRISCOE

education. Their primary input would be in the hiring of teachers. From that point, parents would be advisory, leaving the day-to-day educational decisions to be made jointly by teachers and students.

Buber (1937) describes the I–thou relationship between student and teacher in which daily decisions about learning are made based upon both parties’ desired ends, with neither the student’s nor the teacher’s desire eclipsing the others. In fact, Buber emphasizes that teachers assume the role of students when they learn from the children with whom they work. Learning is fun. Joint discovery is fun (Shukaitis 2009). Both children and adults spend many hours learning things that they wish to learn (such as new video games) without the specter of a test to drive them. Respecting student and teacher autonomy in making the decisions about learning will help put the excitement and joy back into learning and teaching.30

Jointly developing their curriculum with teachers, rather than just learning what is mandated by the State, induces students to develop the habit of exercising their autonomy31 and thus to participate in the decision-making of anarchistic deep democracy. Students and teachers share a relationship much like counselors and those being counseled. Research32 indicates that counselor and counselee belief in what they are doing is the most important factor in whether counseling benefits the counselee. Therefore, it is likely that more and better learning will take place if teachers and students believe in what they are doing, rather than merely doing what they are told.

Can we trust teachers, parents, and children to make the best schooling de- cisions? During the 1920s there was an educational shift in the United States to having experts make decisions, rather than parents or teachers (Tyack and Cuban 1995). Teachers were, and still are, often perceived as being lazy or incompe- tent (Webb, Briscoe, and Mussman 2009). Parents, especially poor and minority parents, are often constructed as deficit (Briscoe and de Oliver forthcoming) and untrustworthy. Students seldom have been trusted to make good educational deci- sions. Why should we begin trusting them now? The answer is simple. Autonomy or the ability to make decisions concerning your own education is an essential ingredient for human dignity, well-being (Freire 1970), and motivation.33 Further- more, based upon the educational judgment of experts, too many poor and minority students are largely learning that they are failures and stupid (McKenzie 2009). With the current drilling, testing, and other school regimes in place, students are induced to regard learning as boring and humiliating. Minority men, especially those from the lower income brackets, are often channeled into prison by academic and disciplinary practices (Gregory, Skiba, and Noguera 2010). It is difficult to imagine how parents, teachers, and students could do a worse job in making these decisions than the experts. The individual and societal benefits warrant placing educational decision-making into the hands of those directly concerned.34

But what if students and teachers goof off instead of working? Goofing off may be one of the best ways of learning. Countless treatises from Rousseau

EDUCATIONAL STUDIES 93

([1762]1979) to Smith and Pelligrini (2008) have been written about how much learning occurs through play. Furthermore, making these decisions in conjunction with teachers may expose students to a whole new variety of play than what they might normally engage in. Additionally, in the early 1900s, there was a general consensus that the technology of mass production would provide more leisure time for the masses. However, increasingly sophisticated technology has not opened up more free time. Instead, there are more unemployed workers and those in the work- force generally work longer hours and are expected to produce more.35 Finally, if more people worked (but worked fewer hours) and played more, maybe society would no longer be gripped by a sense of meaninglessness (Havel 1994). If work became play, through worker autonomy, fewer antidepressants may be required.

Why Limit the School to 300 in the Geographic Area?

Although this latter guideline is not explicitly part of anarchism or deep democracy, I include it for a number of reasons that relate to love, care, and respect of others and direct participation in educational decision-making. Simmel’s ([1903] 1950) social theory described the kind of alienation and anomie that occurs when a group grows too large. In addition to social theory, psychological research has similar findings. Dunbar’s (1992) research suggests that our brains tend to limit us to knowing, understanding, and thus caring about no more than 150-300 individuals.36 Other psychological studies (Demasio 1994) show that the further away people are from our decisions or actions, that is, as people become more abstract to us, the more indifferent we are to the suffering we cause them by our decisions. Finally, the more people who take part in a decision (voting for local vs. national political positions), the less impact each person has on that decision. Therefore, smaller is better in terms of direct participation in group-decision making that takes into account the needs, interests, and wellbeing of all group members.37

Failed Attempts at Integrating Parents Into School Decision-Making

Finally, what about earlier failed attempts at integrating parents, teachers, and sometimes students into the decision-making processes of schools?38 First, not all attempts failed (e.g., Somech 2002). There is considerable research that suggests integrating parental perspectives into schools results in much higher academic achievement, especially for minority students (González, Moll, and Amanti 2005). Research investigating the differences between shared decision-making attempts that failed and those that were succeeding suggests that the anarchist guidelines presented here incorporate important aspects that were linked with success and avoid many of the aspects that lead to failure. Aspects that were related to success included “genuine authority over budget, personnel, and curriculum . . . adequate

94 BRISCOE

information to make informed decisions about student performance, parent and community satisfaction” and decision-making that incorporated all school con- stituents.39 The most consistently reported aspect that was linked to success of integrating teachers and parents into school decision-making was that they had autonomy—or the genuine authority to make decisions.40 Elements found to be linked to failure included overwork and frustration of teachers as they attempted to both teach and make school-wide decisions (this was the most commonly re- ported element linked to failure);41 too much conflict (Geraci 1995); inadequate knowledge or understanding of issues;42 and the difficulty faced by the principal in mediating demands of the school district with those from the teachers and parents (e.g., Geraci 1995).

However, the context in which integration of parents, teachers, and students, as suggested in this article, is quite different from earlier attempts in two important ways: the degree of autonomy granted to school constituents and the number of students in a school. The strongest element in these anarchist guidelines is that teachers, students, and parents do have true autonomy. They are freed from a hierarchy of control except for the one regulation, enforced by the federal gov- ernment, that they provide equitable access to all students in their schools. As this type of autonomy was the most often repeated element related to success or failure of shared decision-making, it bodes well that autonomy is an essential element of these anarchist guidelines. In addition, research was generally done on schools whose student population was much greater than 300.43 Parents and teachers are more likely to feel overwhelmed, overworked, and frustrated by issues that come with schools whose student population far exceeds 300, because with fewer students, there are likely to be fewer issues. Furthermore, in a school of 300, students’ decisions are easier to make and the effects of those decisions are easier to track. Finally, research was primarily conducted in a context where constituents were expected to help make decisions, while embedded in a hierarchy reaching from the federal government to state, to state boards, to district boards, to local schools. This hierarchy was replete with codes, regulations, and other limits upon decision-making (Wylie 1995). Eliminating the bureaucratic hierarchy of regula- tions, codes, etc., and issues emanating from a multitude of hierarchical levels means that teachers, parents, and students primarily need to have knowledge and understand local issues. Under the suggested anarchistic guidelines parents will not be embedded in a hierarchy nor fenced in by a number of hierarchical regulations.

Conflict will occur when people have different ideas, interests, and desires. In the past, this conflict has been avoided by simply leaving teachers and parents with their unique individualities out of decision-making. Undoubtedly, conflict will occur and it will take time to sort through and come to decisions. However, conflict with open and authentic communication is much healthier than the orderliness that occurs under conditions of extreme control (Freire 1970), as described earlier by Mr. Jackson.

EDUCATIONAL STUDIES 95

Schools are ‘Doing Their Own Thing’: How Will Society Hold Together?

Logically, society will hold together and survive, because it will be more adaptable to changes in technology and the environment and because of the diversity of knowledges and epistemologies inherent in a number of small schools and groups doing their own thing. Diversity strengthens the survivability and adaptability of a species and should aid in that of a society. In addition, rather than being passive spectators in societal and military actions of their nation, students will be socialized to be critical and then to directly participate in the decisions made by their country. Dewey (1916) maintains that for a democracy to improve itself, students must believe they have the ability to affect society and the will to do so. Small schools in which students, teachers, and parents make educational decisions produce diversity and socialize students to participate in the decision-making that affects their lives.

A further concern related to schools doing their own thing, might be that such autonomy grants the freedom that racists, sexists, and others will use to turn back the clock to racial- and gender-based apartheid, exclusion, and oppression in pre- viously practiced in schools. No doubt, racial apartheid or oppression may occur in some schools (as it does now).44 However, any constituent of the school has the right and opportunity to appeal to the federal government if anyone in the school is denied equal access. Currently, this is the only recourse that students have if they are excluded or experience oppression based upon race. Thus, the greater autonomy offered by these guidelines is unlikely to result in worse apartheid or oppression. In addition, if exclusion or oppression of a student were occurring, it would be much more evident in a small school of 300. Furthermore, even if (based upon the composition of the neighborhood) the 300 students in a school are primarily of a single ethnicity/race, such segregated schools exist today, some- times within the same school (Oakes 1985). This current de facto segregation in schools—“African American and Latino students presently attend schools that are three-fourths minority and 40 percent are in intensely segregated schools” (Zamudio, Russell, Rios, and Bridgeman 2011, 44)—is often accompanied by a dearth of money for low-income and minority students. Thus, allowing school constituents to do their own thing is unlikely to make racial or gender apartheid and oppression worse than the current situation. However, offering students and teachers greater autonomy in determining what and how they learn is likely to be far more motivational to both students and teachers than the current tedium of schools caused by lockstep learning, as described earlier by Mr. Jackson.

I have addressed some of the concerns, which may arise in regards to the im- plementation of anarchist guidelines for educational decision-making. Undoubt- edly, there are other concerns, but for pragmatic reasons, I leave those for future debate.

96 BRISCOE

CONCLUSION

In sum, this article has described the negative social and educational environ- ment that is generated by the increasing implementation of neoliberal policies, which perpetuate the practices of superficial democracy. However, the decision- making processes of neoliberal policies oppose the practice of deep democracy by: perpetuating double-speak; refuting an equal distribution of educational re- sources; abrogating the autonomy of school constituents; denying students and teachers the opportunity to exercise their creative individuality; and inhibiting the development of love, respect, and caring for others. These policies together treat humans as objects, creating a recipe for inhumane tedium and alienation. In contrast, anarchist policies promote decision-making processes that act to deepen democracy and the joy of teaching and learning. Anarchism promotes authentic communication; espouses a fairly equal distribution of power that allows for the exercise of real autonomy; advocates the joyful exercise of students’ and teachers’ creative individuality; and promotes the love, care, and respect of others. The suggested anarchist guidelines for educational decision-making are designed to make a preferred future more possible—a preferred future based upon improving the well-being of students and teachers, and eventually society. Consideration of this preferred future allows a more positive interpretation of The Second Coming:

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world; . . . . The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity. (Yeats 1989, 187)

The center should not control the periphery, but rather should fall apart into a form of decision-making that is more equally distributed among all concerned. Mere anarchy loosens the chains that prevent people from acting autonomously. It is better to lack conviction so that one considers what others have to say than to be so full of passionate intensity that one ignores others’ interests, desires, and needs. Perhaps this type of ignorance is what turns the best into the worst. This is but a starting point, offering exciting challenges and opportunities for further research and flexible application based upon the context of schooling.

Notes

1. Arter Jackson, public school teacher, e-mailed the author on September 16, 2008. Mr. Jackson was a former student of mine who had remained in communication with me over the years, describing his teaching and educational experiences.

EDUCATIONAL STUDIES 97

2. This characterization of critical postmodernism fits with anarchism. See for example, a number of discussions of anarchism’s relationship with possible and preferred futures in Randall Amster et al. (2009). 3. For a fuller description of neoliberalism and its productive effects see Clarke (2004) or Dave Hill (2009). 4. For a description of the expansion of the testing market and its effects of further narrowing the types of knowledge taught in schools see Felecia Briscoe (2008). 5. See Taylor Webb, Felecia Briscoe, and Mark Mussman (2009), for a detailed discussion of the coercive surveillance techniques found in neoliberalism as exemplified in NCLB. 6. See for example, Firebaugh (2003) or Gailbraith and Hale (2005). 7. Other democratic typologies include shallow, weak, etc. 8. E.g., Emma Goldman (1907) or Peter Kropotkin (1899). 9. E.g., Walt Whitman (1959) and John Dewey (1916). 10. See Steven Shukaitis’s Imaginal Machines (2009) for more about how these types of decisions are constantly being remade with the possibility of a more anarchic decision occurring and that hope is a necessary ingredient for such transformative changes to occur. 11. From a postmodern perspective, reality is social construction and words like authentic can at best, be merely contingent. Recognizing this, I later provide a definition of authentic communication as described by political and sociological theorists. 12. Furthermore, many anarchists such as Buck (2009) advocate a piecemeal transformation. 13. Later in the sections analyzing the relationships of neoliberalism and anarchism to deep democracy, each of the assertions in this section are discussed in detail. 14. See Briscoe and de Oliver (forthcoming) for a detailed description of the imaginary “free choice” offered by neoliberalism. 15. And when neoliberalism does, its response is market-based, such as the Kyoto agreement in which wealthy industrialized countries buy the right to a large carbon footprint from countries who are not fully industrialized. Although not fully industrialized may sound deficit in comparison to fully industrialized, in reality it is not. Fully industrialized indicates a disproportionate use of global resources and a disproportionate amount of pollution. At this point in time, a fully industrialized country is one that uses far more than its share of resources and pollutes far more than its counterparts that are not fully industrialized. 16. By harm, I mean the kind of harm that results in the dehumanization or alienation of a person as described by Paulo Freire (1970) in Pedagogy of the Oppressed or the kinds of suffering described by Pennycook (2001) in Critical Applied Linguistics. By benefit, I refer to the sort of benefit that allows for the fuller expression of a person’s humanity as described by Freire in Pedagogy of the Oppressed or Dewey (1916) in Democracy and Education. 17. For a fuller discussion of authentic communication, see Green (1999) or Walt Whitman (1959). 18. From a postmodern perspective, research and theory are integrated into current power relations. However, there is always resistance and perhaps the theories and research findings cited in this article are points of resistance. See Foucault (1980a). 19. Because Anarcho-Syndicalism: Theory and Practice was written in 1938, it is important to note two things. Minorities in this context does not refer to those who have been historically oppressed, but rather to the small number of people who overwhelming benefit from the current economic system to the detriment of the masses. Also, the language used here is patriarchal in that the masculine pronoun is used to refer to all of humankind. I resist language that promotes sexism and therefore point to it, but at the same time recognize that this was considered correct essay style in the time period.

98 BRISCOE

20. See Wolff (2007). 21. In consideration of the education of minorities, Black authors such as Vanessa Siddle- Walker (1996) or bell hooks (1994), based upon their research, argue that the education prior to desegregation of African Americans was taught by African Americans who inculcated higher expectations in students than that inculcated in minorities by most of the teachers in desegregated urban schools of today; the problem wasn’t segregation per se, but access to resources. At least, minorities or low-income students were not being “schooled” into deficit identities, including low expectations of themselves. See, for example, Ivan Illich (1971); Paulo Freire (1970) or, more recently, Jean Anyon (1998) and Tara J. Yasso (2006). 22. For example, Gordon W. Allport ([1954] 1968), Habermas (1968) or von Humboldt (1985). 23. See for example, Foucault (1980a). 24. In reality, a large number of students do not have the option of going to a particular school in their school district, but are stuck in a school, which has now been labeled as failing. See Roslyn Arlin Mickelson and Stephanie Southwort (2005) for more on this. 25. NCLBa, Public Law 107-110, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Part I, sec. 1903 (a)(2). Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg18.html. 26. NCLBb, Public Law 107-110, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Part I, sec 1906. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg2.html. 27. See Noam Chomsky (2010),. 28. As described in several analyses (e.g., Briscoe & de Oliver, forthcoming) neoliberalism has redefined the public good as that which services the interest of the corporate elite. 29. See, for example, Anna Goldman (2010). 30. See, for example, Friere (1970) or Emma Goldman (1907). 31. See Foucault (1980a) for a description of how power affects subjectivities. 32. See for example, Gary Greenburg (2010). 33. See Dewey (1916) for a theoretical grounding on why autonomy leads to motivation and an example of empirical working supporting the relationship of autonomy and motivation by Nichols (2006). 34. In addition, without the truancy apparatus, more money is available for education. 35. See for example, Braverman (1974) or, more recently, Schaal (2010). 36. Furthermore, the less autonomy (or control) a person has, the more debilitating the effects of group size; “Both environmental stress and crowding annoyance are significantly related to personal control” (Schmidt 1983 229). 37. Furthermore, smaller schools generally produce higher achievement rates. See, for example, McMillen et al. (2000). 38. Referred to variously as school-based management, e.g., Gleason, Donohue, and Leader (1995); participative management, e.g., Somech (2002); or site-based management, e.g., Wylie (1995). 39. Odden and Wohlstetter (1995). Likewise, Conway and Calzi (1995), as well as Geraci (1995), found that lack of genuine authority to make decisions was linked to the failure of shared decision-making. 40. Odden and Wohlstetter (1995); Conway and Calzi (1995); and Geraci (1995) all noted that lack of genuine authority to make decisions was linked to the failure of shared decision- making. 41. See, for example, Sanders (2001), Wylie (1995), or Geraci (1995). 42. 43. See, for example, Gleason et al. (1995), Geraci (1995), Conway and Calzi (1995), or Somech (2002).

EDUCATIONAL STUDIES 99

44. See, for example, Oakes (1985) for research showing how the ubiquitous practice of tracking acts to exclude minority and low-income students from the upper academic tracks in schools, creating a sort of apartheid.

REFERENCES

Allport, Gordon W. 1954. The Nature of Prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley. Amster, Randall, Abraham DeLeon, Luis Fernandez, Anthony Nocella, and Deric Shannon, eds. 2009.

Contemporary Anarchist Studies: An Introductory Anthology of Anarchy in the Academy. New York: Routledge.

Anyon, Jean. 1998. “Rank Discriminations: Critical Studies of Schooling and the Mainstream in Educational Research.” Educational Researcher 313: 32–33.

Apple, Michael. 1999. “Friere, Neoliberalism and Education.” Discourse Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 201: 5–20.

Braverman, Harry. 1974. Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century. New York: Monthly Review Press.

Briscoe, Felecia. 2008. “Discipline.” Pp. 199–207 in Knowledge and Power in the Global Economy (2nd ed.). Edited by David Gabbard. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Briscoe, Felecia, and Miguel deOliver. Forthcoming. “The Discourse of School Leaders in the Con- text of NCLB’s Marketplace Mandates: The Construction of Deficit Minority and Low Income Identities.” Critical Inquiry in Language Studies.

Buber, Martin. 1937. I and Thou. Translated by Ronald G. Smith. Edinburgh, Scotland: T & T Clark. Buck, Eric. 2009. “The Flow of Experiencing in Anarchic Economies: Pp. 57–70 in Contemporary

Anarchist Studies: An Introductory Anthology of Anarchy in the Academy. Edited by Randall Amster, Abraham. DeLeon, Luis Fernandez, Anthony Nocella, and Deric Shannon. New York: Routledge.

Chomsky, Noam. 2010. “‘Abolishing the State’ Not a Strategy” [Video]. Retrieved Sept. 24, 2011, from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiqPCRtzOBw

Conway, James and Frank Calzi. 1995. “The Dark Side of Shared Decision Making.” Educational Leadership 53: 45–50

Clarke, John. 2004. “Dissolving the Public Realm? The Logics and Limits of Neo-liberalism.” Journal of Social Policy 33: 27–48.

Demasio, Antonio. 1994. Descartes Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.

de Oliver, Miguel. 2008. “Democratic Materialism: The Articulation of World Power in Democracy’s Era of Triumph.” Journal of Power 1: 355–383.

Dewey, John. 1916. Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education. New York: Macmillan.

Dunbar, Robin. 1992. “Neocortex Size as a Constraint on Group Size in Primates.” Journal of Human Evolution 226: 469–493.

Firebaugh, Glen. 2003. The New Geography of Global Income Inequality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press

Fotopoulos, Takis. 2008. “Inclusive Democracy.” Pp. 435–448 in Knowledge and Power in the Global Economy (2nd ed.). Edited by David Gabbard. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Foucault, Michel. 1980a. Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972–1977. Edited by Colin Gordon. Translated by Colin Gordon, Leo Marshall, John Mepham, and Kate Soper. New York: Pantheon Books.

———. 1980b. The History of Sexuality: Vol. I. Translated by Robert Hurley. New York: Vintage Books.

100 BRISCOE

Friere, Paulo. 1970. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Herder and Herder. Gailbraith, James K., and Travis Hale. (2005), “Within-State Income Inequality and the Presidential

Vote 1992–2004: A First Look at the Evidence.” UTIP Working Paper 29. Retrieved from http: //utip.gov.utexas.edu/papers.html.

Garrison, James, and Sandra Schneider. 2008. “Democracy.” Pp. 5–12 in Knowledge and Power in the Global Economy, Edition II. Edited by David Gabbard. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Geraci, Bill. 1995. “Local Decision Making: A Report from the Trenches.” Educational Leadership 53: 50–53.

Giroux, Henry. 2002. “Neoliberalism, Corporate Culture, and the Promise of Higher Education: The University as a Democratic Public Sphere.” Harvard Educational Review 724: 425–463.

Gleason, Sonia, Nick Donohue, and Gerald C. Leader. 1995. “Boston Revisits School-Based Manage- ment.” Educational Leadership 53: 24–28.

Goldman, Anna. 2010. “Anarchism: What Is It?” Anarchia: An Excess of Passion for Liberty. Retrieved Sept. 2011, from http://anarchia.wordpress.com/2007/04/03/anarchism-what-is-it/.

Goldman, Emma. 1907. Anarchism and Other Essays. New York: Mother Earth. Goldman, Emma, and Max Baginsky. 1907. “Report of the American Conditions.” Pp. 47–52 in

Anarchism and Other Essays. New York: Mother Earth. González, Norma, Luis C. Moll, and Cathy Amanti, eds. 2005. Funds of Knowledge: Theorizing Prac-

tices in Households, Communities and Classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Green, Judith. 1999. Deep Democracy: Community, Diversity, and Transformation. Lanham, MD:

Rowan & Littlefield. Greenburg, Gary. 2010. “The War on Unhappiness.” Harpers Magazine 321: 27–35. Gregory, Anne, Russell J. Skiba, and Pedro A. Noguera. 2010. “The Achievement Gap and the

Discipline Gap: Two Sides of the Same Coin?” Educational Researcher 39:59–68. Habermas, Jürgen. 1968. Knowledge and Human Interests. Translated by Jay Shapiro. Boston: Beacon. Havel, Václav. 1994. “The Need for Transcendence in the Postmodern World.” Speech given at Inde-

pendence Hall, Philadelphia, July 4, 1994. Retrieved Sept. 24, 2011, from http://www.worldtrans. org/whole/havelspeech.html

Hill, Dave, ed. 2009. Contesting Neoliberal Education: Public Resistance and Collective Advance. New York: Routledge.

Hill, Dave, and Simon Boxley. 2009. “Critical Education for Economic, Environmental, and Social Justice.” Pp. 28–60 in Contesting Neoliberal Education: Public Resistance and Collective Advance. Edited by Dave Hill. New York: Routledge.

hooks, bell. 1994. Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom. London: Routledge. Illich, Ivan. 1971. Deschooling Society. London: Calders & Boyers. Kahn, Richard. 2009. “Anarchic Epimetheanism: The Pedagogy of Ivan Illich.” Pp. 125–135 in

Contemporary Anarchist Studies: An Introductory Anthology of Anarchy in the Academy. Edited by Randall Amster, Abraham. DeLeon, Luis Fernandez, Anthony Nocella, and Deric Shannon. New York: Routledge.

Kant, Immanuel. [1785] 1879. The Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Ethics. Translated by Otto Manthey-Zorn. New York, London: D. Appleton-Century.

Kozol, Johnathon. 2005. The Shame of the Nation: The Restoration of Apartheid Schooling in America. New York: Crown.

Kropotkin, Peter. 1899. Memoirs of a Revolutionist. London: Smith, Elder. McMillen, Bradley, Gongshu Zhang, Carolyn Cobb, Gary Williamson, Kris Kaase, Judy Williams, and

Helmuts Feifs. 2000. “School Size and its Relationship to Achievement and Behavior.” In Public Schools of North Carolina, Division of Accountability Services, Evaluation Section. Retrieved Sept. 30, 2011, from http://www.ncpublicschools.org/docs/data/reports/size.pdf.

McKenzie, Kathryn. 2009. “Emotional Abuse of Student of Color: The Hidden Inhumanity in our Schools.” International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 22: 129–143.

EDUCATIONAL STUDIES 101

Mickelson, Roslyn Arlin and Stephanie Southwort. 2005. “When Opting Out is Not a Choice: Im- plications for NCLB Transfer Options from Charlotte North Caroline.” Equity and Excellence in Education 38: 1–15.

Nichols, Joe. 2006. “Empowerment and Relationships: A Classroom Model to Enhance Student Motivation.” Learning Environments Research 9: 149–161.

Noddings, Nel. 1992. The Challenge to Care in Schools: An Alternative Approach to Education. New York: Teachers College Press.

Odden, Eleanor R., and Priscilla Wohlstetter. 1995. “Making School-Based Management Work.” Educational Leadership 52: 32–36.

Oakes, Jeannie. 1985. Keeping Track: How Schools Structure Inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Pennycook, Alister. 2001. Critical Applied Linguistics: A Critical Introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Pesavento-Conway, Jennifer. 2008. “Teacher Retention: An Appreciative Approach.” Ed.D. diss., University of California, San Diego and California State University, San Marcos.

Rocker, Rudolf. 1938. Anarcho-syndicalism: Theory and Practice. Edinborough, Scotland: AK Press. Rousseau, Jean Jacques. [1762] 1979. Émile. Translated by Allan Bloom. New York: Basic Books. Sanders, Mavis G. 2001. “The Role of ‘Community’ in Comprehensive School, Family, and Commu-

nity Partnership Programs.” Elementary School Journal 102: 19–34. Schaal, Eduord. 2010. “Uncertainty, Productivity and Unemployment in the Great Recession.” Re-

trieved from http://econ.as.nyu.edu/docs/IO/18569/Schaal 20110120.pdf. Schmidt, Donald H. 1983. “Personal Control and Crowding Stress: A Test of Similarity in Two

Cultures,” Journal in Cross-Cultural Psychology 229 14: 221–239. Shukaitis, Steven. 2009. Imaginal Machines: Autonomy & Self-Organization in the Revolutions of

Everyday Life. London: Minor Compositions. Siddle-Walker, Vanessa. 1996. Their Highest Potential: An African American School Community in

the Segregated South. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Simmel, Georg. [1903] 1950. “The Mental Life of the Metropolis.” Pp. 409–424 in The Sociology of

Georg Simmel. Edited by Kurt Wolff. New York: Free Press. Smith, Peter K., and Pelligrini, Anthony. 2008. “Learning Through Play.” Pp.1–6 in Encyclopedia on

Early Childhood Development. Edited by R. R. Tremblay, R. G. Barr, R. D. Peters, et al. Montreal, Canada: Centre for Excellence for Early Childhood Development.

Somech, Anit. 2002. “Explicating the Complexity of Participative Management: An Investigation of Multiple Dimensions.” Educational Administration Quarterly 38(3): 341–371.

Spring, Joel. 2008. Wheels in the Head: Educational Philosophies of Authority, Freedom, and Culture from Confucianism to Human Rights (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Tyack, David, and Larry Cuban. 1995. Tinkering Toward Utopia: A Century of Public School Reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

von Humboldt, Wilhelm. 1985. “Foundations: Language, Understanding, and the Historical. 2008 World.” Pp. 98–117 in The Hermeneutic Reader: Texts of the German Tradition from the Enlighten- ment to the Present. Edited by Kurt Mueller-Vollmer. New York: Continuum.

Webb, Taylor, Felecia Briscoe, and Mark Mussman. 2009. “Preparing Teachers to Resist the Neoliberal Panopticon.” Educational Foundations 233: 3–18.

Whitman, Walt. 1959. Complete Poetry and Selected Prose. Edited by James E. Miller, Jr. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Williams, Dana M. 2010. “An Anarchist-Sociological Research Program: Fertile Areas for Theoretical and Empirical Research.” Pp. 243–266 in New Perspectives on Anarchism. Edited by Nathan J. Jun and Shane Whal. New York: Lexington Books.

102 BRISCOE

Wolff, Edward N. 2007. Recent Trends in Household Wealth in the United States: Rising Debt and the Middle-Class Squeeze. Levy Economics Institute Working Paper No. 502. Retrieved from http://www.levy.org/pubs/wp 502.pdf.

Wylie, Cathy. 1995. “Finessing Site-Based Management with Balancing Acts.” Educational Leader- ship 53: 54–60.

Tara J. Yasso. (2006), “Whose Culture has Capital? A Critical Race Theory Discussion of Community Cultural Wealth.” Pp. 167–190 in Critical Race Theory in Education: All God’s Children Got a Song. Edited by Adrienne D. Dixon and Celia K Rousseau. New York: Routledge.

Yeats, William. B. 1989. “The Second Coming.” Pp. 187 in The Collected Poems of W. B Yeats, Revised by Anne Yeats. New York: Scribner and Schuster.

Zamudio, Margaret M., Caskey Russell, Francisco A. Rios, and Jacquelyn L. Bridgeman. 2011. Critical Race Theory Matters: Education and Ideology. New York: Routledge.

Copyright of Educational Studies is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or

emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.

However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.