Regulation and Recognition in Education Discourses

Abstract

In December of 2010, blogger Michael Fischer created Common CoreZilla as a referent to the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) as a forum to talk about teachers' fears regarding curricular change and new regulatory requirements. As of this writing, the CCSS have been adopted by 45 states in the United States and are the result of a statedriven, business-backed initiative to develop a set of internationally benchmarked Math and English Language Arts achievement standards. Assessments of student achievement on CCSS are being developed by two consortia for national use. Further, teacher evaluations in many states, for both art and non-art teachers, are tied to CCSS through value-added models using CCSS test results to define the educational value a teacher has added to a child's education1 (Jennings, 2012). The CCSS and related assessments are intended to align diverse state curricula, improve educational outcomes, prepare students for college and careers, foster development and implementation of rigorous academic content, and ensure high-quality teaching practices grounded in content and pedagogical knowledge and skill (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2012; Youngs, 2013).Fischer's Common CoreZilla (2012) has served as both an icon of terror and a promise of manageability. It is a tongue-in-cheek metaphor intended to reassure teachers that although CCSS seems terrifying, it is manageable; although time consuming, its management will not consume them. Despite this, the Godzilla metaphor aptly signals the unease that CCSS-and the network of regulations they are part of-is creating. This commentary further considers CCSS and the network of related assessments within which it is embedded, using Jacques Lacan's theory of discourse to develop insight into the regulatory education discourse provoking this unease and teachers' positions within it.Recognizing Ourselves Through Master SignifiersPreK-12 and higher education art educators with whom I have spoken acknowledge that attending to standards and assessments can lead to deeper understandings of what is being taught and how student learning happens. However, the current configuration of standards and assessments houses curricular decisions and evaluation systems in large, centralized organizations-such as the CCSS Initiative, the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD) (www.ascd. org), and Pearson Education (www.pearsonschool.com)-that act from assumed positions of definitive knowledge about what constitutes good content and good teaching. Concerns about what is important for students, teachers, and society are voiced but occur at the periphery of regulated actions which are already codified through states'requirements and supported by the U.S. federal government's Race to the Top funding structure (www2.ed.gov/programs/ racetothetop).Lacan used the term master signifier to describe signs that position individuals within discourse by providing anchors for identities in which we can recognize ourselves and be recognized by others (Bracher, 1993). Master signifiers operating within the CCSS discourse can be found in the CCSS mission statement:The Common Core State Standards provide a consistent, clear understanding of what students are expected to learn, so teachers and parents know what they need to do to help them. The standards are designed to be robust and relevant to the real world, reflecting the knowledge and skills that our young people need for success in college and careers. With American students fully prepared for the future, our communities will be best positioned to compete successfully in the global economy. (CCSS Initiative, 2012, para. 1)The words consistent, clear, help, robust, relevant, college and career, knowledge and skills for success, fully prepared, future, best positioned, compete, and global economy appear here and throughout the CCSS website, and are echoed in countless blogs and articles discussing CCSS. …