Florida's A++ Plan

Abstract

This critical policy analysis, informed by a qualitative content analysis, examines the ideological orientation of Florida’s A++ Plan (2006), and its incumbent impact upon social reproduction in the state. Utilizing a theoretical framework that fuses together critical theory (Horkheimer, 1937; Marcuse, 1964; Marshall, 1997), Bernstein’s (1971, 1977) three message systems of education and dual concepts of classification and frame, and Collins‘ (1979, 2000, 2002) notion of the Credential Society, the study examines the ideological underpinnings of the A++ Plan’s statutory requirements, and their effects on various school constituencies, including students, teachers, and the schools themselves. The study’s findings show that neoliberal and neoconservative ideological tenets buttress much of the A++ legislation, advancing four particular ideological imperatives: an allegiance to workforce readiness, a burgeoning system of standardization and accountability, the elevation of traditional values and nationalism, and the championing of individual responsibility. Through the control of Bernstein’s three message systems of education, these ideological imperatives deeply impact public education in Florida, and in particular have a disproportionately negative impact upon schools serving high-poverty, high-minority student populations. New initiatives such as the Major Areas of Interest mandate and the Ready-to- Work Program, both of which are heavily influenced by corporate interests, elevate an ethic of economy that commodifies students. At the same time, the legislation ushers in unprecedented levels of curricular and pedagogical standardization that makes comparisons between students and teachers a reality, while commensurately creating a more competitive climate between schools as a means of promoting school choice throughout the state. Further, the legislation advances a vision of society that is strikingly conservative in tenor through the deliberate manipulation of the state’s History and Health curricula, while simultaneously creating programs such as the Character Development Program that espouse a narrowly construed vision of character. Finally, each of the legislative moves described above are undergirded by an increasing reliance not upon the state, but upon the individual who comes to see her or his choices as the sole arbiters of her or his success or failure, absent any possible mitigating, external factor(s). The study concludes with recommendations for further research addressing the manifest effects of neoliberal and neoconservative axioms in education, and a call to action targeted at progressive educators to confront these types of “reforms.” It further recommends that policymakers acknowledge that handing the governance of schools and the curriculum therein over to neoliberal and neoconservative ideologues will result in schools that both overtly value instrumental, corporatist outcomes, and purposefully advance a myopic vision of our nation’s collective memory and system of governing values. The marriage of neoliberalism and neoconservatism is positioned as antithetical to progressive education, and stands to turn back the clock on issues of equity, social justice, and social mobility.