167

Political Science

Education Centralization and Democracy

Madison Wilson

Sponsoring Faculty Member: Dr. John Tures

Introduction

Mrs. Umbridge walks through the hall of Hogwarts with a certain air about her; each of the students knows that what she says will be the !nal decision (Barron, 2007). The O.W.L.S. will be the deciding factor on how well the students do in the future and any student who does not meet the standards will not be able to partake in any form of witchcraft in the future. Students are taught a basic knowledge of what they need to know in order to survive in a world of wizardry, however the students are not taught how to use their magic in order to bring Albus Dumbledore back to Hogwarts. (Barron, 2007) Dumbledore represents the students of Hogwarts long time protector of their education system. The students know that until they can bring Dumbledore back to Hogwarts, they will be completely unable to free themselves from the mind numbing control of Mrs. Umbridge. Only Harry Potter can help free them from her complete control, with his quick wits and his creative thinking. Harry uses what he’s been taught in previ-ous year at Hogwarts, to combine all that he knows with the strengths of everyone of his friends to defeat Mrs. Umbridge and bring Dumbledore back to Hogwarts. (Barron, 2007)

Overview

Education Centralization causes huge problems for democracy, or so it may seem. Despite the fact that most individuals strongly believe that The No Child Left Behind Act completely hinders everything that American democracy stands for, it does not. No Child Left Behind is strictly a means for improving the education system in America. The overall result of America’s democracy will im-prove much more if America improves its education system. After all children will be the leaders in the future and they will outlive many of our famous questioners and leaders currently in history. The key question is how well will No Child Left Behind improve education? The fate of America’s students and children is in the hands of the educators. This emphasis on improving education is what created No Child Left Behind in the !rst place, however, the measurements for which o"cials

168

gage improvement is the most heavily seen problem. Standardized tests create a huge gap between teachers, the students, and the administration of the schools because each score on the tests determines the others fate.

Throughout the next few pages an in depth look have been performed, viewing the e!ects and correlations of education centralization and democracy. This analysis was performed using No Child Left Behind resistance factors such as the 2001 voting in the House and Senate, Waiver requests, and "nally the Race to the Top Campaign participation. Each of these factors has been heavily manipu-lated and calculated in order to compare them with a set of democratic variables including a trust factor and a voter participation calculation. After each of these numbers have been correlated both by hand according to the theory as well as by a computer statistics program, it becomes clear that there is no correlation. Despite the fact that, No Child Left Behind may have no negative or positive e!ect on democracy, education itself has a strong correlation with democracy. Thus, if states want to improve their participation ranking they should improve their school systems and better their children’s’ education.

Literature Review

There are lots of reasons why one could explain that a theory has great justi"cation, however others opinions are extremely critical in any form of analyti-cal research. In her book, The Relationship Between Democracy and Education, Ayse Ottekin Demirbolat writes about the importance of education and democ-racy and the roles they play a!ecting one another. She states, “A democracy in which the level of education of the society is high is more permanent than the one in which the society is less educated” (Demirbolat, 2012, 20). Anyone can speak about education and the degree of centralization that has become in each state; No Child Left Behind is generating a less creative education system. This allows little or no room for critical thinking, thus creating a much less educated society. If the society is educated in a sense that they know de"nitions, facts, and math equations, but they do not understand how to apply these equations to real life situations. What are individuals gaining from facts and equations? Nothing. She also states, “what is expected from the content or the education curricula is to make the new generations imbibe democratic regime to instill in them su#-cient knowledge and awareness of democracy, and to ensure that they are ready for those democratic activities that are based on re$ection” (Demirbolat, 2012, 21). This line speci"cally speaks to the mind numbing process that No Child Left Behind is now putting students through, allowing children su#cient knowledge; however children’s understanding of that information in real life situations is the problem in today’s society. “Teachers should teach their students how to act to-gether for common interests, to solve con$icts by compromise, and the ways and means of in$uencing administrative organization and institutions. They should use study methods based on problem solving and cooperation so that participatory

169

skills can be directly used in encounters and re!ected on to life” (Demirbolat, 2012, 29). Teachers who teach their students how to act for a common interest might be one of the best ways in order to better society as a whole. If students are taught from the beginning how to control themselves under situations where they might not agree with the cooperating individuals but "nd common ground to succeed on, that creates a positive environment and allow every student to think critically about real life situations. Finally she states, “Democracy does not require individu-als who are too deferential and too obedient and those who passively submit to authority. On the contrary, it needs people who act with self-discipline and who have the drive to live with others in solidarity and compromise” (Demirbolat, 2012, 29). Demirbolat strictly believes that it takes people who are not afraid to stand up and have the determination to be actively participating people who deal with problems with critical thinking and who handle things in ways that educated people do. These types of people are the ones who create more participatory states, not the people who stand back and allow people to tell them the rules and strictly follow them.

Robert M. S. McDonald agrees with what Demirbolat says, however he has used Thomas Je#erson’s thinking to justify his thoughts in his book Light & Liberty: Thomas Je#erson and the Power of Knowledge. He states, “Je#erson believed that Americans would also need the tools necessary to take advantage of their newfound freedom… Certainly Je#erson opposed the centralizing and what he believed were the elitist tendencies of the rival Federalist Party” (McDonald, 2012, 47). This line strengthens the argument that critical thinking is a major tool, which should be taught in American school systems. Critical thinking is possibly the only way that a student could fully be able to take advantage of their free-doms enabled before them in the Constitution. Children may fully understand exactly what rights that are entitled to under the Constitution, but there are many di#erent ways in which those rights can be interpreted. Interpreting these rights requires critical thinking. “Je#erson believed that a world dominated by an inher-ited aristocracy of knowledge fundamentally threatened individual liberty. First, such an arrangement threatened popular self-government by denying people the knowledge and skills they would need as citizens” (McDonald, 2012, 53). Je#erson speaks to the weaknesses of NCLB by saying a world dominated by an aristocracy of knowledge. No Child Left Behind has become so centralized that it creates a problem because there is such limited interaction between the local governments and parents with the education system. No Child Left Behind teaches children facts, numbers, and equations and tests based on how well the children remem-ber these facts but the children are not being taught how to acquire the skills and knowledge they need in their daily lives. They need to be taught the facts and how to apply them through critical thinking and essays, not scantron tests, multiple choice, and "ll in the blank questions. “Education in republic therefore would be di#erent than “the education of our ancestors” because it would em-brace the knowledge gained by reason” (McDonald, 2012, 59). Knowledge gained

Madison Wilson

170

by reason can absolutely only be knowledge gained through rational thinking in which individuals have to put thought and e!ort into making decision for the bet-terment of not only themselves but everyone involved. Finally he states, “Je!erson was certain that schools should remain under local control. Parents were the best suited to oversee their children’s education” (McDonald, 2012, 64). His recent statement only strengthens one of his previous ones about the aristocracy leading from the top and allowing little or no room for interaction between the lower class and their children’s education. If students’ parents have much more interaction between their children’s’ education then they can aid in their children’s’ under-standing of critical thinking and enhance their skills that are required in real life situations. Robert McDonald speaks a lot to the strengths of critical thinking and parent involvement in the schools; he explains that these are a necessity in order for America to advance.

Martha Nussbaum speaks about the humanities and democracy in her book, Public Square: Not For Pro"t: Why Democracy Needs the Humanities. In her book she explain the strengths of understanding the humanities and the amount of critical thinking that it takes in order to understand exactly how history e!ects what we are going through in America now. She states, “Another aspect of the U.S. education tradition that stubbornly refuses assimilation into the growth-directed model isn’t a characteristic emphasis on the active participation of the child in in-quiry and question” (Nassbaum, 2010, 18). This line plays to the strengths of how important it is to have active participation in inquiry and question. No Child Left Behind strays away from the idea of inquiry and question and only allows teachers to teach based on what they know will be on the tests. Teaching to the test causes students education to be hindered because these tests are how the teachers are scored at the end of the school year. There are no longer any essay question tests or any form of interpretation based on what students have been taught. A certain part of each school day should be spent doing projects where the children are giv-en situation based on circumstances they could possibly encounter in their future endeavors in life. Simulation projects where children have to think collectively in a group are likely one of the only ways in which children can take what they have been taught in order to apply them to di!erent situations. “This tradition argues that education is not just about the passive assimilation of facts and cultural tradi-tions, but about challenging the mind to become active, competent and thought-fully critical in a complex world” (Nassbaum, 2010, 18). This quote speaks directly to the idea of challenging minds to become competent, if children are not taught to be thinkers on their own in order to fully bene"t themselves then they cannot aim to go far in life only thinking simple thoughts All that students have been taught in school must be applied to their lives in the future. “Education for eco-nomic growth needs basic skills, literacy and numeracy. It also needs some people to have more advanced skills in computer science and technology” (Nussbaum, 2010, 19). Nussbaum does not believe that everyone should have an equal educa-tion, she does believe that people can have di!erent levels of education and that

171

not everyone must be on the same level. Individuals do not have to attend higher learning schools where they are taught critical thinking skills, students should be taught these things at a much lower level besides college. There should be simula-tions in every level of school where students gain these skills at a younger age. Thus, the higher learning schools can be strengthening these thoughts but every-one has many of these thoughts certain individuals know how to use them better than others. “But educators for economic growth will do more than ignore the arts. They will fear them. For a cultivated and developed sympathy is a particularly dangerous enemy of obtuseness, and moral obtrusiveness necessary to carry out programs of economic development that ignore inequality” (Nussbaum, 2010, 23). She speaks to the power of art and its di!erent interpretations and that individuals should use these interpretations and create things out using out of the box think-ing. This thinking is necessary in life; people should not go about life being afraid that they might interpret something wrong. In critical thinking and creativity no answer is wrong, as long as students are using what they have been taught in new and creative ways then nothing they think or do is wrong; its expressing their creativity and thinking in di!erent and healthy ways.

“One of the reasons people have insisted on giving all undergraduates a set of courses in philosophy and other subjects in the humanities is that they believe such courses, though both content and pedagogy, will stimulate students to think and argue for themselves, rather than defer to tradition and authority – and they believed that the ability to argue in this Socratic way is, as Socrates, proclaimed, valuable for democracy” (Nussbaum, 2010, 47-48). Colleges should not be the only form of education that stimulates students to think in di!erent ways. Elementary schools, middle schools, and high schools should be implement-ing simulations through games and di!erent teaching methods which can easily be incorporated into everyday or once a week school systems. She states, “Socratic thinking is important in any democracy. But it is particularly important in societies that need to come to grips with the presence of people who di!er by ethnicity, caste, and religion. The idea that one will take responsibility for one’s own rea-soning, and exchange ideas with others in an atmosphere of mutual respect for reason, is essential to the peaceful resolution of di!erences, both within a nation and in a world increasingly polarized by ethnic and religious con"ict” (Nussbaum, 2010, 54). The current change in times along with many di!erent government styles and di!erent teaching styles creates a necessary reason for individuals to learn to adjust based on what is changing around them. Students must have a broad understanding of how di!erent countries work, but not only how they work but also why they function the way they do. Without this form of understand-ing and creative thinking to enhance relations and alliances there is no way that America can continue to prosper. America needs extremely educated citizens so that they can enhance our citizens’ relations as well as current international situa-tions between America and other countries. “Each student must be treated as an individual whose powers of mind are unfolding and who is expected to make an

Madison Wilson

172

active and creative contribution to classroom discussion” (Nussbaum, 2010, 55).

While the existence of critical thinking is becoming extinct, there are other problems with No Child Left Behind and Education Centralization. The main problem being the emphasis that NCLB puts on standardized tests. GF Madaus, MK Russell, and J Higgins look at the problems with the emphasis put on stan-dardized tests in their book The Paradoxes of High Stakes Testing. There are many problems with not only the amount of stress that is put on students to pass these tests, also the amount of stress it puts on the teachers, as well as the weight these tests have on these schools. “In Bibb County for example, a state or national exam is given to elementary, middle, or high-school students in 70 of 180 school days. In Maryland, stat testing occurs across 55 days of the school year; in Texas, 51 days; in Michigan it’s 50 days. Except for Bib County, none of these numbers include other tests students may take such as the National Assessment of Educational Process (NAEP), SAT or ACT college admission tests, Advance Placement (AP) exams or other commercially available standardized tests the local school districts may choose to administer” (Madaus, Russell, Higgins, 2009, 2). Students are being mea-sured based on test scores while their teachers are only teaching based on what they know will be on their standardized tests. This gives teachers no reason to teach critical thinking skills and the means necessary to better the children in their everyday life. These simulations need to be heavily emphasized not completely disregarded because these students are the future of America. If students are not receiving proper education and a creativity enhancing education then America will not prosper in the way that it should.

Theory& Hypothesis When looking at any form of research one should always question why things are the way they are and what in!uences which things to operate the way they do. Particularly when looking at a set of statements which can be interpreted in many di"erent ways. A theory is a set of empirical generalizations about a topic (Monroe, 2000, 17). From there empirical statements can be derived from that theory, these statements are called hypothesis. (Monroe, 2000, 17). There can be multiple sets of hypothesis derived from a theory; these hypotheses can be spe-ci#c reasons for the thinking behind the statement, which makes up the theory. Based on each theory and hypothesis there are independent and dependent vari-ables. The independent variable is “presumed to be the underlying cause of the theory”, which is essentially seen as the cause for the dependent variable (Monroe, 2002, 17). The dependent variable is a result of the independent variable, it is said to be the “e"ects or the consequences of the independent variable” (Monroe, 2000, 17). From there one can look at the independent and dependent variables and see how they a"ect one another. If the independent variable increases but the dependent decreases then there is a negative relationship between the two vari-ables, but if the two both decrease or both increase then this is a positive relation-ship. The theory heavily analyzed in this paper will be education centralization is

173

bad for democracy. The relationship between the two would be negative because the more education centralization, the less democratic a state becomes. There are multiple reasons for the negative e!ect including the emphasis on standard-ized tests, creating a sense of overly competitive students, as well as the idea of education becoming centralized in itself. Teachers have realized that their success depends on standardized test scores, and begin teaching to a test. This teaching to tests no longer teaches students what they may need for the real world, like critical thinking. With such a heavy emphasis on standardized test scores it creates a sense of competition among the students. While some form of competition among students can be positive, there comes a point where too much competi-tion could become a negative factor. Finally the idea of education becoming cen-tralized creates a gap between the local government and its education systems and an even larger gap between parents and their children’s education.

While there are multiple forms of education centralization that can be analyzed, one form that is extremely useful is currently in place in the United States. The No Child Left Behind Act, which was enacted in America in 2001. The act puts an emphasis on standardized tests, student competition, and centralizes education. The No Child Left Behind Act is a hindering the quality of the education of American students and it can potentially cause students to stray from de-mocracy if not changed. No Child Left Behind Act causes a rift between the local government and a child’s education, this creates a distance for the parents. Parent Teacher Associations have become nearly non-existent because of No Child Left Behind, and will continue to become extinct until something is changed. Parent Teacher Association were a huge form of democratic participation in the past. PTA was a place where parents could fully bene"t by knowing exactly what was going on with their children all while being involved in the local government.

By looking directly into voting for No Child Left Behind one can see it’s initial support which will allow us to look into which states supported the creation of education centralization. From there a look at waiver requests and the Race to the Top campaign, these variables represent a form of resistance to NCLB. States, which requested waivers, would be less supportive of No Child Left Behind while states who participated in the Race to the Top Campaign, would be more sup-portive of the act. This would make it possible to rate which states have a higher support for No Child Left Behind, assumingly making these states more educa-tionally centralized. While the education centralization side of the study has been explained, it is crucial that ere is something to compare it to. Using social capital as a measurement for democracy it is possible to compare the more or less educa-tionally centralized states with the social capital theory looking speci"cally at trust and voter participation and combining all the necessary variables will allow one to analyze whether education centralization does have an e!ect on democracy.

Madison Wilson

174

Education Centralization

Education Centralization can easily be described as a top down approach to education, meaning that the federal government has much more control over the local education systems than the local government. A top down approach to education can be seen as both a positive and a negative reform, because it creates a nation wide standard. A Nation wide standard allows struggling states to improve their education systems and to compete with other more competi-tive states. Centralized education has a negative e!ect on education because of the gap it creates between the local government and the local school systems. Despite the fact that there are probably more visible positive results seen in a centralized education, the negative e!ects that it has on the children and those directly involved in that education creates a problem for society. An education system created by the federal government requires a way of measuring each states progress; this poses a huge problem in the United States education system. Clearly, one of the main standards of measuring is through standardized tests. This way of measuring puts a speci"c emphasis on these tests because the life of the school is depending on how well students score on them. The potential of schools closing due to test scores puts an stress on how the teachers teach thus creating a di!erent means of teaching. Teachers now have to worry bout their jobs after each tests so they have begun teaching to tests, not necessarily teaching for students to apply what they have been taught in school to real life situations.

No Child Left Behind

“The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 -- a law mandating strict, statewide achievement standards in public schools and tough consequences for schools that don’t meet those standards -- is a central part of President Bush’s plan to improve the nation’s educational system” (McMurray, 2003). This reform cre-ated a federally mandated standard by which all public schools must conform. Schools were given until around the years 2013-2014 to achieve those goals. The schools progress was measured through standardized tests. While No Child Left Behind seems to be a great program in order to promote suc-cess in American school systems, it creates many gaps in the way local schools are operated. No Child Left Behind was nearly fully supported by every state in the United States when it was "rst voted on in 2001.

175

Looking at the graphs below one can see exactly how fully supported it was. The two graphs have been gathered from Gov. Track, where a voting for each state was shown in depth, allowing the most information to be derived from one site (H.R. 1, 2001, House and Senate Vote).

The two graphs show how fully supported NCLB was in both the House and the Senate for all 50 states. The blue on the Senate Voting graph represents which states had both senators vote yes to no child left behind (H.R. 1, 2001, Sen-ate Vote). The house-voting graph shows percentages that each state had vote yes, the blue represents states which house representatives that voted 100% yes to NCLB (H.R. 1, 2001, House Vote). Many other individuals, not involved in the school systems and govern-ment, are beginning to notice the problems with NCLB. “But are NCLB’s testing and accountability processes the best available? Probably not. Critics of NCLB, such as the NEA, see dependence upon a single test, given at one point in time to assess “pro!ciency,” as measuring the wrong thing in the wrong way. There is validity to their arguments -- an approach focusing on individual growth instead of pro!ciency would be an important step forward. Moreover, there is merit to the argument that the government should use multiple measures of school e"ective-ness, rather than just one measure of pro!ciency” (Gordon, 2004). Many individu-als are beginning to question the legitimacy of the tests as well as the damage that the stress puts on the students. Standardized tests have almost always been in e"ect in the American school system, it’s the new strong emphasis that is now being put on the tests that creates a problem in the school systems. “But is this the kind of learning we should be focused on? A student can perform at a “pro!cient” level on state tests at the end of the year, but learn to hate math at the same time. That’s not the kind of real growth that leads to value” (Gordon, 2004).

TABLE 2

Madison Wilson

176

Participatory Ratings (Social Capital)

In Bowling Alone, author Robert D. Putnam observes the decline of social capital in the United States. He explains that without social capital the idea of democracy would fail because democracy is often measured by an active engage-ment by the public. He explains that you must look at the positive aspects of social capital, because like all forms of capital it can be directed toward malevolent, anti social purposes (Putnam, 2000, 22). He looks directly at American citizens’ partici-pation in politics and public a!airs, as well as institutions in communities such as rotary, then informal ties such as leagues, and "nally his attention is turned to trust in the American communities (Putnam, 2000, 27). He explains that when people do not trust the government that they fail to have a successful democracy. Many organizations like Rotary or the Lions Club create a sense of philanthropy in the community, as well as between individuals, and with Rotary and Lions Club being a nation wide organization it creates a tie to the rest of the United States through the small community organization. When he is looking at informal leagues he uses examples such as leagues, and other small organizations. As far as Putnam’s argu-ment goes when it comes to social capital and democracy it is extremely logical in the sense that peoples appreciation of togetherness seem to be a great way to measure democracy. The more that people feel uni"ed and as one the more likely they are to do things to bene"t not just one person but many other people in their community. It takes away from the sense of individualism and moves more toward the idea that as a whole greater good can be done than as an individual.

He states that “states that score high on the Social Capital Index- that is, states whose residents trust other people, join organizations, volunteer, vote, and socialize with friends- are the same states where children #ourish (Putnam, 2000, 296). There are other aspects that do a!ect children’s well being other than en-gagement on their parents parts however, these kinds of things could really help with the children’s well being. Speci"cally things like their parents’ education lev-els, poverty rates, family structure, and any form of racial compositions (Putnam, 2000, 297) these are determined by the location that the people live as well as the culture of the neighborhood. However, if children grow up in a relatively healthy neighborhood where the are successful organizations and plenty of neighbor-hood or community involvement including school involvement on parents behalf, then children could grow up to become a contributor to society much like their parents. “Thus states with disproportionately large numbers of poorly educated adults and low-income single-parent families tend not to have as many vibrant civic communities as do states where residents have the economic luxury and practical skills to participate” (Putnam, 2000, 297).

Using social capital it makes it possible to look outside the realms of how democratic a state may be, no state in the United States is not democratic, there are just states who practice it di!erently. This di!erence in practices is where social

177

capital comes into play. Using social capital as a measure for democracy, allows a more accurate look at how these states participate. This creates a better-rounded explanation of more or less participatory states as well as a justi!cation for why these states participate the way they do.

Research Design

Using a resistance to No Child Left Behind, it was possible to gather a state-by-state analysis of more or less educationally centralized states. There are many factors that contributed to this ranking, including each state’s house and senate voting (HR. 1, 2001, House & Senate Votes), No Child Left Behind waiver requests (ESEA, 2012) and each state’s participation in the Race to the Top Cam-paign (Race to the Top Phase One & Two, 2013). In order to compare the No Child Left Behind resistance with Democracy one must establish how to measure Democracy. Democracy will, for all purposes of this paper, be called participation. States that are more or less participatory are essentially more or less democratic. Using Putnam’s idea of Social Capital two main variables were examined, voter participation (Voter Turnout Higher in Swing States Than Elsewhere, n.d) and trust (Lopez & Mendes, 2009). From there each state receives a ranking much like it received for Education Centralization. If the theory is correct then the states with the higher ranking in education centralization should be the same as the states with the lower ranking on the less participatory sides. Thus, re"ecting that the two variables negatively relate to one another.

It is necessary to look deeper into each aspect of NCLB that was mea-sured in hopes to grasp which states are more or less centralized. The !rst step was to see how each senator voted for the bill in 2001. States were scored with a 2 if both senators voted yes to the bill, states received a 1 if the two senators split their votes, and states in which both senators voted no received a 0. From these numbers it is possible to see which states completely supported No Child Left Be-hind from the very beginning. States, whose senators, fully supported NCLB have a ranking of a 2. After Senate voting the attention was turned to the House Vote. Due to the fact that each state has di#erent number of House members percent-ages were calculated for each state based on how many House members voted yes to NCLB. For example, if a state had 42 house seats and 32 of those seats voted yes to No Child Left Behind, approximately 76% of those seats were cast as a yes for NCLB. From there each percentage was calculate and applied to give each state a di#erent ranking. States in which all of the votes (100%) were cast for yes were given a ranking of a 2, states that had 80% to 99% of their votes cast as a yes were given a 1, and states which had less than 79% vote yes were given a 0. Thus, states that were given a 2 had a much higher ranking when it came to education centralization. While the house and senate votes showed favor for No Child Left

Madison Wilson

178

Behind the next two variables tested showed resistance.

The !rst measure of resistance was the Race to the Top Campaign. States were not required to participate in this campaign, however, there were great rewards for states that participated and scored within the top three spaces. Race to the Top data was used in the same manor in which the Senate and House vote ranking were used. The Race to the Top data was gathered from the Department of Education summary posed online. This data showed when states participated in the campaign as well as where each state placed in the ranking (Race to the Top, n.d, Phase 1 and 2). Race to the Top occurred in two separate phases. States that participated in both phases were given a score of a 2, states that only participated in one phase received a 1, and states that never participated in Race to the Top received a 0. States, which received 2s, seemed to be more educationally central-ized. The !nal variable in which examined was NCLB waiver requests. Waivers have recently been granted to states that !led petitions and asked for some form of ex-emption from NCLB. The waiver request data was gathered from the Department of Education. This data showed a map of the United States with each state colored according to its standpoint on the waivers (ESEA Flexibility, 2012). States that re-ceived exemption would be considered less centralized. Thus, states, which never submitted a request, received a score of 2, states whose requests are currently under review received a 1, and states whose requests were accepted received a 0. States with higher scores in the education centralization categories were consid-ered to me more educationally centralized.

Finally, each score was taken to see what each state was given in all of the four categories and examine which states were seemingly more or less education-ally centralized. States with higher scores were considered more centralized and states with lower scores were less centralized. The chart below (table 3) shows which states received the highest scores in each of the four categories, each of these states received a 7 except for Nebraska that scored an 8. Nebraska is the most supportive of No Child Left Behind and Education Centralization.

179

This chart below (table 4) shows the scores of the states, which received the lowest scores, based on the No Child Left Behind Ranking. From these rank-ings one would inquire that these three states are the least centralized out of all 50 states based on their scores in each of these categories.

After the rankings were done for the No Child Left Behind variables, it was necessary to !nd our how each state ranked based on participation. Two sepa-rate variable were used to look at participatory states; voter Participation by state (Voter Turnout Higher in Swing States than Elsewhere, 2012) and a Trust Rank of each state (Lopez and Mendes, 2009). The data from voter participation was gath-ered from USA Today. This data revealed voter turnout higher in swing states than any where else, it showed each states population and the number of people that voted in order to create it’s percentage (Voter Turnout Higher in Swing States than Elsewhere, 2012).Looking at voter participation, each state received a percentage in which its population voted. These rankings were scored on a 0 to 3 ranking. States which had any ranking in the 40% participate or less were given a score of a 0, states which had any percentage in the 50s were given a 1, states which were in the 60s were given a 2, and !nally states which had within 70% or higher were given a score of a 3. From there it was possible to examine that states with a score of 3 had a high participation rate while states with a 0 had the lowest of the par-ticipation rates. Once participation had been examined the attention was turned to trust.

The trust rankings were achieved through a Gallop poll taken in each state, the poll looked at all 50 states and established where people would be more likely to return a wallet to its owner if it were lost. The states were ranked based on percentage based on how likely it would be that their states would be returned (Lopez & Mendes, 2009). States received scores between a 0 and 2. Each state received the scores based on the percentage that were proved by Gallop. States with a 60% return rate or less would receive a 0, states with scores between 61% and 70% received a 1, and states above 71% received a 2. Thus the states with higher rankings would be considered the more participatory, based on Putnam’s social capital outlook. States with the lowest scores were considered to be the less

Madison Wilson

180

participatory states. The chart below (table 5) shows the states with the lowest rankings based on voter participation and trust, these states are considered to be the least participatory.

The graph below (table 6) shows the states with the highest rankings based on voter participation and trust, these states are considered to the more participa-tory.

While each of the states and their resistance to No Child Left Behind as well as participation rankings are extremely important particularly when it comes to education centralization and democracy, another important factor in this research was an overall state-by-state ranking for each state’s wellbeing. Using a Kids Count Index, the extract ranking of all 50 states was easy to obtain. The kids count index does have variables related to school, however these scores are based on much more than a standardized test. Kids Count Index scores states on eco-nomic rank, percentage of children in poverty, children living in families where no parents have full-time year round employment, children in households tat spend more than 30 percent of their income on housing, teens ages 16 to 19 not attend-

181

ing school and not working, education rank, children ages 3 to 4 not enrolled in preschool, 4th grade reading achievement levels, 8th grade math achievement levels, high school students not graduating on time, health rank, low-weight babies, children without health insurance, child and teen death rate, teens ages 12 to 17 who abused or alcohol or drugs in the past year, family and community rank, children in single parent families, children by household head’s education attain-ment, children living in areas of concentrated poverty, and total teen births (KIDS COUNT Overall Rank, 2012). Each of these 16 indicators makes up the Kids Count Index, which essentially is each, states overall well being ranking.

Test Results

From these previous graphs (table 5 &6) one can see which states were most participatory and which states were less as well as which states were more or less educationally centralized. If the previous theory is accurate, when look-ing at each of the states the states with higher participatory ranking should be the same as the states with the lower education centralization rankings. Thus, the states with the lower participatory rankings should be the same as the states with the higher education centralization rankings. This would show the negative relationship, which would make the theory accurate. Looking at the graph above (table 6) we see that none of the states in any of the categories match up with their coordinating category. This graph (table 7) shows that while there may be a correlation, there is not an evident one that can just be seen eyeballing and simply hand matching each state.

Once realized that there is no correlation obvious to the eye, the data was entered into SPSS. From there, the data was input in a way to check and be sure that each of the variables pertaining to participation correlated. Each of these cor-relations should be at or above a percentage of .3, anything lower than .3 shows

Madison Wilson

182

that there is not a signi!cant correlation between the two. The image below (table 8) shows the participatory correlations, and whether each di"erent variable cor-relates to one another. Looking at each of the numbers and whether each variable correlates, one can understand that Trust and the Overall combination of Voter Participation and Trust combined correlate directly with voter participation by per-centage. Looking at the di"erent variables and whether Trust itself correlates with voter participation one can observe that trust and voter participation correlate with a .499 this shows an extremely strong correlation between the two. Such a strong correlation greatly strengthens Putnam’s theory of Social Capital. Based on the correlation between voter participation, trust, and an overall combination of the two there is a signi!cant correlation between each of the three categories, so its is extremely trustworthy to say each of these three variables would be safe to compare with the variables dealing with No Child Left Behind or education cen-tralization.

183

Before one can fully examine whether education centralization and democracy correlate, a proper examination is needed of how each of the factors for education centralization correlate. Much like the image above a signi!cant correlation would be above a .3, any number lower than that cannot be seen as a signi!cant correlation.

Looking at the graph above (table 9) one can see that Kids Count Overall Ranking has been added to this correlation, this graph is a combination of not only how each of the variables pertaining to education centralization correlate with one another, but also if each of the education centralization correlate to the well-being of the children. Thus, looking at how the Kids Count Overall Ranking correlates with the way that the senate voted, the house voted, the participation in the race to the top campaign, as well as the waiver request we see that there is little or no correlation. Looking both to the right of the kids count overall index, as well as looking below the row, not a single one of these variables correlates with the kids count overall ranking signi!cantly enough to make a di"erence. However, if one examines the variable and whether correlate with one another it is also shown that there is no correlation there either. This, however, does not create a problem because each of the factors pertaining to No Child Left Behind does not

Madison Wilson

184

have to correlate necessarily to one another, because they are each seen as a sepa-rate factor of how combative or resistant each state was about NCLB or Education Centralization.

Finally it is crucial to look at whether the variables and factors for educa-tion centralization as well as the variables for democracy correlate to one another or not. According to the theory that education centralization is bad for democracy the two should negatively correlate, with that being said the number should be negative because as one goes up the other should go down. In addition to the fact that that the numbers should be negative the numbers should also be more than .3 showing a signi!cant correlation, if there is not a signi!cant relationship one can infer that the two may not have an e"ect on one another. Looking at the graph below (table 10) one can interpret from the graph that there is no signi!cant con-nection. However, the lack of a signi!cant correlation does not mean that there is a negative or positive relationship but no real relationship at all. Thus, education centralization is not bad, however it is also not good, it just simply has no e"ect whatsoever on democracy.

185

Analysis

Looking at exactly how these di!erent factors correlate, we see a dis-agreement with the theory that education centralization is bad for democracy. While education centralization is somewhat related to democracy, the relation-ship is neither negative nor positive. There speci"cally is not any e!ect that can been seen or measured. After looking at how each of the factors correlates, an alternate theory was created. Education has an e!ect on voter participation. The better education a child receives in a state, the more likely this will increase voter participation. Trust, also, has an e!ect on voter participation. The more trust found in a society, the greater the voting participation rates in a state. The new theory strays from the idea that education centralization has an e!ect on society, but that education itself has an e!ect on society.

The graphs above (tables 11 & 12) explain that this alternate theory is accurate. Each of the correlations are above a .5, this shows that there is an extremely sig-ni"cant correlation. States with higher education ranking are more likely to have a higher voter participation rate. States with higher societal trust rates are also more likely to have higher voter participation rate. States, which were strong supporters of Education Centralization, saw little impact on voting, trust or education rank-ings. Finally, States that want to improve their voter participation should add to their societal trust and better their education systems.

Lessons Learned

While test results have shown that there may not be a signi"cant correla-tion between education centralization and democracy, there are still many nega-tive aspects that can cause problems in the way American students are educated. Lowering the emphasis on standardized tests for teachers, schools, and students would be one of the "rst changes completely necessary. Although, some form of standardized tests are necessary, because they guarantee a way of measuring progress, critical thinking exercises can easily be incorporated. Children should always be learning the knowledge they need in order to be successful on the standardized tests, but the teaching of that information can be applied di!erently through self-gaining education. Worksheets with essay questions that are graded based on how well key terms from each weeks lessons were used would be a great way to incorporate critical thinking into understanding terms the way they need to be understood. These essay questions do not hinder what the children are lean-ing, it only allows them to think critically about the terms as well as continue to be successful on the standardized tests.

TABLE 12

TABLE 11

Madison Wilson

186

The alternate theory explains that in order for states to improve their voter participation states should better their societal trust and better their educa-tion system. Bettering a society and trust among its individuals requires beginning with children, if children are taught to be aware of how others feel then there can still be hope for America. If students are educated in the proper ways they will understand exactly how to use their rights that they have been granted in the Constitution. The Constitution can be interpreted in many di!erent ways and if students are not properly educated in order to think critically about these di!er-ent interpretations, then every American citizen will accept what they have been given. If students are taught at a young age, how important each individual is in our society and how one person can make a di!erence if they think di!erently from someone else, American students will be better o! in the long run. Better-educated students can only lead to a brighter future for America.

Finally with the new theory being that education has an e!ect on voter participation. The variables would be the quality of the education system and the more of less voter participation. The more or less voter participation would be the dependent variable because it occurs as a result of the quality of the students’ education. One can see that the two correlated with either other in a positive relationship. This means as the quality of the education goes up the voter partici-pation also goes up. A second theory derived would be that societal trust has an e!ect on voter participation. Much similar to the theory dealing with education the variables would be the degree of trust in the society as well as more or less participation. The level of participation would be the dependent variable because it changes as a result of the societal trust improvement. This theory, like the last is also a positive relationship because as trust improves so does voter turnout. These theories relate so closely to one another, yet are so di!erent. It just goes to show that if states want to improve their participatory rankings they should improve the school systems as well as the societal trusts.

Implications

No Child Left Behind might be an extremely new revolting idea in which school systems seem to be thriving, but there are problems. These problems do not seem to be making a di!erence on the participation rates in each state, although an emphasis on standardized tests creates a gap between the students and exactly what they need to be gaining out of education; That gap being critical thinking, which is an important aspect in a person’s daily life. There are also posi-tive aspects to No Child Left Behind because bettering a society’s education can better its trust as well as its participation rates. While No Child Left Behind may not be the ideal means by which a state educates it’s students, however No Child Left Behind does guarantee that each child receives an adequate education with a general understanding of the necessary knowledge to survive.

187

Work Cited

Barron, D. (Director). (2007). Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix [Motion picture]. Eng land: Warner Home Video.

Demirbolat, A. O. (2012). The Relationship Between Democracy and Education. Sharjah: Bentham Science Publishers.

Gordon, G., & EdD. (2004). NEA vs. NCLB: Will America’s Students Win?. Gallup.Com - Daily News, Polls, Public Opinion on Politics, Economy, Wellbeing, and World. Retrieved May 7, 2013, from http://www.gallup.com/poll/12388/NEA-vs-NCLB-Will-Ameri cas-Students-Win.aspx

Madaus, G. F., Russell, M. K., & Higgins, J. (2009). The paradoxes of high stakes testing: how they a!ect students, their parents, teachers, principals, schools, and society. Charlotte, N.C.: Infor mation Age Pub..

McDonald, R. M. (2012). Light & Liberty: Thomas Je!erson and the Power of Knowledge. Charlottes ville: University of Virginia Press.

McMurray, C. (2003). Public Largely Unaware of “Left Behind” Reforms. Gallup.Com - Daily News, Polls, Public Opinion on Politics, Economy, Wellbeing, and World. Retrieved May 7, 2013, from http://www.gallup.com/poll/9376/Public-Largely-Un aware-Left-Behind-Reforms.aspx

Monroe, A. D. (2000). Essentials of political research. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.

Nussbaum, M. C. (2010). Not for pro"t: why democracy needs the humanities. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Putnam, Robert D.. Bowling alone: the collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000.

Madison Wilson

188

Data Sources

Education Rank - Data Across States - KIDS COUNT Data Center. (2012). Home - KIDS COUNT Data Center. Retrieved April 12, 2013, from http://datacenter.kidscount. org/data/acrossstates/Rankings.aspx?ind=7247

ESEA Flexability . (2012). ED.gov . U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved April 15, 2013, from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/esea-!exibility/index. html

H.R. 1 (107th): No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (On Passage of the Bill) -- GovTrack.us. (2001). GovTrack.us: Tracking the U.S. Congress. Retrieved April 17, 2013, from http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/107-2001/s192

H.R. 1 (107th): No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (On Passage of the Bill) -- GovTrack.us. (2001). GovTrack.us: Tracking the U.S. Congress. Retrieved April 16, 2013, from http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/107-2001/h145

KIDS COUNT Overall Rank - Data Across States - KIDS COUNT Data Center. (2012.). Home - KIDS COUNT Data Center. Retrieved April 12, 2013, from http://datacenter. kidscount.org/data/acrossstates/Rankings.aspx?ind=7288

Lopez, S., & Mendes, E. (2009). Utah, South Dakota Best Places in U.S. to Lose Your Wallet. Gallup.Com - Daily News, Polls, Public Opinion on Politics, Economy, Wellbeing, and World. Retrieved April 17, 2013, from http://www.gallup.com/poll/123986/Utah- South-Dakota-Best-Places-Lose-Wallet.aspx

Race to The Top Phase One. (n.d.). Department of Education. Retrieved April 16, 2013, from www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/phase1-applications/ score-summary.pdf

Race to the Top Phase Two. (n.d.). Department of Education. Retrieved April 13, 2016, from www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/phase2-applications/summary.pdf

Voter turnout higher in swing states than elsewhere. (2012). USA TODAY: Latest World and US News - USATODAY.com. Retrieved April 16, 2013, from http://www.usatoday om/story/news/politics/2012/12/23/voter-turnout-swing-states/1787693/