Is deliberation a laudable goal when policy is a done deal? The Habermasian public sphere and legitimacy in a market era of education policymaking

Main Article Content

Abstract

The state mandated public hearings concerning school closing proposals in New York City provide a window into a diverse set of policy actors and their deliberations. Opposition to school closures is often cast as entrenched interests, emotional attachment, support for the status quo or at worst negligence. However, content analysis reveals that testimony offered by parent, community, and educator leaders contained a range of substantial critiques of school closing proposals, their motivations, justifications, and expected results. I argue that the hearings did not fully constitute a public sphere by Habermasian criteria, nor a counterpublic by Fraser and Dawson criteria. In fact, the hearings had contradictory effects; one school successfully fought closure by both resisting and reifying neoliberal logic in education policymaking. Some data demonstrates that this school’s market-based argument resonated with state authorities, while other data indicates that this market-based argument coincided with the state’s own interest to defend its legitimacy in policymaking.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Pappas, L. N. (2016). Is deliberation a laudable goal when policy is a done deal? The Habermasian public sphere and legitimacy in a market era of education policymaking. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 24, 121. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.24.2409
Section
Articles
Author Biography

Liza N. Pappas, Minnesota State University, Mankato

Liza N. Pappas is a visiting professor at Minnesota State University and an education and policy analyst in New York City. Her research interests include critical education policy, the processes by which education policy is shaped, implemented and experienced. 

Most read articles by the same author(s)