This article is the third of three on “Sources of Authority in Education.” All use the work of Amy Gutmann as a heuristic device to describe and explain the prevalence of market-based models of education reform in the US and the business-influenced Global Education Reform Movement. The other two are “Negating Amy Gutmann: Deliberative Democracy, Business Influence and Segmentation Strategies in Education” and “Neoliberalism and Four Spheres of Authority in American Education: Business, Class, Stratification and Intimations of Marketization.” All three are intended to be included together as chapters of my Democratic Education and Markets: Segmentation, Privatization and Sources of Authority in Education Reform. The “Negating Amy Gutmann” article looks primarily at deliberative democracy. The “Neoliberalism and Four Spheres of Authority” article, considers its main theme to be the promise of egalitarian democracy and how figures ‘such as Horace Mann, John Dewey and Gutmann’ have argued it is largely based on the promise of public education. It thus begins with a consideration of what might be called a partial historical materialist analysis – the growth of inequality in the US (and other countries) since the 1970s that correlates with much of the basis for changes in the justifications and substance of education reform. The present article, “The Odd Malaise of Democratic Education and the Inordinate Influence of Business,” continues the argument by offering some historical background and comparisons and ends by considering what happens to the philosophy of education when democracy and capitalism are at odds. It thus starts with recent history, looking at how the content and context of educational policy have changed in the US since Gutmann wrote in the 1980s. Specifically, it concerns itself with the increasing prevalence of twin notions: that our system of education must be reformed because of global competition and that the educational system should emulate the market. The article then goes back a little bit further, to the origins of the common school in the 1600s and Horace Mann’s articulation of the principles behind public education, which are shown to be in stark contrast to Education Reform. The narrative describes how the standards movement, variously, coalesced around George H. W. Bush’s America 2000 and Bill Clinton’s Goals 2000 programs, was reflected in a ‘21st-century schools’ discourse, found programmatic form in George W. Bush’s No Child Left Behind and it’s offspring, Arne Duncan’s Race to the Top. All of the preceding were, to a shocking degree, based on misleading and selective statistical analysis and sets goals that are unreachable even in the best of all possible worlds. The article concludes by considering paradigm change in education and its causes; I draw on both Peter Hall’s exposition of social learning 1 and Antonio Gramsci’s conceptualization of hegemony. 2

中文翻译：

---

民主教育的古怪：霍勒斯·曼，艾米·古特曼和商业的过分影响

本文是“教育权威的来源”三分之三。所有人都将艾米·古特曼（Amy Gutmann）的工作用作启发式工具来描述和解释美国市场化的教育改革模式以及受商业影响的全球教育改革运动的盛行。另外两个是“否定艾米·古特曼：协商民主，商业影响力和教育细分策略”和“新自由主义和美国教育的四个权威领域：商业，阶级，市场化和市场化。” 打算将这三个部分一起纳入“我的民主教育和市场”一章：“教育改革中的细分，私有化和权威来源”。“否定艾米·古特曼”一文主要讨论了协商民主。“新自由主义与四个权威领域”一文，认为它的主要主题是平等民主的承诺，以及“霍勒斯·曼，约翰·杜威和古特曼”等人如何认为它主要基于公共教育的承诺。因此，它首先考虑了所谓的部分历史唯物主义分析–自1970年代以来美国（及其他国家）不平等的加剧，这与教育改革的理由和实质的许多基础相关。本文“民主教育的奇怪弊端和商业的过分影响”通过提供一些历史背景和比较来继续该论点，并以民主和资本主义相悖时考虑教育哲学发生了什么为结尾。因此，它始于最近的历史，研究自古特曼（Gutmann）在1980年代写书以来，美国教育政策的内容和背景是如何变化的。具体而言，它与双生子观念的日益普及有关：我们的教育体系必须因全球竞争而改革，教育体系应效仿市场。然后，本文再追溯到1600年代普通学校的起源，以及霍勒斯·曼恩（Horace Mann）对公共教育背后原理的清晰阐述，这与教育改革形成了鲜明的对比。该叙述描述了标准运动如何围绕乔治·H·W·布什的《美国2000年》和比尔·克林顿的《目标2000年》计划相互结合，如何反映在“ 21世纪学校”的论述中，并在乔治·W·布什的《不放下任何孩子》中找到了程序形式。后代 阿尔恩·邓肯（Arne Duncan）的比赛。令人震惊的是，所有这些都是基于误导性和选择性的统计分析，并设定了即使在所有可能的世界中都无法实现的目标。本文最后考虑了教育的范式变化及其成因；我同时借鉴了彼得·霍尔（Peter Hall）对社会学习的论述1和安东尼奥·葛兰西（Antonio Gramsci）对霸权的概念化。2