Politics of Education Reform in the United States
Author(s):
Jonathan Supovitz (presenting / submitting)
Conference:
ECER 2014
Format:
Paper

Session Information

23 SES 05 E, (Micro-)Politics and Policy-Making in Education

Paper Session

Time:
2014-09-03
11:00-12:30
Room:
B338 Sala de Aulas
Chair:
Peter Kelly

Contribution

The United States is undergoing its largest education reform since the No Child Left Behind Law was passed by the Administration of George Bush in 2002. The reform consists of a new set of ambitious standards called the Common Core State Standards, and a new system of testing and accountability (McDonnell and Weatherford, 2014).  The Standards have been adopted by 46 of the 50 United States, and 42 of these states are members of the testing systems that are planned to come on-line in 2015.

These reforms have stirred up tremendous controversy across the nation and become a bellwether issue in larger political debates between the left and right in American politics (Hess, 2014). Interest groups both within and outside of education have adopted these reforms to forward their agendas (Manna, 2010). In this paper I contextualize and describe the current educational reform context in the United States and analyze the arguments used by reform proponents and opponents that underlie their positions, framing them within the context of political science theory of agenda setting and policy formation.

The framework this analysis of the political context of education reform in America comes from the political science literature on agenda setting and policy framing. Kingdon (2002) wrote one of the seminal pieces in the American policy literature on the intersections between policy and politics. He argues that policy makers frame issues during key ‘issue-attention’ cycles in which advocacy groups vie for the attention of and try to influence the options of policymakers. Gershkoff, & Kushner (2005) examined key policy events in a range of policy environments and found that the policymakers and the public their cues from opinion leaders and their interpretations of events, rather than the events themselves. They argue that "those who control the language control the policy" (p.534). Druckman & Slothuus (2012) examined recent policy decision making and found that in times of high polarization such as the present education environment in the United States, the polarity alters the way decision makers arrive at their policy opinions, with a greater tendency to adopt the views of the public policy elite which they affiliate.

Using this analytical frame, the paper focuses on the following research questions:

  1. What are the major educational reforms in the United States and what is the political context within which they are playing out?
  2. What are the major arguments used by reform advocacy groups and opponents and to what constituencies are these arguments intending to appeal?
  3. How is this environment influencing the shifts in both the education reform conversation and policy decisions? 

Method

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with leaders of approximately 25 national advocacy organizations across the political spectrum in the fall and winter of 2013. Following these, case studies of 10 states from across the United States were conducted in the spring of 2014. Case studies consisted of approximately four to six interviews in each of the 10 states with state and local education leaders and policy makers. All interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed. The transcripts were coded iteratively to search for a priori hypothesized patterns while still allowing for additional patterns to emerge (Miles and Huberman, 1994). The coding framework focused on the following four main categories: advocacy arguments, communication strategies, target audiences, and reform implementation strategies – each with finer grained categorization within. After initial coding, these qualitative data were further sorted and used to prepare summaries for each of the four major categories. Each summary included an analysis of the similarities between organizations making similar arguments, using similar strategies, and targeting similar audiences; as well as the policy approaches chosen by state policymakers. These analyses produced the themes reported in the paper.

Expected Outcomes

The analyses showed that political messaging in most recent round of education reform has taken a larger proportion of advocacy organization attention and resources than any previous communication campaigns. Advocacy organizations are increasingly preparing and releasing information in electronic formats, with little way to judge whether their messages are reaching constituencies beyond those within their closed networks of fellow organizations and members. Additionally, analyses showed that the messaging strategies differ, depending on which side of the issue the organization falls on. Those who are reform advocates are becoming increasingly nuanced and sophisticated to identify and react quickly to the arguments of the opposition. Thus, their messages are changing as the opposition groups adjust their messages. By contrast, the messaging strategies of the reform opponents are focused on targeting the issues that appeal to their constituents, regardless of the arguments of reform proponents. Thus, their messages are more stable. We hypothesize this has to do with groups’ judgment of the audiences they seek to reach, with reform advocates targeting constituents within the education world, while reform opponents seeking to appeal to a larger, largely non education-specific audience. Initial analyses of the policy strategies of states shows that those states that are coupling their different implementation initiatives (i.e. tying standards implementation, high stakes testing, and teacher accountability) together, are having a more difficult time sustaining their strategies in the face of interest group opposition.

References

Druckman, J., & Slothuus, R. (2012). How elite partisan polarization affects public opinion formation. In APSA 2012 Annual Meeting Paper. Gershkoff, A., & Kushner, S. (2005). Shaping public opinion: The 9/11-Iraq connection in the Bush administration's rhetoric. Perspectives on Politics, 525-537. Hess, F. (2014). Common Core Meets Education Reform: What It All Means for Politics, Policy, and the Future of Schooling. New York: Teachers College Press. Kingdon, J. W. (2002). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (longman classics edition). London: Longman Publishing Group. Manna, P. (2011). Collision Course: Federal Education Policy Meets State and Local Realities (Public Affairs and Policy Administration Series). Washington, DC: CQ Press. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: a sourcebook of new methods; Qualitative data analysis: a sourcebook of new methods.

Author Information

Jonathan Supovitz (presenting / submitting)
Graduate School of Education, University of Pennsylvania, United States of America

Update Modus of this Database

The current conference programme can be browsed in the conference management system (conftool) and, closer to the conference, in the conference app.
This database will be updated with the conference data after ECER. 

Search the ECER Programme

  • Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
  • Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
  • Search for authors and in the respective field.
  • For planning your conference attendance, please use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference and the conference agenda provided in conftool.
  • If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.