Skip to main content

Think tanks, education and elite policy actors

Abstract

The past decade has seen think tanks operate in sophisticated ways to influence the development of education policies. In this paper, I reflect upon the influence of think tanks in the formation of national reform, using the Common Core State Standards initiative in the USA as an illustrative case. In doing so, I explore how certain think tanks, headed by political elites and backed by significant philanthropic funding, have sought to influence the reform initiative. My central argument is that meanings and practices associated with political publics are being transformed as elite policy actors gain influence. Through mobilising significant political and economic power, elites work through think tanks to influence policy debates, re-frame policy problems and advocate for particular policy solutions. The new public formations that are resulting appear to be shifting the conditions of possibility for policy making in education.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. In political and sociological theory, the terms ‘elite’ and ‘political elite’ (as well as ‘cultural elite’ and ‘economic elite’) are conceptually contested, and there has been a long history of debate over exactly what constitutes ‘the elite’ (see Mills 1956; Zuckerman 1977; Milner 2015). In this paper, I understand political elites to be those individuals with high status, visibility and capacity to exert a disproportionate influence over political and policy processes. This may include individuals who are (or have been) in political office, or those that occupy positions that offer powerful opportunities to influence political and policy processes. As the foundational theory of C. W. Mills (1956) suggests, and as Milner (2015) has more recently argued, political elites are constituted by an incredibly small proportion of the wider population, but are nevertheless able to dominate political processes.

  2. Medvetz’s conceptualisation of thinks tanks as ‘boundary organisations’ shares some similarities with Lubiensk et al.’s (2011) concept of ‘intermediary organizations’ (IOs) that serve to assemble, produce and promote evidence tailored for policy makers. Medvetz’s framework, however, is specific to think tanks, whereas Lubienski, Scott and DeBray’s concept of IOs focuses broadly on think tanks, philanthropies, policy coalitions and advocacy organisations.

  3. During the writing of this article, in February 2015, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice assumed the role of Chair of the Foundation for Excellence in Education.

  4. http://www.gatesfoundation.org/How-We-Work/Quick-Links/Grants-Database/Grants/2009/11/OPPCR055.

  5. In this paper, my analysis of the Hunt Institute’s activities is aided by an interview I conducted with a senior policy member of the organisation in early 2013. Whilst this empirical interview data has not been used directly in this paper, it has been crucial in informing my understanding of the organisation’s involvement in the CCSS.

  6. http://www.gatesfoundation.org/How-We-Work/Quick-Links/Grants-Database/Grants/2013/05/OPP1090770.

  7. http://www.hunt-institute.org/elements/media/files/2013_GES_Program.pdf.

  8. http://www.gatesfoundation.org/How-We-Work/Quick-Links/Grants-Database/Grants/2013/08/OPP1095306.

  9. http://www.gatesfoundation.org/How-We-Work/Quick-Links/Grants-Database/Grants/2013/10/OPP1082243.

  10. http://www.hunt-institute.org/about-us/.

  11. http://www.hunt-institute.org/knowledge-library/articles/2008-6-1/blueprint-number-1/.

  12. http://www.gatesfoundation.org/How-We-Work/Quick-Links/Grants-Database#q/k=%22Alliance%20for%20Excellent%20Education%22.

  13. http://www.gatesfoundation.org/How-We-Work/Quick-Links/Grants-Database#q/k=%22Foundation%20for%20Excellence%20in%20Education%22.

  14. http://www.gatesfoundation.org/How-We-Work/Quick-Links/Grants-Database/Grants/2010/10/OPP1023987.

  15. http://digitallearningnow.com/about/.

  16. http://all4ed.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/CommonCore101.pdf.

  17. http://vimeo.com/51933492.

  18. http://excelined.org/commoncore/communicating/communication-checklist-phases/.

  19. http://www.whitlam.org/the_program/high_stakes_testing.

  20. http://www.whitlam.org/the_program/federalism_and_australian_schooling.

References

  • Anderson, B. (1983). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Australian Government. (2011). Review of funding for schooling. Canberra: Department of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ball, S. J., & Exley, S. (2010). Making policy with ‘good ideas’: Policy networks and the ‘intellectuals’ of new labour. Journal of Education Policy, 25(2), 151–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ball, S. J., & Junemann, C. (2012). Networks, new governance and education. Bristol: The Policy Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Calhoun, C. (1997). Nationalism and the public sphere. In J. Weintraub & K. Kumar (Eds.), Public and private in thought and practice: Perspectives on a gran dichotomy (pp. 75–102). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1927). The public and its problems. New York: Henry Holt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fabricant, M., & Fine, M. (2012). Charter schools and the corporate makeover of public education: What’s at stake?. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, N. (1992). Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. In C. Calhoun (Ed.), Habermas and the public sphere (pp. 109–142). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gates Foundation. (2010). Fewer, clearer, higher: Moving forwards with consistent, rigorous standards for all students. Online: http://docs.gatesfoundation.org/highschools/documents/fewer-clearer-higher-standards.pdf

  • Gilens, M., & Page, B. I. (2014). Testing theories of American politics: Elites, interest groups, and average citizens. Perspectives on Politics, 12(3), 564–581.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Layton, L. (2008). How Bill Gates pulled off the swift Common Core revolution. The Washington Post. June 7, 2014. Online: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-bill-gates-pulled-off-the-swift-common-core-revolution/2014/06/07/a830e32e-ec34-11e3-9f5c-9075d5508f0a_story.html

  • Lipman, P. (2014). Capitalizing on crisis: venture philanthropy’s colonial project to remake urban education. Critical Studies in Education,. doi:10.1080/17508487.2015.959031.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lippmann, W. (1925). The phantom public. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lubienski, C., Scott, J., & DeBray, E. (2011). The rise of intermediary organizations in knowledge production, advocacy, and educational policy. Teachers College Record. Available at: http://www.tcrecord.org/content.asp?contentid=16487

  • Marquand, D. (2004). Decline of the public: The hollowing-out of citizenship. Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonnell, L., & Weatherford, S. (2013). Organized interests and the Common Core. Educational Researcher, 42(9), 488–497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGann, J. G., & Weaver, R. K. (Eds.). (2002). Think tanks and civil societies: Catalysts for ideas and action. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Medvetz, T. (2008). Think Tanks as an Emergent Field. New York: Social Science Research Council. Online: http://www.ssrc.org/publications/view/A2A2BA10-B135-DE11-AFAC-001CC477EC70/.

  • Medvetz, T. (2012a). Think tanks in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Medvetz, T. (2012b). Murky power: “Think tanks” as boundary organizations. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 34, 113–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mills, C. W. (1956). The power elite. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milner, M. (2015). Elites: A general model. Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman, J., & Clarke, J. (2009). Publics, politics and power: Remaking the public in public services. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2004). What makes school systems perform? Seeing school systems through the prism of PISA. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Picciano, A., & Spring, J. (2013). The great American education-industrial complex: ideology, technology and profit. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ravitch, D. (2010). The death and life of the great American school system: How testing and choice are undermining education. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reckhow, S. (2013). Follow the money: How foundation dollars change public school politics. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhodes, R. A. W. (1997). Understanding governance: Policy networks, governance, reflexivity and accountability. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rich, A. (2004). Think tanks, public policy and the politics of expertise. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rizvi, F., & Lingard, B. (2010). Globalizing education policy. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothman, R. (2011). Something in common: The Common Core Standards and the next chapter in American education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Savage, G. C. (2013). Chasing the phantoms of public pedagogy: Political, popular and evolving publics. In J. Burdick, J. A. Sandlin, & M. P. O’Malley (Eds.), Problematizing public pedagogy (pp. 79–90). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Savage, G. C. (2014). Reconstituting “the public” through national reform: A reflection on the development of the Common Core State Standards. Journal of Curriculum and Pedagogy, 11(1), 40–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savage, G. C., & O’Connor, K. (2015). National agendas in global times: curriculum reforms in Australia and the USA since the 1980s. Journal of Education Policy, 30(5), 609–630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savage, M., & Williams, K. (2008). Elites: remembered in capitalism and forgotten by social sciences. The Sociological Review, 56(s1), 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sellar, S., & Lingard, B. (2013). The OECD and Global Governance in Education. Journal of Education Policy, 28(5), 710–725.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sennett, R. (2000). The fall of public man. London: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone, D. (1991). Old guard versus new partisans: Think tanks in transition. Australian Journal of Political Science, 26(2), 197–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, G., & Cook, I. (2014). Education policy-making and time. Journal of Education Policy, 29(5), 700–715. doi:10.1080/02680939.2013.875225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ujifusa, A. (2015). ‘Opt-out’ push gains traction amid common-core testing. Education Week. Education Week. May 5, 2015. Online: http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2015/05/06/opt-out-push-gains-traction-amid-common-core-testing.html.

  • Warner, M. (2002). Publics and counterpublics. Public Culture, 14(1), 49–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wedel, J. R. (2009). Shadow elite: How the world’s new power brokers undermine democracy, government, and the free market. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerman, A. (1977). The Concept “Political Elite”: Lessons from Mosca and Pareto. The Journal of Politics, 39(2), 324–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Glenn C. Savage.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Savage, G.C. Think tanks, education and elite policy actors. Aust. Educ. Res. 43, 35–53 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-015-0185-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-015-0185-0

Keywords

  • Think tanks, education policy
  • Political elite
  • Publics
  • Common Core State Standards
  • Curriculum
  • Philanthropy