Advertisement

Advocacy Networks and Market Models for Education

  • Christopher Lubienski
Chapter

Abstract

In much of the world, policymakers, philanthropists, and experts are demanding evidence on the effectiveness of proposed approaches for addressing issues, often as an indicator of the suitability of different interventions for receiving funding and support. But in education policy in particular, there are serious questions not only about the degree to which policies are actually evidence based but also how evidence is produced, whether it is useful, how policymakers access or use evidence on policy proposals, and how new forms of advocacy networks convey ideas across time and space, and perhaps—in doing so—re-shape those ideas. Into the space between research production and policymaking, we are seeing the entrance of new actors—networks of intermediaries—that seek to collect, interpret, package, and promote evidence for policymakers to use in forming their decisions. In this chapter, I briefly review a number of approaches to considering policy transfer, focusing on education issues in general, and market-based policies in particular. I then outline the concept of advocacy networks, and highlight the emerging role of intermediaries within those networks. Then after considering some of the current approaches to understanding how policy ideas transfer across nodes, actors, and contexts, this chapter describes an ongoing, multi-site study that examines this issue through a mixed-methods investigation of actors working in policy networks. In reporting some of the findings from the study, this chapter notes a few of the limitations of one of the most popular theoretical perspectives for understanding such networks. The concluding discussion introduces some theoretical considerations for analyzing policy transfer through a lens of economic transaction.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank his colleagues on the RIO project, especially Professors Elizabeth DeBray and Janelle Scott, whose thinking has influenced the argument in this chapter. Of course, the author alone is responsible for the interpretations and analyses in this chapter. An earlier version of this chapter was published in Policy Futures in Education, Vol. 16(2): 156–168.

References

  1. A+ Denver. (2012). School Achievement in Denver: The Impact of Charter Schools. Retrieved from Denver, CO: A+ Denver.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson-Levitt, K. (Ed.). (2003). Local Meanings, Global Schooling: Anthropology and World Culture Theory. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  3. Aristotle. (1946). The Politics of Aristotle (E. Barker, Trans.). Oxford, UK: The Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  4. Chubb, J. E., & Moe, T. M. (1990). Politics, Markets, and America’s Schools. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  5. Cresswell, T., & Merriam, P. (2011). Geographies of Mobility: Practices, Spaces, Subjects. In T. Cresswell & P. Merriam (Eds.), Geographies of Mobility: Practices, Spaces, Subjects (pp. 1–17). Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  6. Davies, H. T. O., & Nultey, S. M. (2008). Learning More about How Research-based Knowledge Gets Used: Guidance in the Development of New Empirical Research. New York, NY: William T. Grant Foundation.Google Scholar
  7. DeBray, E., Scott, J., Lubienski, C., & Jabbar, H. (2014). Intermediary Organizations in Charter School Policy Coalitions: Evidence from New Orleans. Educational Policy, 28(2), 175–206.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904813514132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gilens, M., & Page, B. I. (2014). Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens. Perspectives on Politics, 12(3), 564–581.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592714001595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Goldie, D., Linick, M., Jabbar, H., & Lubienski, C. (2014). Using Bibliometric and Social Media Analyses to Explore the “Echo Chamber” Hypothesis. Educational Policy, 28(2), 281–305.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904813515330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gulson, K., Lingard, B., Sellar, S., Takayama, K., & Lubienski, C. (2017). Policy Mobilities and Methodology: A Proposition for Inventive Methods in Education Policy Studies. Critical Studies in Education, 58(2), 224–241.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2017.1288150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Henig, J. (1994). Rethinking School Choice: Limits of the Market Metaphor. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Jabbar, H., LaLonde, P. G., DeBray-Pelot, E., Scott, J., & Lubienski, C. (2015). How Policymakers Define “Evidence”: The Politics of Research Use in New Orleans. In L. Miron, B. Beabout, & J. Boselovic (Eds.), Only in New Orleans: School Choice and Equity Post-Hurricane Katrina (pp. 285–304). Rotterdam, NL: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kuttner, R. (1997, March/April). The Limits of Markets. The American Prospect, 28–37.Google Scholar
  14. Layton, L. (2014, June 7). How Bill Gates Pulled Off the Swift Common Core Revolution. Washington Post. Retrieved from 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
  15. Lubienski, C., Brewer, T. J., & Goel La Londe, P. (2016). Orchestrating Policy Ideas: Philanthropies and Think Tanks in US Education Policy Advocacy Networks. Australian Education Researcher, 43(1), 55–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lubienski, C., Scott, J., & DeBray, E. (2011). The Rise of Intermediary Organizations in Knowledge Production, Advocacy, and Educational Policy. Teachers College Record, http://www.tcrecord.org/ ID Number: 16487
  17. Lubienski, C., Scott, J., & DeBray, E. (2014). The Politics of Research Production, Promotion, and Utilization in Educational Policy. Educational Policy, 28(2), 131–144.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904813515329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lubienski, C., Scott, J., & DeBray-Pelot, E. (2015). Producing “Evidence”: Overcoming the Limitations of the Market, Competition and Privatization. In F. English (Ed.), Sage Guide to Educational Leadership and Management (pp. 455–470). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  19. McDonnell, L. (2004). Politics, Persuasion, and Educational Testing. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1992). The Structure of Educational Organizations. In J. W. Meyer & W. R. Scott (Eds.), Organizational Environments: Ritual and Rationality (updated ed., pp. 71–97). Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  21. Ramirez, F. O. (2012). The World Society Perspective: Concepts, Assumptions, and Strategies. Comparative Education, 48(4), 423–439.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2012.693374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sabatier, P. A., Hunter, S., & McLaughlin, S. (1987). The Devil Shift: Perceptions and Misperceptions of Opponents. Western Political Quarterly, 40(3), 449–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sabatier, P. A., & Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (1999). The Advocacy Coalition Framework: An Assessment. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the Policy Process (pp. 117–166). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  24. Sandel, M. J. (2012). What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
  25. Scott, J., DeBray, E., Lubienski, C., La Londe, P. G., Castillo, E., & Owens, S. (2016). Urban Regimes, Intermediary Organization Networks, and Research Use: Patterns Across Three School Districts. Peabody Journal of Education, 00-00.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2016.1264800CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Scott, J., Jabbar, H., Goel, P., DeBray, E., & Lubienski, C. (2015). Evidence Use and Advocacy Coalitions: Intermediary Organizations and Philanthropies in Denver, Colorado. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 23.  https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v23.2079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Scott, J., Lubienski, C., DeBray, E., & Jabbar, H. (2014). The Intermediary Function in Evidence Production, Promotion, and Utilization: The Case of Educational Incentives. In K. S. Finnigan & A. J. Daly (Eds.), Using Research Evidence in Education: From the Schoolhouse Door to Capitol Hill (pp. 69–92). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Steiner-Khamsi, G. (2012). Policy Borrowing and Lending in Education. In G. Steiner-Khamsi & F. Waldow (Eds.), Understanding Policy Borrowing and Lending (pp. 3–17). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Verger, A. (2014). Why Do Policy-makers Adopt Global Education Policies? Toward a Research Framework on the Varying Role of Ideas in Education Reform. Current Issues in Comparative Education, 16(2), 14–29.Google Scholar
  30. Weiss, C. H. (1979). The Many Meanings of Research Utilization. Public Administration Review, 39, 426–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Weiss, C. H. (1980). Knowledge Creep and Decision Accretion. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 1(3), 381–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Williams, J. (2014, October 10). Tulane’s Cowen Institute Retracts New Orleans Schools Report, Apologizes. Times-Picayune. Retrieved from http://www.nola.com/education/index.ssf/2014/10/tulanes_cowen_institute_retracts_new_orleans_schools_report_apologizes.html

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EducationIndiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations