Ideological Tensions in Education Policy Networks: An Analysis of the Policy Innovators in Education Network in the United States

Joseph J. Ferrare; Laura Carter-Stone; Sarah Galey-Horn

doi:10.14516/fde.819

Authors

Joseph J. Ferrare University of Washington Bothell. United States Author
Laura Carter-Stone Vanderbilt University. United States Author
Sarah Galey-Horn University of Edinburgh. United Kingdom Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.14516/fde.819

Keywords:

policy networks, PIE Network, Policy Innovators in Education, education policy, school reform, advocacy organizations, intermediary organizations, social network analysis

Abstract

Previous research has illustrated that advocacy organizations play a crucial role in education policy networks by communicating educational reform agendas to public and private stakeholders. In the United States, an inter-state consortium of these advocacy organizations has formed their own network. The Policy Innovators in Education (PIE) network is a formal, centrally coordinated policy network that connects state-level advocacy organizations to one another and to national advocacy organizations, think tanks, and philanthropic foundations. Despite more than doubling in size since 2016, little is known about the policy preferences of PIE members. In this paper, we use social network analysis to identify and describe the ideological dimensions of advocacy that structure the PIE Network and to examine how these ideological dimensions have changed as the network has expanded. We find that the central areas of emphasis among these organizations have coalesced around neoliberal ideologies that promote accountability and standards. However, there is an underlying tension within the network that unfolds along two dimensions. On the one hand, preferences for choice and autonomy (e.g., charters, general choice, and autonomy & deregulation) are contrasted to those favoring equitable funding for low-income schools and early childhood education. On the other hand, members emphasize policies involving factors internal to schools (student interventions, leadership standards and accountability) to those external to schools (e.g., familial support, funding-based equity). These tensions within the network have grown more pronounced over time as the network has expanded to include new members with a more ideological narrow set of market-based policy preferences.

References

Apple, M.W. (2006). Educating the «right» way: Markets, standards, god, and inequality. New York: Routledge.

Au, W., & Ferrare, J.J. (2014). Sponsors of policy: A network analysis of wealthy elites, their affiliated philanthropies, and charter school reform in Washington State. Teachers College Record, 116(11). Retrieved from: http://www.tcrecord.org ID Number: 17387.

Au, W., & Ferrare, J.J. (Eds.). (2015). Mapping corporate education reform: Power and policy networks in the neoliberal state. New York: Routledge.

Ball, S.J. (2012). Global education inc: New policy networks and the neolibreral imaginary. New York: Routledge.

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

Borg, I., & Groenen, P.J.F. (2005). Modern multidimensional scaling: Theory and applications. New York: Springer.

Corbin, J., & Strauss, A.L. (2008). Basics of qualitative research. United States of America: Sage.

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.

DeBray-Pelot, E.H., & McGuinn, P. (2009). The New Politics of Education: Analyzing the Federal Education Policy Landscape in the Post-NCLB Era. Educational Policy, 23(1), 15-42.

Ferrare, J.J., & Apple, M.W. (2017). Practicing policy networks: Using organizational field theory to examine philanthropic involvement in education policy. In Lynch, J., Rowlands, J., Gale, T., & Skourdoumbis, A. (Eds.), Practice theory and education: Diffractive readings in professional practice (pp. 108-126). New York: Routledge.

Ferrare, J.J., & Reynolds, K. (2016). Has the elite foundation agenda spread beyond the gates? An organizational network analysis of non-major philanthropic giving in K12 education. American Journal of Education, 123(1), 137-169.

Ferrare, J.J., & Setari, R.R. (2018). Converging on choice: The interstate flow of foundation dollars to charter school organizations. Educational Researcher, 47(1), 34-45. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X17736524

Fligstein, N., & McAdam, D. (2012). A theory of fields. United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.

Galey, S. (2015). Education politics and policy: Emerging institutions, interests, and ideas. Policy Studies Journal, 43(1), 12-39.

Galey, S., & Ferrare, J.J. (2016). Coordinating choice and alternatives: A policy network analysis of school choice and alternative certification expansion in state subsystems. Denver: Annual Meeting of the Association for Education Finance and Policy, CO.

Galey-Horn, S., Reckhow, S., Ferrare, J.J., & Jansy, L. (2020). Building consensus: Idea brokerage in teacher policy networks. American Educational Research Journal, 57(2), 872-905.

Gee, J.P. (2014). Discourse analysis: Theory and method. New York: Routledge.

Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.

Kretchmar, K., Sondel, B., & Ferrare, J.J. (2014). Mapping the terrain: Teach For America, charter school reform, and corporate sponsorship. Journal of Education Policy, 29(6), 742-759.

Kruskal, J.B., & Wish, M. (1978). Multidimensional scaling. United States of America: Sage.

Leifeld, P. (2013a). Discourse network analyzer manual (p.n.p.). Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (Eawag). Retrieved from: www.philipleifeld.com

Leifeld, P. (2013b). Reconceptualizing major policy change in the advocacy coalition framework: A discourse network analysis of German pension politics. Policy Studies Journal, 41(1), 169-198.

Lubienski, C., Brewer, J.T., & Goel La Londe, P. (2016). Orchestrating policy ideas: Philanthropies and think tanks in US education policy advocacy networks. The Australian Educational Researcher, 43(1), 55-73.

Lubienski, C., Scott, J., & DeBray-Pelot, E. (2011). The rise of intermediary organizations in knowledge production, advocacy, and educational policy. Teachers College Record, No. 16487.

McGuinn, P. (2012). Fight club: Are advocacy organizations changing the politics of education. Education Next, 12, 25-31.

Mehta, J., & Teles, S. (2012). Jurisdictional politics: A new federal role in education. In Hess, F.M., & Kelly, A.P. (Eds.), Carrots, sticks, and the bully pulpit: Lessons from a half-century of federal efforts to improve America’s schools (pp. 197-216). Harvard: Harvard Education Press.

Moe, T.M. (2011). Special interest: Teachers unions and America’s public schools. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.

Powell, W.W., & DiMaggio, P. (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Reckhow, S. (2010). Disseminating and legitimating a new approach: The role of foundations. In Bulkley, K.E., Henig, J.R., & Levin, H.M. (Eds.), Between public and private: Politics, governance, and the new portfolio models for urban school reform (pp. 277-304). Harvard: Harvard Education Press.

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

Reckhow, S., Galey, S., & Ferrare, J.J. (2016). Bipartisanship and Idea Brokerage in Education Policy Networks. 9th Annual Political Networks Conference, Washington University, St. Louis, MO.

Reckhow, S., & Snyder, J.W. (2014). The expanding role of philanthropy in education politics. Educational Researcher, 43(4), 186-195.

Rhodes, R. A.W. (2006). Policy Network Analysis. In Moran, M., Rein, M., & Goodin R.E. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Public Policy (pp. 423-445). United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.

Sabatier, P.A., & Weible, C.M. (2007). The advocacy coalition framework: Innovations and clarifications. In Sabatier, P.A. (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 189-222). New York: Westview Press.

Saldana, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. United States of America: Sage.

Scott, J. (2009). The politics of venture philanthropy in charter school policy and advocacy. Educational Policy, 23(1), 106-136.

Scott, J. (2015). Foundations and the development of the U.S. charter school policy-planning network: Implications for democratic schooling and civil rights. Teachers College Record, 114(2), 131-147.

Scott, J., & Jabbar, H. (2014). The hub and the spokes: Foundations, intermediary organizations, incentivist reforms, and the politics of research evidence. Educational Policy, 28(2), 233-257.

Song, M., & Miskel, C.G. (2005). Who are the influentials? A cross-state social network analysis of the reading policy domain. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(1), 7-48.

Verger, A., Fontdevilla, C., & Zancajo, A. (2016). The privatization of education: A political economy of global education reform. New York: Teachers College Press.

Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.