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

IF 0.5 Q4 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Foro de Educacion Pub Date : 2021-06-27 DOI:10.14516/FDE.819
J. Ferrare, Laura Carter-Stone, Sarah Galey-Horn
{"title":"Ideological Tensions in Education Policy Networks: An Analysis of the Policy Innovators in Education Network in the United States","authors":"J. Ferrare, Laura Carter-Stone, Sarah Galey-Horn","doi":"10.14516/FDE.819","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"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.","PeriodicalId":43476,"journal":{"name":"Foro de Educacion","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Foro de Educacion","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14516/FDE.819","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

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.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
教育政策网络中的意识形态张力:美国教育网络政策创新者分析
先前的研究表明,倡导组织通过将教育改革议程传达给公共和私人利益相关者,在教育政策网络中发挥着至关重要的作用。在美国,这些倡导组织组成了一个州际联盟,形成了自己的网络。教育政策创新者(PIE)网络是一个正式的、中央协调的政策网络,它将州级倡导组织彼此联系起来,并将国家倡导组织、智库和慈善基金会联系起来。尽管自2016年以来规模增加了一倍多,但人们对PIE成员国的政策偏好知之甚少。在本文中,我们使用社会网络分析来识别和描述构成PIE网络的倡导的意识形态维度,并研究这些意识形态维度如何随着网络的扩展而变化。我们发现,这些组织强调的中心领域已经围绕着促进问责制和标准的新自由主义意识形态结合在一起。然而,在沿着两个维度展开的网络中存在着潜在的紧张。一方面,对选择和自治的偏好(例如,特许、一般选择、自治和放松管制)与那些倾向于公平资助低收入学校和幼儿教育的人形成对比。另一方面,成员们强调涉及学校内部因素(学生干预、领导标准和问责制)和学校外部因素(如家庭支持、基于资金的公平)的政策。随着时间的推移,网络内部的紧张关系变得更加明显,因为网络已经扩大到包括意识形态上更狭隘的基于市场的政策偏好的新成员。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Foro de Educacion
Foro de Educacion EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
20.00%
发文量
20
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊最新文献
Pedagogies of precariousness in the neoliberal educational order. Insecurity and recomposition of possibilities in the current political-pedagogical context Dificultades y desafíos de integración de los estudiantes venezolanos en Colombia desde la voz de sus docentes El papel de la educación para la prevención de violencias machistas. Estudio cualitativo en Lamu, Kenia La belleza ante el reto de educar para la sostenibilidad Conectividad e inclusión: el panorama argentino de la precariedad.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1