This chapter uses the policy-planning network concept to explain why charter school reform has become a prominent reform strategy, especially in urban districts serving primarily poor children of color. It then identifies components of the emerging charter school policy-planning network. Informed by social network and document analysis drawn from foundation financial reports, examinations of boards of directors and advisors, reviews of works cited in advocacy and research reports, speeches, and media reports, the chapter finds that the charter school policy-planning network is made up of at least eight interrelated institutional forms. Specifically, this network is characterized by: (1) local charter schools; (2) charter school management organizations; (3) charter school real estate development corporations; (4) charter school and school choice advocacy organizations; (5) alternative teacher and leadership preparation programs; (6) choice-sympathetic policy makers; (7) independent research units (think tanks, university-affiliated groups, and research corporations); and (8) foundations and venture philanthropies. The chapter discusses the implications of this network for democratic participation in urban schooling.
AuW., & FerrareJ. (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
3.
AugusteB., KihnP., & MillerM. (2010). Close the talent gap: Attracting and retaining top-third graduates to careers in teaching. An internal market research-based perspective. Washington, DC: McKinsey & Company. Retrieved from http://mckinseyonsociety.com/closing-the-talent-gap.
4.
BallS. J. (2007). Education plc: Understanding private sector participation in public sector education. London, England: Routledge.
5.
BallS. J., & JuemannC. (2012). Networks, new governance and education. Bristol, England: Policy Press.
BurasK. (2012). “It's all about the dollars”: Charter schools, educational policy, and the racial market in New Orleans. In The assault on public education: Confronting the politics of corporate school reform (pp. 160–188). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
8.
BurrisV. (2008). The interlock structure of the policy-planning network and the right turn in U.S. state policy. Research in Political Sociology, 17.
9.
Center for Research on Education Outcomes. (2009). Charter school performance. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University.
10.
Center for Research on Education Outcomes. (2013). Charter school performance. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University.
11.
CohenR. (2007). Strategic grantmaking: Foundations and the school privatization movement. Washington, DC: National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy.
12.
DahlR. A. (1961). Who governs? Democracy and power in an American city. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
13.
DomhoffG. W. (2006). Who rules America? Power, politics, and social change (5th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
14.
FowlerF. (2008). Policy studies for educational leaders: An introduction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
15.
FrankenbergE., Siegel-HawleyG., & WangJ. (2010). Choice without equity: Charter school segregation and the need for civil rights standards. Los Angeles, CA: The Civil Rights Project/ Proyecto Derechos Civiles at UCLA. http://www.civilrightsproject.ucla.edu
16.
HaasE. (2007). False equivalency: Think tank references on education in the news media. Peabody Journal of Education, 82(1), 63–102).
17.
HarveyD. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. New York, NY: Oxford Press.
18.
HenigJ. (2009). Spin cycle: How research is used in policy debates. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
19.
HigginsM., HessF., WeinerJ., & RobinsonW. (2011). Creating a corps of change agents. Education Next, 11(3), 1–9).
20.
KretchmarK., SondelB., & FerrareJ. (2014). Mapping the terrain: Teach For America, charter school reform, and corporate sponsorship. Journal of Education Policy, 29(6), 742–759).
21.
McEachinA., WelshR., & BrewerD. (2013). Student achievement within a portfolio management model: Early results from New Orleans. Working paper.
22.
McGuinnP. (2012). Fight club: Are advocacy organizations changing the politics of education?Education Next, 12, 25–31).
23.
MickelsonR. (2014). Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. The past, present, and future of (de)segregated education in Charlotte. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
24.
MironG. (2010). Performance of charter schools and implications for policy makers. In LubienskiC., & WeitzelP. (Eds.), The charter school experiment: Expectations, evidence, and limitations (pp. 74–92). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
ObamaB. (2009). Remarks by the President to the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce on a complete and competitive American education. Washington, DC: The White House Office of the Press Secretary.
27.
ReckhowS. (2013). Follow the money: How foundation dollars change public school politics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
28.
RichA. (2004). Think tanks, public policy, and the politics of expertise. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
ScottJ. (2008). Managers of choice: Race, gender, and the political ideology of the “new” urban school leadership. In FeinbergW., & LubienskiC. (Eds.), School choice policies and outcomes: Philosophical and empirical perspectives on limits to choice in liberal democracies (pp. 149–176). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
31.
ScottJ. (2009). The politics of venture philanthropy in charter school policy and advocacy. Educational Policy, 23(1), 106–136).
32.
ScottJ. (2011a). Market-driven education reform and the racial politics of advocacy. Peabody Journal of Education, 86(5), 580–599).
33.
ScottJ. (2011b). School choice as a civil right: The political construction of a claim and implications for school desegregation. In FrankenbergE., & DeBray-PelotE. (Eds.), Integrating schools in a changing society: New policies and legal options for a multiracial generation (pp. 32–51). Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
34.
ScottJ., & JabbarH. (2014). The hub and the spokes: Foundations, intermediary organizations, incentivist reforms, and the politics of research evidence. Educational Policy, 28(2).
35.
ScottJ., & QuinnR. (2014). The politics of education in the post-Brown era: Race, markets, and the struggle for equitable schooling. Educational Administration Quarterly, 50(5), 749–763).
36.
TeitelL. (2006). Mapping the terrain of “alternative” leadership education: Lessons for universities. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(7), 500–507).
37.
TrujilloT., & ScottJ. (2014). Transformers and superheroes: Rethinking Teach for America's leadership model. Phi Delta Kappan, 95(8), 57–61).
38.
TyackD., & CubanL. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public school reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
39.
WellsA. S. (Ed.). (2002). Where charter school policy fails: The problems of accountability and equity. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
40.
WohlstetterP., SmithJ., FarrellC., HentschkeG., & HirmanJ. (2011). How funding shapes the growth of charter management organizations: Is the tail wagging the dog?Journal of Education Finance, 37, 150–174).
