Charter school policy has evolved into a major component of the current education reform movement in the United States. As of 2012, all but nine U.S. states allowed charter schools, and in one of those nine, Washington State, charter school legislation was passed by popular vote in November 2012. There is a substantial, if contested, research base focusing on charter school effectiveness, particularly related to test score achievement, as well as an equally contested literature base on charter school enrollment selectivity, student expulsions, and increased segregation in charter school populations.
Purpose
The purpose of this study is to analyze the network of relations of policy actors surrounding the statewide campaign to pass the charter school Initiative 1240 in Washington State in order to better understand how wealthy individuals and their associated philanthropic organizations influence educational policy.
Research Design
Making use of available tax records, public election information, individual and organizational websites, and institutional and foundation databases, this study uses simple directed graphing techniques from social network analysis to analyze the complex relationships and affiliations of policy actors relative to the campaign to pass charter school Initiative 1240 in the state of Washington.
Conclusions/Recommendations
This study concludes that, compared to the average voter in Washington, an elite group of wealthy individuals, either directly through individual donations or indirectly through their affiliated philanthropic organizations, wielded disproportionate influence over the outcome of the charter school initiative in the state, thereby raising serious concerns about the democratic underpinnings of an education policy that impacts all of the children in Washington State. This study also concludes that elite individuals make use of local nonprofit organizations as a mechanism to advance their education policy agenda by funding those nonprofits through the philanthropic organizations affiliated with those same wealthy elites. In light of these conclusions, the authors recommend that a mechanism for more democratic accountability be developed relative to education policy campaigns, initiatives, and legislation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BallS. J. (2012). Policy networks and new governance. New York: Taylor & Francis.
2.
BarkanJ. (2012). Hired guns on Astroturf: How to buy and sell school reform. Dissent, 59(2), 49–57.
CarringtonP. J., ScottJ., & WassermanS. (2005). Models and methods in social network analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
9.
CorcoranS. P., & StoddardC. (2011). Local demand for a school choice policy: Evidence from the Washington charter school referenda. Education Finance and Policy, 6(3), 323–353.
CREDO. (2013). National charter school study 2013. Stanford, CA: Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO). Retrieved from http://credo.stanford.edu
12.
DalyA. J. (Ed.). (2010). Social network theory and educational change.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
FabricantM., & FineM. (2012). Charter schools and the corporate makeover of public education. New York: Teachers College Press.
15.
FeldS.L., & CarterW. C. (1998). When desgregation reduces interracial contact: A class size paradox for weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 103(5), 1165–1186.
FrankenbergE., Siegel-HawleyG., & WangJ. (2011). Choice without equity: Charter school segregation. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 19(1). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/779
18.
FriedkinN. E., & ThomasS. L. (1997). Social positions in schooling. Sociology of Education, 70(4), 239–255.
19.
FurgesonJ., GillB., HaimsonJ., KillewaldA., McCulloughM., Nichols-BarrerI., … LakeR. (2012). Charter-school management organizations: Diverse strategies and diverse student impacts. Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research; Center for Reinventing Public Education. Retrieved from http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/publications/PDFs/Education/CMO_Final_updated.pdf
20.
HallinanM. T., & SorensenA. B. (1985). Ability grouping and student friendships. American Educational Research Journal, 22(4), 485–499.
21.
KarierC. J. (1972). Testing for order and control in the corporate liberal state. Educational Theory, 22(Spring), 159–180.
22.
LakeR., GrossB., & MaasT. (2012). Examining charters: How public charter schools can work in Washington state. Seattle, WA: Partnership for Learning; Center for Reinventing Public Education. Retrieved from http://www.partnership4learning.org/files/ExaminingCharters.pdf
McFarlandD. A. (2001). Student resistance: How the formal and informal organization of classrooms facilitate everyday forms of student defiance. American Journal of Sociology, 107(5), 612–678.
26.
MironG., CorynC., & MacketyD. M. (2007). Evaluating the impact of charter schools on student achievement: A longitudinal look at the Great Lakes states. Education Policy Research Unit, Division of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies, Arizona State University; Education and the Public Interest Center, School of Education, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO. Retrieved from http://epsl.asu.edu/epru/documents/EPSL-0706-236-EPRU.pdf
27.
MironG., UrschelJ. L., MathisW. J., & TornquistE. (2010). Schools without diversity: Education management organizations, charter schools, and the demographic stratification of the American school system. Education and the Public Interest Center and Education Policy Research Unit, Boulder, CO and Tempe, AZ. Retrieved from http://nepc.colorado.edu/files/EMO-Seg.pdf
PenningtonJ. L., ObenchainK. M., PapolaA., & KmittaL. (2012). The Common Core: Educational redeemer or rainmaker. Teachers College Record. Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org
33.
RavitchD. (2010). The death and life of the great American school system: How testing and choice are undermining education (e-book ed.). New York: Basic Books.
ScottJ. T. (2009). The politics of venture philanthropy in charter school policy and advocacy. Educational Policy, 23(1), 106–136. doi:10.1177/0895904808328531
40.
ScottJ. T., LubienskiC. A., & DeBray-PelotE. H. (2008). The ideological and political landscape of school choice interest groups in the post-Zelman era. In CooperB. S., CibulkaJ. G., & FusarelliL. D. (Eds.), Handbook of education politics and policy (pp. 246–262). New York: Routledge.
41.
Seattle Times Editorial Board. (2012). Washington's legislative education chairs stalled reform to improve education: The failure of Democratic leaders in the state legislature to move on charter schools and teacher evaluations is all the more disappointing because of the urgency for school reforms. The Seattle Times. Retrieved from http://seattletimes.com/html/editorials/2017417952_edit05education.html
SongM., & MiskelC. G. (2007). Exploring the structural properties of state reading policy domain using network visualization technique. Educational Policy, 21(4), 589–614.
