Given the growing popularity of the portfolio management model (PMM) as a method of improving education, it is important to examine how these market-based reforms are sustained over time and how the politics of sustaining this model have substantial policy implications.
Purpose of Study
The purpose of this article is to examine important patterns and trends in the relationship between campaign contributions to local and state school board elections and the sustainability of the PMM in urban districts. We provide a descriptive analysis of the role of interest groups in education reform in post-Katrina New Orleans and document how the PMM changed the landscape of education politics, with a focus on the actors, both local and national, that sustain the PMM.
Research Design
We describe the creation of Act 35 and the evolution of educational governance changes in New Orleans to determine whether the same interest groups that played a role in the origin of the PMM also contributed to its sustainment. We analyze how these educational governance changes influenced the politics of education reform using data from the Louisiana Ethics Commission on campaign contributions to both state and local school board elections. We apply several non-board and board governance theories to examine interest group behavior. We also conduct interviews with stakeholders throughout the educational system to inform our discussion of the evolution of educational governance and the politics of education reform in post-Katrina New Orleans, as well as the categorization of candidates in school board elections.
Results
We find that in the post-Katrina era, there was a diversification of actors in the interest group landscape. These groups influenced educational governance through unprecedented levels of campaign contributions to the state and local school board elections. The influence of interest groups, especially out- of- state actors, contributed to an emerging shift in political control from “traditional” school board candidates to an increase in “pro-reform” board members.
Conclusions
The PMM is accompanied by heightened interest as well as an influx of out-of-state actors in educational policy making and the provision of public education. Unprecedented levels of campaign contributions suggest that state and local school board elections may be one of the primary mechanisms through which interest groups influenced post-Katrina educational governance. Out-of-state campaign contributions were mostly in support of pro-portfolio candidates. There appears to be tangible national support for the PMM that may play a crucial role in sustaining these reforms.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Act 35, LA. REV. STAT. Ann. §39732(B)(v)(aa) (2005).
2.
AdamsB. (2008). Fund-raising coalitions in school board elections. Education and Urban Society, 40(4), 411—427.
3.
AkersJ. M. (2012). Separate and unequal: The consumption of public education in post- Katrina New Orleans. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 36(1), 29—48.
4.
AlsburyT. L. (2004). Does school board turnover matter? Revisiting critical variables in the dissatisfaction theory of American democracy. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 7(4), 357—377.
5.
AlsburyT. L. (2008). School board member and superintendent turnover and the influence on student achievement: An application of the dissatisfaction theory. Leadership & Policy in Schools, 7(2), 202—229.
6.
AuW., & FerrareJ. 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), 1—24.
7.
BallS. J. (2008). New philanthropy, new networks and new governance in education. Political Studies, 56(4), 747—765.
8.
BerkmanM. B., & PlutzerE. (2005). Ten thousand democracies. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
9.
BulkleyK. E., & HenigJ. R. (2015). Local politics and portfolio management models: National reform ideas and local control. Peabody Journal of Education, 90(1), 53—83.
10.
BulkleyK. E., HenigJ. R., & LevinH. M. (2010). Between public and private: Politics, governance, and the new portfolio models for urban school reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
11.
BurasK. L. (2011). Race, charter schools, and conscious capitalism: On the spatial politics of Whiteness as property (and the unconscionable assault on Black New Orleans). Harvard Educational Review, 81(2), 296—331.
12.
BurasK. L. (2014). Charter schools, race, and urban space: Where the market meets grassroots resistance. New York, NY: Routledge.
13.
BurchP. (2010). Convergence or collision: Portfolio districts, education markets, and federal education policy. In BulkleyK. E., HenigJ. R., & LevinH. M. (Eds.), Politics, governance, and the new portfolio models for urban school reform (pp. 251—276). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
14.
CampbellA. (1960). Surge and decline: A study of electoral change. Public Opinion Quarterly, 24(3), 397—418.
15.
CampbellA. L. (2003). How policies make citizens: Senior political activism and the American welfare state. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
16.
Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876 (2010).
17.
CohenM. D., MarchJ. G., & OlsenJ. P. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(1), 1—25.
CowenJ., & StrunkK. (2014). How do teachers' unions influence education policy? What we know and what we need to learn (Working paper). The Education Policy Center at Michigan State University, East Lansing.
DeBrayE., ScottJ., LubienskiC., & JabbarH. (2014). Intermediary organizations in charter school policy coalitions evidence from New Orleans. Educational Policy, 28(2), 175—206.
24.
DelpitL. D. (2012). Multiplication is for White people: Raising expectations for other people's children. New York, NY: New Press.
25.
DingersonL. (2006). Dismantling a community timeline. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
26.
FisherJ. S. (1991). A profile of Texas public school board members and factors influencing them to run for the office of school board trustee. Denton, TX: UNT Digital Library. Retrieved from http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc277790/
27.
GardaR. (2011). The politics of education reform: Lessons from New Orleans. Journal of Law and Education, 40(1), 57—104.
28.
GrossmanG. M., & HelpmanE. H. (2001). Special interest politics. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.
29.
HatchJ. A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in education settings. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
30.
HenigJ. R. (2010). Portfolio management models and the political economy of contracting regimes. In BulkleyK. E., HenigJ. R., & LevinH. M. (Eds.), Politics, governance, and the new portfolio model for urban school reform (pp. 307—321). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
31.
HenigJ. R. (2013). The end of exceptionalism in American education: The changing politics of school reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
32.
HenigJ. R., & BulkleyK. E. (2013). Where public meets private. In BulkleyK. E., HenigJ. R., & LevinH. M. (Eds.), Politics, governance, and the new portfolio model for urban school reform (pp. 323—340). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
33.
HessF. M. (2008a). Looking for leadership: Assessing the case for mayoral control of urban school systems. American Journal of Education, 114(3), 219—245.
34.
HessF. (2008b). Money, interest groups, and school board elections. The future of school board governance: Relevancy and revelation. In AlsburyT. L. (Ed.), The future of school board governance: Relevancy and revelation (pp. 137—154). New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
HillP. T., PierceL., & GuthrieJ. (1997). Reinventing public education: How contracting can transform America's schools. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
39.
Holley-WalkerD. (2007). The accountability cycle: The Recovery School District Act and New Orleans charter schools. Connecticut Law Review, 40, 125—163.
40.
IannacconeL., & LutzF. W. (1995). The crucible of democracy: The local arena. In ScribnerJ. D., & LaytonD. H. (Eds.), The study of educational politics: The 1994 Commemorative Yearbook of the Politics of Education Association (1969–1994) (pp. 39—52). Washington, DC: Falmer Press.
KirstM. W., & WirtF. M. (2009). The political dynamics of American education: Richmond, CA: McCutchan.
43.
KingdonJ. W. (2011). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (Updated 2nd ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.
44.
KleinN. (2007). The shock doctrine: The rise of disaster capitalism. New York, NY: Macmillan.
45.
LedouxE., & BurlingameM. (1973). The Iannaccone and Lutz model of school board change: A replication in New Mexico. Educational Administration Quarterly, 9(3), 48—65.
46.
LeeD., & StedrakL. J. (2013). Perception of school board effectiveness in the southeast. Delta Journal of Education, 3(1), 24—41.
47.
LevinH. M. (2004). Multiple “choice” questions: The road ahead. In EpsteinN. (Ed.), Who's in charge here? The tangled web of school governance and policy (pp. 228—255). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
48.
LevinH. M., DaschbachJ., & PerryA. (2010). A diverse education provider: New Orleans. In BulkleyK. E., HenigJ. R., & LevinH. M. (Eds.), Between public and private: Politics, governance, and the portfolio models for urban school reform (pp. 165–194). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
49.
LutzF. W. (1975). School boards as socio-cultural systems. In CistoneP. J. (Ed.), Understanding school boards. Lexington, MA: D. C. Health.
50.
LutzF. W., & IannacconeL. (1986). The dissatisfaction theory of American democracy: A guide for politics in local school districts. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of School Administrators, San Francisco, CA.
51.
LutzF. W., & IannacconeL. (2008). The dissatisfaction theory of American democracy. In AlsburyT. L. (Eds.), The future of school board governance: Relevance and revelation (pp. 3—24). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
52.
MalenB. (2011). An enduring issue: The relationship between political democracy and educational effectiveness. In DouglasR. L. C., MitchellE., & ShippsD. (Eds.), Shaping education policy: Power and process (pp. 23—60). New York, NY: Routledge.
53.
MaltzmanF., & ShipanC. R. (2008). Change, continuity, and the evolution of the law. American Journal of Political Science, 52(2), 252—267.
54.
McDonnellL. M. (2009). Repositioning politics in education's circle of knowledge. Educational Researcher, 38(6), 417—427.
55.
McDonnellL. M. (2013). Educational accountability and policy feedback. Educational Policy, 27(2), 170–189.
56.
McDonnellL. M., & WeatherfordM. S. (2013). Evidence use and the Common Core State Standards movement: From problem definition to policy adoption. American Journal of Education, 120(1), 1—25.
57.
McEachinA., WelshR, & BrewerD. (2016). The variation in student achievement and behavior within a portfolio management model: Early results from New Orleans. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 38(4), 1—23.
58.
MoeT. (2005). Power and political institutions. Perspectives on Politics, 3(2), 215—233.
59.
PatashnikE. M. (2008). Reforms at risk: What happens after major policy changes are enacted. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
60.
PatashnikE. M., & ZelizerJ. E. (2013). The struggle to remake politics: Liberal reform and the limits of policy feedback in the contemporary American state. Perspectives on Politics, 11(4), 1071—1087.
61.
PowellL. (2013). The influence of campaign contributions on legislative policy. The Forum, 11(3), 339—355.
62.
RadaR. D., & CarlsonR. O. (1985, April). Community dissatisfaction and school governance. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
63.
ReckhowS. (2012). Follow the money: How foundation dollars change public school politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
ResnickM. A., & BryantA. L. (2008). School boards and the power of the public. In GoogladJ., SoderR., & McDanielB. (Eds.), Education and the making of a democratic people (pp. 161—180). New York, NY: Routledge.
66.
RoseH., & SonstelieJ. (2010). School board politics, school district size, and the bargaining power of teachers' unions. Journal of Urban Economics, 67(3), 438—450.
67.
ScottJ. (2009). The politics of venture philanthropy in charter school policy and advocacy. Educational Policy, 23(1), 106—136.
68.
ScottJ., LubienskiC., & DeBray-PelotE. (2009). The politics of advocacy in education. Educational Policy, 23(1), 3—14.
69.
StoneC. N. (2001). Civic capacity and urban education. Urban Affairs Review, 36(5), 595—619.
70.
StoneC. N., HenigJ. R., JonesB. D., & PierannunziC. (2001). Building civic capacity: The politics of reforming urban schools. Studies in government and public policy. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
71.
TyackD. B., & CubanL. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public school reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
72.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). Profile of general population and housing characteristics: 2010; 2010 Demographic profile data. Retrieved from http://factfinder.census.gov/
WalserN. (2009). The essential school board book: Better governance in the age of accountability. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
75.
WeningerT., & StoutR. (1989). Dissatisfaction theory: Policy change as a function of school board member-superintendent turnover. Educational Administration Quarterly, 25(2), 162—180.
76.
WilliamsD. R., ShinnC., NishishibaM., & MorganD. (2002). Toward an understanding of civic capacity: An anatomy of community issues that matter to students. Journal of Public Affairs, 6(Suppl. 1), 241—263.
