Community organizing for education reform continues to expand across U.S. cities, and this article provides a framework for understanding how grassroots advocacy organizations influence local education policy. Comparing two landmark policy reforms achieved by advocates in California, we analyze the complicated role advocates have in reform that they initiate and see through to implementation. We highlight how political context, ideas about social change, and advocacy strategies interact in the advocacy process. We find advocates must agitate enough to compel change, while maintaining legitimacy with public officials who can institutionalize reform. A framework for analyzing local advocates’ work is particularly salient as community organizing for education reform continues to spread across US cities.
AndrewsK.EdwardsB. (2004). Advocacy organizations in the U.S. political process. Annual Review of Sociology, 30, 479-506.
2.
BardachE. (1977). The implementation game. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
3.
BenfordR.SnowD. A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 611-639.
4.
BrodkinM. (1989). Making children a priority of our local communities: 15 years of advocacy in San Francisco. San Francisco, CA: Coleman Advocates for Children and Youth.
5.
BrodkinM., & Coleman Advocates for Children and Youth. (1994). From sand boxes to ballot boxes: San Francisco’s landmark campaign to fund children’s services. San Francisco, CA: Coleman Advocates for Children and Youth.
CampbellJ. L. (2004). Institutional change and globalization. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
8.
CoburnC. E. (2005). The role of non-system actors in the relationship between policy and practice: The case of reading instruction in California. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27(1), 23-52.
9.
CohenD. (1990). A revolution in one classroom: The case of Mrs. Oublier. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12, 327-345.
10.
CubanL. (1998). How schools change reform: Redefining reform success and failure. Teachers College Record, 99, 453-477.
11.
DeBray-PelotE.McGuinnP. (2009). The new politics of education: Analyzing the federal education policy landscape in the post-NCLB era. Educational Policy, 23(1), 15-42.
12.
EvansM. P.ShirleyD. (2008). The development of collective moral leadership among parents through education organizing. New Directions for Youth Development, 117, 77-91.
13.
GinwrightS. (2003). Youth organizing: Expanding possibilities for youth development. New York, NY: Funders Collaborative on Youth Organizing.
14.
GinwrightS.NogueraP.CammarotaJ. (2006). Beyond resistance! Youth activism and community change. New York, NY: Routledge.
15.
GoldE.SimonE.BrownC. (2002). Successful community organizing for school reform. Chicago, IL: Cross City Campaign for Urban School Reform.
16.
GoodinR. (1989). The state as a moral agent. In HamlinA.PettitP. (Eds.), The good polity (pp. 123-39). Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
17.
HonigM. I. (2004). The new middle management: Intermediary organizations in education policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26(1), 65-87.
18.
HonigM. I. (2009). “External” organizations and the politics of urban educational leadership: The case of new small autonomous schools initiatives. Peabody Journal of Education, 84, 394-413.
19.
ItkonenT. (2009). Stories of hope and decline: Interest group effectiveness in national special education policy. Educational Policy, 23(1), 43-65.
20.
JohnsonJ. B. (2005, August31). U.S. census finds more are poor but numbers lacking health care remains steady. San Francisco Chronicle, p. A2.
21.
McAdamD.McCarthyJ. D.ZaldM. N. (1996). Introduction: Opportunities, mobilizing structures, and framing processes—Toward a synthetic, comparative perspective on social movements. In McAdamD.McCarthyJ. D.ZaldM. N. (Eds.), Comparative perspectives on social movements (pp. 1-22). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
22.
McLaughlinM. W. (1987). Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9, 171-178.
23.
McLaughlinM. W. (2006). Implementation research in education: Lessons learned, lingering questions and new opportunities. In HonigM. I. (Ed.), New directions in education policy implementation: Confronting complexity (pp. 209-228). Albany: The State University of New York Press.
24.
MedirattaK.ShahS.McAlisterS. (2009). Community organizing for stronger schools: Strategies and successes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
25.
OakesJ.RogersJ. (with LiptonM.). (2006). Learning power: Organizing for education and justice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
26.
PressmanJ.WildavskyA. (1984). Implementation (3rd ed.). Berkeley: University of California Press.
27.
SchneiderA.IngramH. (1993). Social construction of target populations: Implications for politics and policy. American Political Science Review, 87, 334-347.
28.
ShirleyD. (1997). Community organizing for urban school reform. Austin: University of Texas Press.
29.
ShirleyD. (2009). Community organizing and educational change: A reconnaissance. Journal of Educational Change, 10, 229-237.
30.
SnyderR. (2008). Faith-based organizing for youth: One organization’s district campaign for small schools policy. New Directions for Youth Development, 117, 93-107.
31.
SpillaneJ. P. (1998). State policy and the non-monolithic nature of the local school district: Organizational and professional considerations. American Educational Research Journal, 35(1), 33-63.
32.
SpillaneJ. P.GomezL. M.MeslerL. (2009). Notes on reframing the role of organizations in policy implementation. In SykesG.SchneiderB.PlankD. N. (Eds.), Handbook of education policy research (pp. 409-425). New York, NY: Routledge.
33.
SuC. (2009). Streetwise for book smarts: Grassroots organizing and education reform in the Bronx. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
34.
SuttonM.LevinsonB. (Eds.). (2001). Policy as practice: Toward a comparative sociocultural analysis of educational policy. Westport, CT: Ablex.
