This research examines how the conservative movement has used both conservative think tanks and the media to gain entry into the field of education policy. The study examines how the conservative movement has attempted to use think tanks as legitimating organizations to enter the education policy arena by (a) measuring the historical growth in the number of conservative think tanks focused on education policy, (b) situating that growth within the larger context of efforts on the part of the conservative movement to bring free market ideas to education, and (c) analyzing and comparing conservative think tank media presence to that of centrist and progressive think tanks and university-based education-policy centers. Findings indicate that conservative think tanks produced the largest number of education media citations, followed by centrist think tanks. Liberal/progressive think tanks and university-based education-policy centers had little to no media presence.
AltheideD.GrimesJ. (2005). War programming: The propaganda project and the Iraq war. The Sociological Quarterly, 46, 617-643.
2.
AppleM. (2004). Creating difference: Neo-liberalism, neo-conservatism and the politics of educational reform. Educational Policy, 18(1), 12-44.
3.
AppleM. (2006). Educating the “Right” way: Markets, standards, god, and inequality. New York, NY: Routledge.
4.
AppleM. (2011). Democratic education in neoliberal and neoconservative times. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 21(1), 21-31.
5.
BlundellJ. (2003). Waging the war of ideas. London, UK: The Institute of Economic Affairs.
6.
BraceyG. W. (2007). Reports, reports. Phi Delta Kappan, 88, 718-720.
7.
BranamC. (2001, December19). Report on charter schools inconclusive; Bentonville group is pleased with study, cites parents; satisfaction. Arkansas Democrat Gazette, p. B1.
8.
BurasK. L.AppleM. (2008). Radical disenchantments: neoconservatives and the disciplining of desire in an anti-Utopian era. Comparative Education, 44, 291-304.
9.
CallahanD. (1999). $1 billion for ideas: Conservative think tanks in the 1990’s. Washington, DC: National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy.
10.
ChubbJ. E.MoeT. M. (1990). Politics, markets, and America’s schools. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
11.
Condliffe LagemannE. (1989). The politics of knowledge: The Carnegie corporation, philanthropy, and public policy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
12.
CovingtonS. (1997). Moving a public agenda: The strategic philanthropy of conservative foundations. Washington, DC: National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy.
13.
CrossC. T. (2004). Political education: National policy comes of age. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
14.
D’SouzaD. (2001, March15). Digital divide is skills, not access. Chicago Sun Times, p. 61.
15.
DavisG. F.McAdamD.ScottW. R.ZaldM. N. (Eds.). (2005). Social movements and organization theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
16.
DebrayE. H. (2006). Politics, ideology & education: Federal policy during the Clinton and Bush administrations. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
17.
Debray-PelotE. HLubienskiC. E.ScottJ. T. (2007). The institutional landscape of interest group politics and school choice. Peabody Journal of Education, 82(2-3), 204-230.
18.
DeBray-PelotE. H. (2007). School choice and educational privatization initiatives in the 106th and 107th congresses: An analysis of policy formation and political ideologies. Teachers College Record, 109, 927-972.
19.
Debray-PelotE. H.McGuinnP. (2009). The new politics of education: Analyzing the federal education policy landscape in the post-NCLB era. Educational Policy, 23(1), 15-42.
20.
DocksaiR. F. (1981). “Reshaping the federal role in education.” In HeatherlyC. L. (Ed.), Mandate for leadership: Policy management in a conservative administration (pp. 163-211). Washington, DC: The Heritage Foundation.
21.
DolnyM. (2006). Study finds first drop in think tank cites: Progressive groups see biggest decline. Extra! Retrieved from http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2897
22.
DolnyM. (2007). Think tanks sources fall, but left gains slightly: Progressive groups still a small slice. Extra! Retrieved from http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3129
23.
DolnyM. (2008). The incredible shrinking think tank: Third year in a row of declining citations. Extra! Retrieved from http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3322
24.
DolnyM. (2009). Right ebbs, left gains as media “experts”: Think tank balance still skews right. Extra! Retrieved from http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3857
25.
DowlingJ.PfefferJ. (1975). Organizational legitimacy: Social values and organizational behavior. The Pacific Sociological Review, 18(1), 122-136.
26.
EasterbrookG. (1986). Ideas move nations: How conservative think tanks have helped to transform the terms of political debate. Atlantic Monthly, 257, 66-80.
27.
EdwardsL. (1997). The power of ideas: The heritage foundation at 25 years. Ottawa, IL: Jameson Books.
28.
EmeryK. (2007). Corporate control of public school goals: High-stakes testing in its historical perspective. Teacher Education Quarterly, 34(2), 25-44.
29.
EmeryK.OhanianS. (2004). Why is corporate America bashing our public schools?Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
30.
FabricantM.FineM. (2012). Charter schools and the corporate makeover of public education: What’s at stake?New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
31.
FormainiR. (1990). The myth of scientific public policy. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
32.
FranckM. (2001, December31). Parents getting vouchers say they are happy with private schools. St. Louis Post Dispatch, p. E1.
33.
FriedmanM. (1982). Capitalism and freedom. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
34.
FriedmanM.FriedmanR. (1980). Free to choose: A personal statement. New York, NY: Harcourt.
35.
GabbardD. (Ed.). (2007). Knowledge and power in the global economy: The effects of school reform in a neoliberal/neoconservative age. New York, NY: Routledge.
36.
GabbardD.AtkinsonT. (2007). Stossel in America: A case study of the neoliberal/neoconservative assault on public schools and teachers. Teacher Education Quarterly, 34(2), 85-109.
37.
GamsonW. (1975). The strategy of social protest. Homewood, IL: Dorsey.
38.
GamsonW.WolfsfeldG. (1993). Movements and the media as interacting systems. American Academy of Political and Social Science, 528, 114-125.
39.
GirouxH. (2008). Against the terror of neoliberalism: Politics beyond the age of greed. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.
40.
GrimesC. (1997). Whither the civic journalism bandwagon?Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 2(3), 125-131.
GuttmanD.WillnerB. (1976). The shadow government: The government’s multi-billion-dollar giveaway of its decision-making powers to private management consultants, “experts,” and think tanks. New York, NY: Pantheon Books.
43.
HaasE. (2004). The news media and the heritage foundation: Promoting education advocacy at the expense of authority. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 2(2), 98-147.
44.
HaasE. (2007). False equivalency: Think tank references on education in the news media. Peabody Journal of Education, 82, 63-102.
45.
HaasE.MolnarA.SerranoR. (2002). Media impact of think tank education publications 2001. Tempe, AZ: Education Policy Studies Laboratory.
46.
HarveyD. (2007). A brief history of neoliberalism. UK: Oxford University Press.
47.
HayekF. A. (2007). The road to serfdom. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
48.
HellebustL. (2001). Think tank directory: A guide to independent nonprofit public policy research organizations. Topeka, KS: Government Research Service.
49.
HenryT. (2001, December7). Study finds skimpy evidence for vouchers. USA Today, p. 15A.
JacksonD. Z. (2006, June28). Who’s really graduating?Boston Globe, p. A13.
58.
JenkinsJ. C. (1983). Resource mobilization theory and the study of social movements. Annual Review of Sociology, 9, 527-553.
59.
JenningsJ. F. (1998). Why national standards and tests? Politics and the quest for better schools. New York, NY: SAGE.
60.
KornfeldJ. (2005). Framing the conversation: Social studies education and the neoconservative agenda. The Social Studies, 96(4), 143-148.
61.
KovacsP.BoylesD. (2005). Institutes, foundations and think tanks: Neoconservative influences on U.S. public schools. Public Resistance, 1(1), 1-40.
62.
KovacsP.ChristieH. K. (2008). The Gates’ foundation and the future of U.S. public education: A call for scholars to counter misinformation campaigns. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 6(2), 1-20.
63.
KrehelyJ.HouseM.KernanE. (2004). Axis of ideology: Conservative foundations and public policy. Washington, DC: National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy.
64.
LeyvaR. (2009). “No child left behind: A neoliberal repackaging of social darwinism.” Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 7(1), 364-381.
65.
LipsD. (2006, June21). Waiting for a quality education. Washington Times, p. A19.
66.
LuggC. A. (2000). For god and country: Conservatism and American school policy. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing.
67.
MarzianiE. (2001, June6). More mentors sought for male minorities. Washington Times, p. Part A.
68.
McCaffertyP. (2010). Forging a “neoliberal pedagogy”: The “enterprising education” agenda in schools. Critical Social Policy, 30, 541-563.
69.
McCarthyJ. D. (1977). Resource mobilization and social movements: A partial theory. The American Journal of Sociology, 82, 1212-1241.
McDonaldL. (2008). The rise of conservative think tanks: The debate over ideas, research and strategy in public education policy. Dissertation Abstracts International, 69, 2479. (ISSN: 0419-4209)
72.
McGannJ. G. (1992). Academics to ideologues; A brief history of the public policy research industry. Political Science & Politics, 25, 733-740.
73.
McGannJ. G.WeaverR. K. (2002). Think tanks and civil societies: Catalysts for ideas and action. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishing.
74.
McGuinnP. J. (2006). No child left behind and the transformation of federal education policy, 1965-2005. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press.
75.
NashG. H. (1998). The conservative intellectual movement in America. Wilmington, NC: Intercollegiate Studies Institute.
76.
O’ConnorA. (2007). Social science for what? Philanthropy and the social question in a world turned rightside up. New York, UK: Russell Sage Foundation.
77.
ParsonsT. (1956). Suggestions for a sociological approach to the theory of organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1, 63-85.
78.
PedroniT. C. (2006). “Acting neoliberal: Is Black support for vouchers a rejection of progressive educational values?”Educational Studies, 40, 265-278.
PrattC. (2006, December4). Detroit eyes supreme court cases: Activists fear return to inequality in schools. Detroit Free Press, p. B1.
81.
RavitchD. (2001). Left back: A century of battles over school reform. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
82.
RavitchD. (2010, March9). Why I changed my mind about school reform. Wall Street Journal, p. 21.
83.
RavitchD. (2011). “The death and life of the great American school system: How testing and choice are undermining education.”New York, NY: Basic Books.
84.
RicciD. M. (1993). The transformation of American politics, the new Washington and the rise of think tanks. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
85.
RichA. (2001). The politics of expertise in congress and the news media. Social Science Quarterly, 82, 583-601.
86.
RichA. (2004). Think tanks, public policy, and the politics of expertise. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
87.
RichA. (2005). War of ideas: Why mainstream and liberal foundations and the think tanks they support are losing in the war of ideas in American politics. Stanford Social Innovation Review Spring, 3(1), 18-25.
88.
RichA.WeaverR. K. (2000). Think tanks in the U.S. media. International Journal of Press/Politics, 5, 81-103.
89.
SchemoD. J. (2001, December9). Voucher study indicates no steady gains in learning. New York Times, p. 55.
90.
ScottR. W. (2008). Institutions and organizations: Ideas and interests (3rd Edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
91.
ShillerJ. (2011). Marketing small schools in New York City: A critique of neoliberal school reform. Educational Studies, 47(2), 160-173.
92.
SimonW. E. (1978). A time for truth. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
93.
SmithJ. (1991). The idea brokers, think tanks and the rise of the new policy elite. New York, NY: Free Press.
94.
SpringJ. (2005). Political agendas for education: From the religious right to the green party. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
95.
SteinfelsP. (1979). The neoconservatives, the men who are changing America’s politics. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
96.
StoneD. (1996). Capturing the political imagination: Think tanks and the policy process. New York, NY: Routledge.
97.
StoneD. (2007). Recycling bins, garbage cans or think tanks? Three myths regarding policy analysis institutes. Public Administration, 85, 259-278.
98.
SuchmanM. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. The Academy of Management Review, 20, 571-610.
99.
SungY. (2010). Markets, equality and democratic education: Confronting the neoliberal and libertarian reconceptualisations of education. Perspectives in Education, 28(4), 72-79.
100.
TierneyJ. (2001, December11). The Big City G.I. stands tall again (12 Inches). New York Times, p. 1.
101.
TillyC. (1978). From mobilization to revolution. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
102.
TorresC. (2010). Struggling for the soul of the nation: Educational policy, democratic leadership, and radical democracy in neoliberal times. Scholar-Practitioner Quarterly, 4, 338-341.
103.
WatkinsW. (2011). The assault on public education: Confronting the politics of corporate school reform. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
104.
WeberM. (1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology. Berkeley: University of California Press.
105.
WeissC. H. (1977). Research for policy’s sake: The enlightenment function of social research. Policy Analysis, 3, 531-545.
106.
WeissC. H. (1986). The circuitry of enlightenment: Diffusion of social science research to policy makers. Knowledge, 8, 274-282.
107.
WeissC. H. (1991). Organizations for policy analysis: Helping government think. New York, NY: SAGE.
108.
WelnerK. G. (2011). Free market think tanks and the marketing of education policy. Dissent, 58, 39-43.
109.
WelnerK. G.HincheyP. H.MolnarA.WeitzmanD. (Eds.). (2010). Think tank research quality: Lessons for policymakers, the media, and the public. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
110.
WilsonS. (2009, March11). Obama says public schools must improve. The Washington Post, p. A01.
111.
YerginD.StanislawJ. (2002). The commanding heights: The battle for the world economy. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
112.
YettickH. (2009). The research that reaches the public: Who produces the educational research mentioned in the News Media?Boulder, CO: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit.
113.
YonghoiS. (2004). Freelance op-ed pieces show newspapers’ political slant. Newspaper Research Journal, 25(3), 38-51.
114.
ZaldM. N.McCarthyJ. (1987). Social movements in an organizational society. New York, NY: Transaction Publishers.
