This article analyzes one intermediary organization. It draws on critical policy studies to frame the agency’s behaviors amid a discourse of managerialism in the public sector, and critical studies of education markets to explain the relationships between its reforms and education policy. Findings illustrate how the intermediary enacted managerial data monitoring systems as the core drivers of its reforms; how it framed leadership and teaching as reductive, managerialist pursuits; and why its reliance on business-inspired logics, roles, and language enabled it to compete in a marketplace and preserve its industry niche. In this way, its behaviors resembled those of the “efficiency experts” during the industrial revolution. The result was an intermediary that erroneously equated data with professional judgment, and that guided decisions based not on a century’s worth of evidence about the limitations of purely managerial reforms, but on an enduring ideological faith in technocratic solutions to complex social problems.
AppleM. (2007). Education, markets, and an audit culture. International Journal of Educational Policies, 1, 4-19.
2.
BallS. J. (1994). Educational reform: A critical and post-structural approach. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
3.
BallS. J. (2001). Performativities and fabrications in the education economy: Towards the performative society. In GleesonD.HusbandsC. (Eds.), The performing school: Managing, teaching, and learning in a performance culture (pp. 210-226). London, England: Routledge.
4.
BerendsM.KirbyS.NaftelS.McKelveyC. (2001). Implementation and performance in New American schools: Three years into scale-up. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
5.
BogdanR.BiklenS. (1998). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
6.
BormanG.HewesG.OvermanL.BrownS. (2003). Comprehensive school reform and achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 73, 125-230.
7.
BurchP. (2009). Hidden markets: The new education privatization. New York, NY: Routledge.
8.
CallahanR. E. (1962). Education and the cult of efficiency: A study of the social forces that have shaped the administration of the public schools. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
9.
ClarkeJ.GewirtzS.McLaughlinE. (2000). New managerialism, new welfare?London, England: SAGE.
10.
CoburnC. (2001). Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate reading policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23, 145-170.
11.
CoburnC. (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, 23-52.
12.
CorrentiR.RowanB. (2007). Opening up the black box: Literacy instruction in schools participating in three comprehensive school reform programs. American Educational Research Journal, 44, 298-338.
13.
CubanL. (1988). The managerial imperative and the practice of leadership in schools. Albany: State University of New York Press.
14.
DatnowA.HonigM. (2008). Introduction to the special issue on scaling up teaching and learning improvement in urban districts: The promises and pitfalls of external assistance providers. Peabody Journal of Education, 83, 323-327.
15.
DesimoneL.PorterA.BirmanB.GaretM.YoonK. (2002). How do district management and implementation strategies relate to the quality of the professional development that districts provide to teachers?Teachers College Record, 104, 1265-1312.
16.
ExworthyM.HalfordS. (1999). Professionals and the new managerialism in the public sector. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
17.
FinniganK.BitterC.O’DayJ. (2009). Improving low-performing schools through external assistance: Lessons from Chicago and California. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 17(7). Retrieved July2, 2013, fromhttp://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/9/9.
18.
GewirtzS. (2002). The managerial school: Post-welfarism and social justice in education. London, England: Routledge.
19.
GunterH. (1997). Rethinking education: The consequences of Jurassic management. London, England: Cassell.
20.
GunterH. (2001). Leaders and leadership in education. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
21.
HillH. (2001). Policy is not enough: Language and the interpretation of state standards. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 289-318.
22.
HonigM. (2004). The new middle management: Intermediary organizations in education policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26, 65-87.
23.
HonigM.IkemotoG. (2008). Adaptive assistance for learning improvement efforts: The case of the Institute for Learning. Peabody Journal of Education, 83, 328-363.
24.
LipmanP. (2004). High stakes education: Inequality, globalization, and school reform. New York, NY: Routledge.
25.
LipmanP. (2011). The new political economy of urban education: Neoliberalism, race and the right to the city. New York, NY: Routledge.
26.
LubienskiC.ScottJ.DeBrayE. (2011). The rise of intermediary organizations in knowledge production, advocacy, and educational policy. Teachers College Record, ID No. 16487. Available from http://www.tcrecord.org
27.
MacIverM.StringfieldS. (2000). Privatized delivery of instructional services for urban public school students placed at risk. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22, 375-382.
28.
MarshJ. (2007). Democratic dilemmas: Joint work, education politics, and community. Albany: State University of New York Press.
29.
MarshJ.KerrK.IkemotoG.DarilekH.SuttorpM.ZimmerR.BarneyH. (2005). The role of districts in fostering instructional improvement: Lessons from three urban districts partnered with the Institute for Learning. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
30.
McLaughlinM. (2006). Implementation research in education: Lessons learned, lingering questions, and new opportunities. In HonigM. (Ed.), New directions in education policy implementation: Confronting complexity (pp. 209-228). New York: State University of New York Press.
31.
RenéeM.TrujilloT. (2014). The trouble with federal turnaround policies and their impact on low-scoring schools. In GorskiP.ZenkovK. (Eds.), The big lies of school reform: Finding better solutions for the future of public education (pp. 153-168). New York, NY: Routledge.
32.
RowanB. (2002). The ecology of school improvement: Notes on the school improvement industry in the United States. Journal of Educational Change, 3, 283-314.
33.
ShippsD.SconzertK. (1999). The Chicago Annenberg Challenge: The first three years. Chicago, IL: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
34.
SmylieM.CorcoranT. (2006, April). Nonprofit organizations and the promotion of evidence-based practice. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
35.
ThruppM.WillmottR. (2003). Education management in managerialist times: Beyond the textual apologists. Berkshire, UK: Open University Press.
36.
TrujilloT.WoulfinS. (in press). Equity-oriented reform amid standards-based accountability: A qualitative comparative analysis of an intermediary’s instructional practices. American Educational Research Journal.
37.
TyackD. (1974). The one best system: A history of American urban education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
38.
TyackD.CubanL. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public school reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
39.
WechslerM.FriedrichL. (1997). The role of mediating organizations for school reform: Independent agents or district dependents. Journal of Education Policy, 12, 385-401.
