In this article, we examine the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) as an example of a unique node within larger policy networks composed of new policy entrepreneurs (e.g., venture philanthropists, think tanks, private “edubusinesses” and their lobbyists, advocacy organizations, and social entrepreneurs). These new policy networks, through an array of new modalities of governance and political and discursive strategies, have come to exert an impressive level of influence on public policy in the last 30 years in the United States. We describe and analyze several model education bills that ALEC has promoted and describe the political and discursive strategies ALEC employs. We found that these strategies, which are employed by corporate leaders and largely Republican legislators, are aimed at a strategic alliance of neoliberal, neoconservative, libertarian, and liberal constituencies with the goal of privatizing and marketizing public education.
American Legislative Exchange Council. (n.d.-b). ALEC mission. Retrieved from www.alec.org/about-alec/
6.
AndersonG. L. (2001). Promoting educational equity in a period of growing social inequity: The silent contradictions of Texas reform discourse. Education and Urban Society, 53, 320-332.
7.
AndersonG. L. (2009). Advocacy leadership: Toward a post-reform agenda. New York, NY: Routledge.
8.
AppleM. (2001). Educating the “right” way: Markets, standards, God and inequality. New York, NY: Routledge Falmer Press.
9.
BallS. (2008). New philanthropy, new networks and new governance in education. Political Studies, 56, 747-765.
10.
BallS. (2009). Privatizing education, privatizing education policy, privatising educational research: Network governance and the “competition state.”Journal of Education Policy, 24, 83-99.
11.
BallS. (2010). New voices, new knowledges and the new politics of education research: The gathering of a perfect storm?European Educational Research Journal, 9, 124-137.
12.
BallS. (2012). Global education Inc.: New policy networks and the neo-liberal imaginary. London, England: Routledge.
13.
BerlinerD. (2009). Poverty and potential: Out-of-school factors and school success. Boulder, CO: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit. Retrieved from http://epicpolicy.org/publication/poverty-and-potential
14.
BevirM.RhodesR. A. W. (2003). Searching for civil society: Changing patterns of governance in Britain. Public Administration, 81, 41-62.
15.
BiestaG. (2007). Why “what works” won’t work: Evidence-based practice and the democratic deficit in educational research. Educational Theory, 57, 1-22.
16.
BoggsC. (2000). The end of politics: Corporate power and the decline of the public sphere. New York, NY: Guilford.
17.
BrennerN.TheodoreN. (2002). Cities and the geographies of “actually existing neoliberalism.”Antipode, 34, 349-379.
18.
BurchP. (2009). Hidden markets: The new education privatization. New York, NY: Routledge.
19.
BurnhamJ. (1941). The managerial revolution: What is happening to the world. New York, NY: John Day.
20.
BurrisV. (2008). The interlock structure of the policy-planning network and the right turn in U.S. state policy. Research in Political Sociology, 17, 1-35.
21.
CallahanR. (1962). Education and the cult of efficiency. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
ChubbJ.MoeT. (1990). Politics, markets, and America’s schools. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institute.
25.
CoffieldF. (2012). Why the McKinsey reports will not improve school Systems. Journal of Education Policy, 27, 131-149.
26.
Common Cause. (2011). Legislating under the influence: Money, power and the American legislative exchange council. Washington, DC: Author.
27.
CrawfordJ. (2007, June6). A Diminished Vision of Civil Rights: No Child Left Behind and the growing divide in how educational equity is understood. Education Week, 26(39), 31-40.
28.
CubanL. (2004). The blackboard and the bottom line: Why schools can’t be businesses. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
29.
DaviesW. (2010). Baldridge and education: A good (and popular) methodology that is being inappropriately applied. The Educational Forum, 74, 37-48.
30.
DeBrayE. (2006). Politics, ideology, and education: Federal policy during the Clinton and Bush administrations. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
31.
DeBray-PelotE.McGuinnP. (2009). The new politics of education: Analyzing the federal education policy landscape in the post-NCLB era. Educational Policy, 23, 15-42.
32.
DumasM. J.AndersonG. (2014). Qualitative research as policy knowledge: Framing policy problems and transforming education from the ground up. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22(11). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/1483
33.
EdelmanM. (1978). Political language: Words that succeed and policies that fail. New York, NY: Academic Press.
EngelM. (2000). The struggle for control of public education: Market ideology vs. democratic values. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University.
36.
EnlowR.LadnerM. (2005, January). School choice: A reform that works (The State Factor, pp. 1-15). Washington, DC: American Legislative Exchange Council.
37.
FaircloughN. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
38.
FriedmanM. (1962). Capitalism and freedom. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
39.
FusarelliL.JohnsonB. (2004). Educational governance and the new public management. Public Administration and Management, 9, 118-127.
40.
GoodsellC. T. (2004). The case for bureaucracy: A public administration polemic. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
41.
GoodwinM. (2009). Which networks matter in education governance? A reply to Ball’s “New Philanthropy, New Networks and New Governance in Education.”Political Studies, 57, 680-687.
42.
GramsciA. (1971). Selections from the Prison Notebooks. New York, NY: International Publishers.
GutsteinE.LipmanP. (2013). The rebirth of the Chicago Teachers Union and possibilities for a counter-hegemonic Education movement. Monthly Review, 65(2), 1-10.
46.
HarveyD. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
47.
HecloH. (1978). Issue networks and the executive establishment. In KingA. (Ed.), The New American political system (pp. 87-124). Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute.
48.
HeiligJ. V.JezS. J. (2010). Teach for America: A review of the evidence. Boulder: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit. Retrieved from http://epicpolicy.org/publication/teach-for-america
49.
HenryA. (2011). Ideology, power, and the structure of policy networks. The Policy Studies Journal, 39, 361-383.
50.
HillP. (2010). Learning as we go: Why school choice is worth the wait. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press.
51.
KaestleC.LodewickA. (Eds.). (2007). To educate a nation: Federal and national strategies of school reform. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
52.
KickertW. (1995). Steering at a distance: A new paradigm of public governance in Dutch higher education. Governance, 8, 135-157. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0491.1995.tb00202.x
53.
KingdonJ. W. (1995). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Harper Collins.
54.
KovaksP.ChristieH. K. (2009). 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.
LakoffG. (2008). Thinking points: Communicating our American values and vision. San Francisco, CA: Rockbridge Institute.
59.
LubienskiC.Jameson BrewerT. (2013). Review of report card on American education. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center.
60.
LubienskiC.ScottJ.RogersJ.WelnerD. (2012, September). Missing the target?: The parent trigger as a strategy for parent engagement and school reform. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center.
61.
MartinS. (1985). The new Right’s education agenda for the states: A legislator’s briefing book. Washington, DC: National Center for Policy Alternatives.
62.
MautnerG. (2010). Language and the market society: Critical reflections on discourse and dominance. London, England: Routledge.
63.
MazzoniT. L. (1991). Analyzing state school policymaking: An arena model. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31, 115-138.
64.
MazzoniT.L. (1994). State policy-making and school reform: influences and influentials. Journal of Educational Policy, 9(5), 53-73.
65.
MehtaJ. (2013). How paradigms create politics: The transformation of American educational policy, 1980-2001. American Educational Research Journal, 50, 285-324.
66.
MinowM. (2002). Partners, not rivals: Privatization and the public good. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
67.
MironG.UrschelJ. L.Yat AguilarM. A.DaileyB. (2011). Profiles of for-profit and nonprofit education management organizations: Thirteenth annual report, 2010-2011. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center. Retrieved from http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/EMO-profiles-10-11
68.
MiskelC.SongM. (2004). Passing Reading First: Prominence and process in and elite policy network. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26, 89-109.
69.
NatelsonR. (2011). Proposing constitutional amendments by a convention of the states: A handbook for state lawmakers. American Legislative Exchange Council.
O’ReillyD.ReedM. (2010). Leaderism: An evolution of managerialism in UK public service reform. Public Administration, 88, 960-978.
72.
OzgaJ. (2008). Governing knowledge: Research steering and research quality. European Educational Research Journal, 7, 261-272.
73.
ParkerR. (2007). Networked governance or just networks? Local governance of the knowledge economy in Limerick (Ireland) and Karlskrona (Sweden). Political Studies, 55, 113-132.
74.
PlankD.BoydW. L. (1994). Antipolitics, education, and institutional choice: The flight from democracy. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 263-281.
75.
PrasadM. (2006). The politics of free markets: The rise of neoliberal economic policies in Britain, France, Germany, and the United States. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
76.
ReichR. (1991). The work of nations. New York, NY: Knopf.
77.
RhodesR. A. W. (1997). Understanding governance: Policy networks, governance, reflexivity and accountability. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
RogersJ.TerriquezV. (2009). “More justice”: The role of organized labor in educational reform. Educational Policy, 23, 216-241.
81.
SabatierP.WeibleC. (2007). The advocacy coalition framework: Innovations and clarifications. In SabatierP. (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (2nd ed., pp. 189-220). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
82.
SaldanaJ. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
83.
SaltmanK. J. (2009). The rise of venture philanthropy and the ongoing neoliberal assault on public education: The Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation. Workplace: A Journal for Academic Labor, 16, 53-72.
84.
SaltmanK. J. (2010). The gift of education: Public education and venture philanthropy. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
85.
ScottJ. (2009). The politics of venture philanthropy in charter school policy and advocacy. Educational Policy, 23, 106-136.
86.
ScottJ. (2012, Winter). Educational movements, not market moments. Dissent, pp. 72-75.
87.
ScottJ.DiMartinoC. (2009). Public education under new management: A typology of educational privatization applied to New York City’s restructuring. Peabody Journal of Education, 84, 432-452.
88.
SelwynN. (2013, May25). Discourses of digital “disruption” in education: A critical analysis. Paper presented to Fifth International Roundtable on Discourse Analysis, City University, Hong Kong.
89.
SennettR. (1998). The corrosion of character: The personal consequences of work in the new capitalism. New York, NY: Norton.
90.
SitrinM. (2012). Everyday revolutions: Horizontalism and autonomy in Argentina. New York, NY: Zed Books.
91.
SlaughterS.RhoadesG. (2003). Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state, and higher education. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
92.
Souza SantosB. (2008). Another knowledge is possible: Beyond Northern Epsitemologies. London, England: Verso.
St. ClairR.BelzerA. (2007). In the Market for ideas: How reforms in the political economy of educational research in the US and UK promote market managerialism. Comparative Education, 43, 471-488.
95.
StoneD. (1989). Causal stories and the formation of policy agendas. Political Science Quarterly, 104(2), 281-300.
96.
UnderwoodJ. (2011, August8). Starving public education. The Nation, pp. 22-23.
WardS. (2011). The machinations of managerialism: New public management and the diminishing power of professionals. Journal of Cultural Economy, 4, 205-215.
99.
WelnerK. G.HincheyP.MolnarA.WeitzmanD. (Eds.). (2010). Think tank research quality: Lessons for policymakers, the media, and the public. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
100.
WilliamsonB. (2012). Centrifugal schooling: Third sector policy networks and the reassembling of curriculum policy in England. Journal of Education Policy, 27, 775-794.
