This article examines parent engagement in a Los Angeles portfolio district reform. Based on data from a 3-year study, we use the lens of democratic theory to examine the design and implementation of mechanisms seeking parent input in the selection of plans to operate low-performing and new schools. We find that despite significant efforts to move toward a more deliberative model over time, the process remained primarily interest-based in most cases, due in large part to structural constraints, limited access to information, and mistrust. The article concludes with implications for policy, practice, and research.
AbramsL. S.GibbsJ. T. (2002). Disrupting the logic of home-school relations: Parent involvement strategies and practices of inclusion and exclusion. Urban Education, 37, 384-407.
2.
AllensworthE. M.BrykA. S.SebringP. (2010, August). The influence of community context and social capital on urban school improvement, evidence from ChicagoPaper presented at the Meetings of the American Sociological Association, Atlanta, GA.
3.
AndersonG. L. (1998). Toward authentic participation: Deconstructing the discourses of participatory reforms in education. American Educational Research Journal, 35, 571-603.
4.
AscherC. (1996). Hard Lessons. Public Schools and Privatization. New York, NY: Twentieth Century Fund Press.
5.
AuerbachS. (2007). Visioning parent engagement in urban schools. Journal of School Leadership, 17, 699-734.
6.
AverillJ. B. (2002). Matrix analysis as a complementary analytic strategy in qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Health Research, 12, 855-866.
7.
BeltranR.CruzS.GuevaraM.HolmquistE.LoganR. (2011). Los Angeles Unified School District Public School Choice 2.0 advisory vote recommendation process. Los Angeles, CA: League of Women Voters of Los Angeles.
8.
BenhabibS. (1996). Democracy and difference: Contesting the boundaries of the political (Vol. 31). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
9.
BohmanJ. (1997). Deliberative democracy: Essays on reason and politics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
10.
BrykA. S. (2010). Organizing schools for improvement. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(7), 23-30.
11.
BrykA. S.SchneiderB. L. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. New York, NY: Russell Sage.
12.
BrykA. S.SebringP. B.KerbowD.RollowS.EastonJ. Q. (1998). Charting Chicago school reform: Democratic localism as a lever for change. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
13.
CohenJ. (1989). Deliberation and democratic legitimacy. In BohmanJ.RehgW. (Eds.), Deliberative democracy: Essays on reason and politics (pp. 407-437). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
14.
CohenJ. (1997). Procedure and substance in deliberative democracy. In BohmanJ.RehgW. (Eds.), Deliberative democracy: Essays on reason and politics (pp. 407-437). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
15.
CohenJ. (1999). Trust, voluntary association, and workable democracy: The contemporary American discourse of civil society. In WarrenM.E. (Ed.), Democracy and trust (pp. 233-237). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
16.
DeasyJ. (2011, April15). Recommended changes to the PSC process. LAUSD Inter-Office Correspondence, Office of the Superintendent. Los Angeles, CA: LAUSD.
17.
DeweyJ. (1927). The public and its problems. Athens, GA: Swallow Press.
18.
ElsterJ. (1997). The market and the forum: Three varieties of political theory. In BohmanJ.RehgW. (Eds.), Deliberative democracy: Essays on reason and politics (pp. 3-33). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
19.
EpsteinJ. L.DauberS. L. (1991). School programs and teacher practices of parent involvement in inner-city elementary and middle schools. The Elementary School Journal, 91, 289-305.
20.
EpsteinJ. L.SandersM. G.SheldonS. B.SimonB. S.SalinasK. C.JansornN. R.. . .GreenfeldM. D. (2008). School, family, and community partnerships: Your handbook for action. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
21.
FindersM.LewisC. (1994). Why some parents don’t come to school. Educational Leadership, 51, 50-54.
22.
FineM. (1993). [Ap]parent involvement: Reflections on parents, power, and urban public schools. & Responses. The Teachers College Record, 94, 682-729.
23.
FishkinJ. S.LuskinR. C. (2005). Experimenting with a democratic ideal: Deliberative polling and public opinion. Acta Politica, 40, 284-298.
24.
Flores AguilarY. (2009, March25). Public school choice: A new way at LAUSD. Motions/resolutions presented to the Los Angeles City Board of Education for consideration. Los Angeles, CA: Los Angeles Board of Educaiton.
25.
FungA. (2001). Accountable autonomy: Toward empowered deliberation in Chicago schools and policing. Politics & Society, 29, 73-104.
26.
FungA.WrightE. O. (2003). Deepening democracy: Institutional innovations in empowered participatory governance (Vol. 4): New York, NY: Verso Books.
27.
FurstenbergF. F. (1999). Managing to make it: Urban families and adolescent success. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
28.
GambettaD. (1998). “Claro!”: An essay on discursive machismo. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
29.
GoldE.SimonE.BrownC. (2002). Successful community organizing for school reform. Chicago, IL: Cross City Campaign for Urban School Reform.
30.
GutmannA.ThompsonD. F. (1996). Democracy and disagreement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
31.
GyurkoJ.HenigJ. R. (2010). Strong vision, learning by doing, or the politics of muddling through? In BulkleyK. E.HenigJ. R.LevinH. M. (Eds.), Between public and private: Politics, governance, and the new portfolio models for urban school reform. (pp. 91-126). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
32.
HardinR. (1999). Do we want trust in government? In WarrenM.E. (Ed.), Democracy and trust (pp. 22-41). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
33.
HenryM. (1996). Parent-school collaboration: Feminist organizational structures and school leadership. Albany: State University of New York Press.
34.
HeymannS. J.EarleA. (2000). Low-income parents: How do working conditions affect their opportunity to help school-age children at risk?American Educational Research Journal, 37, 833-848.
35.
HillP. T.CampbellC.GrossB. (2012). Strife and progress: Portfolio strategies for managing urban schools. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
36.
HonigM. (2006). Complexity and policy implementation. In HonigM. (Ed.), New directions in education policy implementation: Confronting complexity (pp. 1-24). Albany: State University of New York Press.
37.
LareauA. (1987). Social class differences in family-school relationships: The importance of cultural capital. Sociology of Education, 60, 73-85.
38.
LeCompteM. D.SchensulJ. J. (1999). Analyzing & interpreting ethnographic data. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.
39.
LevinH. M.DaschbachJ.PerryA. (2010). A diverse education provider. In BulkleyK. E.HenigJ. R.LevinH. M. (Eds.), Between public and private: Politics, governance, and the new portfolio models for urban school reform. (pp. 165-194). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
40.
LevineP.FungA.GastilJ. (2005). Future directions for public deliberation. Journal of Public Deliberation, 1, 1-13.
41.
LuskinR. C.FishkinJ. S.JowellR. (2002). Considered opinions: Deliberative polling in Britain. British Journal of Political Science, 32, 455-487.
42.
MalenB.OgawaR. T. (1988). Professional-patron influence on site-based governance councils: A confounding case study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 10, 251-270.
43.
MansbridgeJ. J. (1983). Beyond adversary democracy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
44.
MappK. L. (2003). Having their say: Parents describe why and how they are engaged in their children’s learning. School Community Journal, 13(1), 35-64.
45.
MarshJ. A. (2007). Democratic dilemmas: Joint work, education politics, and community. Albany: State University of New York Press.
46.
MarshJ. A.StrunkK. O.BushS. (2013). Portfolio district reform meets school turnaround: Early implementation findings from the Los Angeles Public School Choice Initiative. Journal of Educational Administration, 51, 498-527.
47.
McDonnellL.WeatherfordM. S. (2000). Practical deliberation in local school districts: A South Carolina experiment. Los Angeles: Center for the Study of Evaluation, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing, Graduate School of Education & Information Studies, University of California.
48.
Menefee-LibeyD. (2010). Neoliberal school reform in Chicago? In BulkleyK. E.HenigJ. R.LevinH. M. (Eds.), Between public and private: Politics, governance, and the new portfolio models for urban school reform. (pp. 55-90). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
49.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
50.
OrrM. (1996). Urban politics and school reform: The case of Baltimore. Urban Affairs Review, 31, 314-345.
PatemanC. (1975). Participation and democratic theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
53.
PattersonK. Y.CruzO. E. (2011). A report on the Public School Choice 2.0 advisory vote process. Los Angeles, CA: Families in Schools.
54.
PhillipsA. (1995). The politics of presence. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
55.
SchneiderB.ColemanJ. S. (1993). Parents, their children, and schools. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
56.
SchneiderM.BuckleyJ. (2002). What do parents want from schools? Evidence from the internet. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 133-144.
57.
SchumpeterJ. A. (1942). Capitalism, socialism, and democracy. New York, NY: Harper.
58.
ShirleyD. (1997). Community organizing for urban school reform. Austin: University of Texas Press.
59.
WaandersC.MendezJ. L.DownerJ. T. (2007). Parent characteristics, economic stress, and neighborhood context as predictors of parent involvement in preschool children’s education. Journal of School Psychology, 45, 619-636.
WarrenM. R. (2011). Building a political constituency for urban school reform. Urban Education, 46, 484-512.
62.
WeissH. B.MayerE.KreiderH.VaughanM.DearingE.HenckeR.PintoK. (2003). Making it work: Low-income working mothers’ involvement in their children’s education. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 879-901.
63.
YoungI. M. (1997). Difference as a resource for democratic communication. In BohmanJ.RehgW. (Eds.), Deliberative democracy: Essays on reason and politics (pp. 383-406). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
