We examine the role of ideas in the politics of school choice policy and situate our study within scholarship that understands frames and logics as types of ideas operating in the foreground and background of policy debates. Our data are from a case study of political contention over portfolio management reform (in which a central office oversees a network of schools operating under varying forms of governance) in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. We find that frames and counterframes deployed by stakeholders are resonant with societal-level logics of community localism, market transaction, and state bureaucratic administration. For proponents of portfolio reform, diagnostic frames are drawn from logics of community and state, while prognostic frames are resonant with a market logic. For opponents, the association is flipped: diagnostic counterframes challenge a market logic, and logics of community and state inform prognostic counterframes. Our study demonstrates how ideational processes shape political contention in education reform.
AbramsS. (2016). Education and the commercial mindset. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
2.
BergmanP.McFarlinI. (2018). Education for all? A nationwide audit study of schools of choice (No. w25396). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
BriggsX. (2008). Democracy as problem solving: Civic capacity in communities across the globe. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
5.
BulkleyK. (2010). Portfolio management models in urban school reform. In BulkleyK.HenigJ.LevinH. (Eds.), Between public and private: Politics, governance, and the new portfolio models for urban school reform (pp. 3-26). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
6.
BulkleyK.HenigJ. (2015). Local politics and portfolio management models: National reform ideas and local control. Peabody Journal of Education, 90,53-83.
7.
BulkleyK.HenigJ.LevinH. (2010). Between public and private: Politics, governance, and the new portfolio models for urban school reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
8.
BulkleyK.MundellL.RifferM. (2004). Contracting out schools: The first year of the Philadelphia diverse provider model. Philadelphia, PA: Research for Action.
9.
CampbellJ. L. (2004). Institutional change and globalization. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
10.
CoburnC. (2006). Framing the problem of reading instruction: Using frame analysis to uncover the microprocesses of policy implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 43, 343-349.
11.
CohenJ.GoldenM. M.QuinnR.SimonE. (2018). Democracy thwarted or democracy at work? Local public engagement and the new education policy landscape. American Journal of Education, 124, 411-443.
12.
DiMaggioP. (1997). Culture and cognition. Annual Review of Sociology, 23,263-287.
13.
FongK.FaudeS. (2018). Timing is everything: Late registration and stratified access to school choice. Sociology of Education, 91, 242-262.
14.
FriedlandR.AlfordR. (1991). Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices and institutional contradictions. In PowellW.DiMaggioP. (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 232-266). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
15.
GillB.ZimmerR.ChristmanJ. B.BlancS. (2007). State takeover, school restructuring, private management, and student achievement in Philadelphia. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
16.
GlazerJ.MassellD.MaloneM. (2019). Charter schools in turnaround: Competing institutional logics in the Tennessee Achievement School District. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 41, 5-33.
17.
GoffmanE. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
18.
GoldE.ChristmanJ. B.HeroldB. (2006). Blurring the boundaries: A case study of private sector involvement in Philadelphia public schools. American Journal of Education, 113, 181-212.
GrossmanF. (2010). Dissent from within: How educational insiders use protest to create policy change. Educational Policy, 24, 655-686.
21.
HillP.CampbellC.GrossB. (2013). Strife and progress: Portfolio strategies for managing urban schools. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
22.
HillP.CampbellC.Menefee-LibeyD.DusseaultB.DeArmondM.GrossB. (2009). Portfolio school districts for big cities: An interim report. Center on Reinventing Public Education. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED506952.pdf
23.
HonigM. I. (2006). New directions in education policy implementation. Albany: State University of New York Press.
QuinnR.OelbergerC. R.MeyersonD. (2016). Getting to scale: Ideas, opportunities, and resources in the early diffusion of the charter management organization, 1999-2006. Teachers College Record, 118(9), 1-44.
26.
RavitchD. (2016). The death and life of the great American school system. New York, NY: Basic Books.
27.
RussellJ. (2011). From child’s garden to academic press: The role of shifting institutional logics in redefining kindergarten education. American Educational Research Journal, 48, 236-267.
28.
ShippsD. (2003). Pulling together: Civic capacity and urban school reform. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 841-878.
29.
SimonE.QuinnR.GoldenM.CohenJ. (2017). With our powers combined: Grassroots activism in Philadelphia. In FermanB. (Ed.), The fight for America’s schools (pp. 55-74). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
30.
SnowD.BenfordR. (1988). Ideology, frame resonance, and participant mobilization. In KlandermansB.KriesiH.TarrowS. (Eds.), International social movement research (pp. 197-218). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
31.
SnowD.BenfordR. (2005). Clarifying the relationship between framing and ideology. In JohnstonH.NoakesJ. (Eds.), Frames of protest: Social movements and the framing perspective (pp. 205-211). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
32.
SnowD.RochfordE.WordenS.BenfordR. (1986). Frame alignment processes, micromobilization, and movement participation. American Sociological Review, 51, 464-481.
33.
StoneC.HenigJ.JonesB.PierannunziC. (2001). Building civic capacity: The politics of reforming urban schools. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
34.
ThorntonP. (2004). Markets from culture: Institutional logics and organizational decisions in higher education publishing. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
35.
ThorntonP.OcasioW.LounsburyM. (2012). The institutional logics perspective. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
36.
WestbyD. (2005). Strategic imperative, ideology, and frames. In JohnstonH.NoakesJ. (Eds.), Frames of protest: Social movements and the framing perspective (pp. 217-235). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
37.
WoulfinS.DonaldsonM.GonzalesR. (2016). District leaders’ framing of educator evaluation policy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 52, 110-143.
38.
ZaldM. (1996). Culture, ideology, and strategic framing. In McAdamD.McCarthyJ.ZaldM. (Eds.), Comparative perspectives on social movements: Political opportunities, mobilizing structures, and cultural framings (pp. 261-274). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
