This study treats Indiana (2010-2018) as a case in which to examine media-based coverage, deliberation, and ethical and empirical framings as school choice reforms were being taken up and as they evolved and accelerated. Within this timeframe, Indiana transformed into a leading state in school choice reforms. Both repetitive and shifting justifications were noted, with these patterning roughly into three main phases. Arguments were much more frequently ideological than empirical in nature, and advocates generally (and especially in the first two phases) were observed as holding the upper hand, successfully using the media to frame the debate using their terms.
AllenK. (2011, February17). School vouchers bill advances to full Indiana House. South Bend Tribune. Retrieved from Nexis Uni.
2.
AllenK. (2017, January29). Indiana could offer preview of nationwide voucher program. South Bend Tribune. Retrieved from Nexis Uni.
3.
AndersonG. L.DonchikL. M. (2016). Privatizing schooling and policy making: The American Legislative Exchange Council and new political and discursive strategies of education governance. Educational Policy, 30, 322-364.
AuW.FerrareJ. J. (2014). Sponsors of policy: A network analysis of wealthy elites, their affiliated philanthropies, and charter school reform in Washington state. Teachers College Record, 116(8), 1-24.
6.
AuW.LubienskiC. (2016). The role of the Gates Foundation and the philanthropic sector in shaping the emerging education market: Lessons from the US on privatization of schools and education governance. In VergerA.LubienskiC.Steiner-KhamsiG. (Eds.), The global education industry (pp. 27-43). New York, NY: Routledge.
BantaM. (2016, November23). Unity the theme for state Legislature’s Organization Day. The Herald-Times. Retrieved from Nexis Uni.
9.
BerendsM.WaddingtonR. J. (2018). School choice in Indianapolis: Effects of charter, magnet, private, and traditional public schools. Education Finance and Policy, 13, 227-255. doi:10.1162/EDFP_a_00225
10.
BrandlJ. E. (1998). Governance and educational quality. In PetersonP. E.HasselB. C. (Eds.), Learning from school choice (pp. 55-81). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
11.
BridgeR. G.BlackmanJ. (1978). A study of alternatives in American education: Family choice in schooling (Vol. IV). Santa Monica, CA: Rand.
12.
CardenD. (2015, January17). Pence budget does little for Munster, region schools. The Times. Retrieved from Nexis Uni.
CavazosS. (2017, July5). The first major study of Indiana’s voucher program might not change much for the state’s strong pro-school choice legislature. Chalkbeat. Available from https://www.chalkbeat.org/
15.
CavazosS. (2018, February14). Indiana lawmakers aren’t cracking down on virtual charter schools despite calls for change. Chalkbeat. Available from https://www.chalkbeat.org/
16.
CitizenLink. (2011, April28). Landmark school choice bill heads to Indiana governor; Oklahoma takes up tax-credit scholarship program [Press Release]. Retrieved from Nexis Uni.
17.
DalyA. J. (2012). Data, dyads, and dynamics: Exploring data use and social networks in educational improvement. Teachers College Record, 114(11), 1-38.
18.
DaviesS.QuirkeL.AuriniJ. (2006). The new institutionalism goes to the market: The challenge of rapid growth in private K-12 education. In MeyerH.-D.RowanB. (Eds.), The new institutionalism in education (pp. 103-122). Albany: State University of New York Press.
19.
DeBrayE.ScottJ.LubienskiC.JabbarH. (2014). Intermediary organizations in charter school policy coalitions: Evidence from New Orleans. Educational Policy, 28, 175-206. doi:10.1177/0895904813514132
DoranL. (2017, August16). The Indiana case study: Does education benefit from competition?Inside Sources. Available from https://www.insidesources.com/
22.
DynarskiM.RuiN.WebberA.GutmannB. (2017). Evaluation of the DC opportunity scholarship program: Impacts after one year. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20174022/
23.
DynarskiM.RuiN.WebberA.GutmannB. (2018). Evaluation of the DC opportunity scholarship program: Impacts two years after students applied (NCEE 2018-4010). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, U.S. Department of Education.
24.
EckesS. E.UlmJ.MeadJ. (2016). Dollars to discriminate: The (un)intended consequences of school vouchers. Peabody Journal of Education, 91, 537-558.
GoldieD.LinickM.JabbarH.LubienskiC. (2014). Using bibliometric and social media analyses to explore the “echo chamber” hypothesis. Educational Policy, 28, 281-305.
31.
The Heritage Foundation. (2011, August17). School choice in America 2011: Educational opportunity reaches new heights [Press Release]. Retrieved from Nexis Uni.
Hertel-FernandezA. (2019). State capture: How conservative activists, big businesses, and wealthy donors reshaped the American states—And the nation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
34.
HorsfordS. D.ScottJ. T.AndersonG. L. (2019). The politics of education policy in an era of inequality: Possibilities for democratic schooling. New York, NY: Routledge.
35.
HoxbyC. M. (2003). School choice and school productivity: Could school choice be a tide that lifts all boats? In HoxbyC. M. (Ed.), The economics of school choice (pp. 287-341). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
36.
JabbarH.GoelP.DeBrayE.ScottJ.LubienskiC. (2014). How policymakers define “evidence”: The politics of research use in New Orleans. Policy Futures in Education, 12, 1013-1027.
37.
JohnstoneB. (2018). Discourse analysis (3rd ed.). Oxford, UK: John Wiley.
KenwayJ. (1990). Education and the Right’s discursive politics: Private versus state schooling. In BallS. (Ed.), Foucault and education: Disciplines and knowledge (pp. 167-206). London: Routledge.
40.
KolderieT. (1990). Beyond choice to new public schools: Withdrawing the exclusive franchise in public education (8). Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED327914
LakoffG. (2008). The political mind. New York, NY: Penguin Books.
45.
LeporeJ. (2018). These truths: A history of the United States. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.
46.
LinesP. M. (1993). Parents and their informational resources: A reassessment of findings from Alum Rock. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Educational Resources Information Center, U.S. Dept. of Education.
47.
LoBiancoT. (2012, September7). Pence’s education plan light on detail. The Associated Press State & Local Wire. Retrieved from Nexis Uni.
48.
LubienskiC. (2005). School choice as a civil right: District responses to competition and equal educational opportunity. Equity & Excellence in Education, 38, 331-341.
49.
LubienskiC. (2017). Redefining equality through incentive-based policies. In ParkerS.GulsonK. N.GaleT. (Eds.), Policy and inequality in education (pp. 153-168). New York, NY: Springer.
50.
LubienskiC. (2018). The critical challenge: Policy networks and market models for education. Policy Futures in Education, 16, 156-168. doi:10.1177/1478210317751275
51.
LubienskiC. (2019, April). What “good” is schooling? The new edu-philanthropies and education reform. Paper presented at the “Silicon Valley Philanthropy: ‘Disruption’ and the Implications for Educational Development” International Research Symposium, Stanford University, Center on Philanthropy and Civil Society, Palo Alto, CA.
52.
LubienskiC.BrewerT. J.GoelLaLondeP. (2016). Orchestrating policy ideas: Philanthropies and think tanks in US education policy advocacy networks. Australian Educational Researcher, 43, 55-73. doi:10.1007/s13384-015-0187-y
53.
LubienskiC.LubienskiS. T. (2004). Re-examining a primary premise of market theory: An analysis of NAEP data on achievement in public and private schools. New York, NY: National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education.
54.
LubienskiC.MalinJ. R. (resubmitted). Moving the goalposts: The evolution of voucher advocacy in interpreting efficacy research. Journal of Education Policy.
55.
LubienskiC.ScottJ.DeBrayE. (2011). The rise of intermediary organizations in knowledge production, advocacy, and educational policy. Teachers College Record, 22, 1-3. Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org
56.
MalinJ. R.HardyI.LubienskiC. (2019). Educational neoliberalization: The mediatization of ethical assertions in the voucher debate. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 40, 217-233. doi:10.1080/01596306.2019.1569880
57.
MartinD. (2011a, March31). Advocates: Indiana can lead US in schools overhaul. The Associated Press State & Local Wire. Retrieved from Nexis Uni.
58.
MartinD. (2011b, January10). Advocates say most Hoosiers want school changes. The Associated Press State & Local Wire. Retrieved from Nexis Uni.
59.
MartinD. (2011c, February14). Bill would send taxpayer cash to private schools. The Associated Press State & Local Wire. Retrieved from Nexis Uni.
60.
MartinD. (2011d, April21). Ind. Senate OKs most expansive voucher plan in US. The Associated Press State & Local Wire. Retrieved from Nexis Uni.
61.
MartinD. (2011e, January15). Indiana lawmakers working on details of voucher plan. The Associated Press State & Local Wire. Retrieved from Nexis Uni.
62.
MayerJ. (2016). Dark money: The hidden history of the billionaires behind the rise of the radical right. New York, NY: Doubleday Press.
63.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
64.
McCollumC. (2012, August11). Charter, private schools show increased enrollment. The Times. Retrieved from Nexis Uni.
MinerB. (1996). Splits on the right: Implications for education. In LoweR.MinerB.MillerL.PetersonB.TenorioR. (Eds.), Selling out our schools: Vouchers, markets, and the future of public education (pp. 72-77). Milwaukee, WI: Rethinking Schools.
67.
MoeT. M. (2008). Beyond the free market: The structure of school choice. Brigham Young University Law Review, 2008, 557-592.
68.
NessE. C.GándaraD. (2014). Ideological think tanks in the states: An inventory of their prevalence, networks, and higher education policy activity. Educational Policy, 28, 258-280. doi:10.1177/0895904813515328
69.
NolanB. (2011, August12). School vouchers praised for broadening educational options. The Herald-Times. Retrieved from Nexis Uni.
PiazzaP. (2016). Antidote or antagonist? The role of education reform advocacy organizations in educational policymaking. Critical Studies in Education, 60, 302-320.
72.
RizviF.LingardB. (2009). Globalizing education policy. New York, NY: Routledge.
73.
ReckhowS.SnyderJ. W. (2014). The expanding role of philanthropy in education politics. Educational Researcher, 43, 186-195. doi:10.3102/0013189x14536607
SaltmanK. J. (2010). The gift of education: Public education and venture philanthropy. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
76.
ScottJ.JabbarH. (2014). The hub and the spokes: Foundations, intermediary organizations, incentivist reforms, and the politics of research evidence. Educational Policy, 28, 233-257. doi:10.1177/0895904813515327
77.
ScottJ.LubienskiC.DeBrayE.JabbarH. (2014). The intermediary function in evidence production, promotion, and utilization: The case of educational incentives. In FinniganK. S.DalyA. J. (Eds.), Using research evidence in education: From the schoolhouse door to Capitol Hill (pp. 69-92). New York, NY: Springer.
78.
ShafferM. B.EllisJ. G.SwenssonJ. (2018). Hoosier lawmaker? Vouchers, ALEC legislative puppets, and Indiana’s abdication of democracy. AASA Journal of Scholarship & Practice, 14(4), 4-13.
UsherA.KoberN. (2011). Keeping informed about school vouchers: A review of major developments and research. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED522161
84.
WaddingtonR. J.BerendsM. (2018). Impact of the Indiana Choice Scholarship Program: Achievement effects for students in upper elementary and middle school. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 37, 783-808. doi:10.1002/pam.22086
