Intermediary organizations increasingly provide support for schools serving marginalized students. Some attribute this trend to growing ideological support for market-based strategies to further the public good. This article investigates one intermediary that marketed equity-oriented instructional goals for schools serving high numbers of students of color and English Learners. Drawing on critical policy studies and political science, we analyze its behavior amid a high-stakes accountability environment, its reasons for adopting certain reforms, and the consequences for instruction. We use qualitative comparative analysis to show how policy forces shaped reforms and content in its schools, but not pedagogy specific to students of color or English Learners. We discuss the implications for the research on intermediaries and the democratic control of public education.
AppleM. W. (1986). Teachers and texts: A political economy of class and gender relations in education. New York, NY: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
2.
AppleM. W. (2000). Official knowledge: Democratic education in a conservative age (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
3.
BallS. (2007). Education plc: Understanding private sector participation in public sector education. London: Routledge.
4.
BanksJ.Cochran-SmithM.MollL.RichertA.ZeichnerK.LePageP.. . . McDonaldM. (2005). Teaching diverse learners. In Darling-HammondL.BransfordJ. (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 232–274). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
5.
BerendsM.KirbyS.NaftelS.McKelveyC. (2001). Implementation and performance in New American Schools: Three years into scale-up. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.
6.
BernsteinB. (1971). On the classification and framing of educational knowledge. In YoungM. (Ed.), Knowledge and control: New directions for the sociology of education (pp. 47–69). London: Collier MacMillan.
7.
BogdanR.BiklenS. (1998). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
8.
BormanG.HewesG.OvermanL.BrownS. (2003). Comprehensive school reform and achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 73(2), 125–230.
9.
BrandsenT.van de DonkW.PuttersK. (2005). Griffins or chameleons? Hybridity as a permanent and inevitable characteristic of the third sector. International Journal of Public Administration, 28, 749–765.
10.
BurchP. (2009). Hidden markets: The new education privatization. New York, NY: Routledge.
11.
ClarkeG. (1998). Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and politics in the developing world. Political Studies, 46(1), 36–52.
12.
CoburnC. (2001). Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate reading policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(2), 145–170.
13.
CoburnC. (2005). The role of non-system actors in the relationship between policy and practice: The case of reading instruction in California. Educational Evaluation & Policy Analysis, 27(1), 23–52.
14.
Cochran-SmithM. (2004). Walking the road: Race, diversity and social justice in teacher education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
15.
CohenD. (1990). A revolution in one classroom: The case of Mrs. Oublier. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3), 311–329.
16.
CorrentiR.RowanB. (2007). Opening up the black box: Literacy instruction in schools participating in three Comprehensive School Reform programs. American Educational Research Journal, 44(2), 298–338.
17.
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(3), 323–327.
18.
DesimoneL. (2002). How can comprehensive school reform models be successfully implemented?Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 433–480.
19.
DiamondJ. (2007). Where the rubber meets the road: Rethinking the connection between high-stakes testing policy and classroom instruction. Sociology of Education, 80, 285–313.
20.
DoyleW.CarterK. (1984). Academic tasks in classrooms. Curriculum Inquiry, 14(2), 129–149.
21.
EdwardsM.HulmeD. (1996). Beyond the magic bullet: NGO performance and accountability in the post-Cold War world. West Hartford, CT: Kumarian.
22.
FinniganK.BitterC.O’DayJ. (2009). Improving low-performing schools through external assistance: Lessons from Chicago and California. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 17(7).
23.
FisherW. (1997). Doing good? The politics and antipolitics of NGO practices. Annual Review of Anthropology, 26, 439–464.
24.
FullerB. (2011). From Reagan to Obama: Institutions, relationships, and the shrinking state. Berkeley Review of Education, 2(1), 85–94.
25.
GlaesserJ.GottR.RobertsR.CooperB. (2008). The roles of substantive and procedural understanding in open-ended science investigations: Using Fuzzy Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis to compare two different tasks. Research in Science Education, 39(4), 595–624.
26.
HamiltonL.StecherB.MarchJ.McCombsJ.RobynA.RussellJ.. . . BarneyH. (2007). Standards-based accountability under No Child Left Behind: Experiences of teachers and administrators in three states. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
27.
HillH. (2001). Policy is not enough: Language and the interpretation of state standards. American Educational Research Journal, 38(2), 289–318.
28.
HoffmanJ. (1991). Teacher and school effects in learning to read. In BarrR.KamilM.MosenthalP.PearsonP. (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 911–950). New York, NY: Longman.
29.
HonigM. (2004). The new middle management: Intermediary organizations in education policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26(1), 65–87.
30.
HonigM.IkemotoG. (2008). Adaptive assistance for learning improvement efforts: The case of the Institute for Learning. Peabody Journal of Education, 83, 328–363.
31.
HoweK.MeensD. (2012). Democracy left behind: How recent education reforms undermine local school governance and democratic education. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center. Retrieved from http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/democracy-left-behind.
32.
HurshD. (2007). Assessing No Child Left Behind and the rise of neoliberal education policies. American Educational Research Journal, 44(3), 493–518.
33.
IrvineJ.ArmentoA.CauseyV.JonesJ.FrasherR.WeinburghM. (2001). Culturally responsive teaching: Lesson planning for elementary and middle grades. Boston, MA: McGraw Hill.
34.
KamatS. (2004). The privatization of public interest: Theorizing NGO discourse in a neoliberal era. Review of International Political Economy, 11(1), 155–176.
35.
Ladson-BillingsG. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Education Research Journal, 32(3), 465–491.
36.
LipmanP. (2011). The new political economy of urban education: Neoliberalism, race and the right to the city. New York, NY: Routledge.
37.
LoflandJ. (1971). Analyzing social settings: A guide to qualitative observation and analysis. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.
Mac IverM.StringfieldS. (2000). Privatized delivery of instructional services for urban public school students placed at risk. Educational Evaluation & Policy Analysis, 22(4), 375–382.
40.
MarshJ. (2007). Democratic dilemmas: Joint work, education politics, and community. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
41.
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 Corporation.
42.
MaxwellJ. (2004). Causal explanation, qualitative research, and scientific inquiry in education. Educational Researcher, 33(2), 3–11.
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, NY: State University of New York Press.
45.
McLaughlinM.TalbertJ. (1993). Contexts that matter for teaching and learning: Strategic opportunities for meeting the nation’s educational goals. Stanford, CA: Center for Research on the Context of Secondary School Teaching.
46.
MeierD. (2000). In schools we trust: Creating communities of learning in an era of testing and standardization. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
47.
MeierD.CohenJ.RogersJ. (2000). Will standards save public education?Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
48.
MeierD.WoodG. H. (2004). Many children left behind : How the No Child Left Behind Act is damaging our children and our schools. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
49.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
50.
MinowM. (2002). Partners not rivals: Privatization and the public good. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
51.
NietoS. (2011). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education. Boston, MA: Pearson.
52.
PetersB. (2001). The future of governing. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.
53.
RaginC. (1987). The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
54.
RaginC. (2008). Redesigning social inquiry: Fuzzy-sets and beyond. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
55.
RaginC.DrassK.DaveyS. (2006). Fuzzy-Set/Qualitative Comparative Analysis 2.0. Tucson, AZ: Department of Sociology, University of Arizona.
RowanB. (2002). The ecology of school improvement: Notes on the school improvement industry in the United States. Journal of Educational Change, 3, 283–314.
58.
SagawaS.SegalE. (2000). Common interest, common good: Creating value through business and social sector partnerships. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
59.
SalamonL. (1994). The rise of the nonprofit sector. Foreign Affairs, 73(4), 109–122.
60.
SaltmanK. (2007). Capitalizing on disaster: Taking and breaking public schools. Boulder, CO: Paradigm.
61.
SawickyM. (1997). A leap of faith: Hiring business to manage public schools. The School Administrator, 54(1), 20–21, 24–27.
62.
ShatzM.WilkinsonL. (2010). The education of English Language Learners: Research to practice. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
63.
ShippsD.SconzertK. (1999). The Chicago Annenberg Challenge: The first three years. Chicago, IL: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
64.
SleeterC. (2001). Preparing teachers for culturally diverse schools: Research and the overwhelming presence of Whiteness. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(2), 94–106.
65.
SleeterC.StillmanJ. (2007). Navigating accountability pressures. In SleeterC. (Ed.), Facing accountability in education: Democracy and equity at risk (pp. 13–29). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
66.
SmylieM.CorcoranT. (2006). Nonprofit organizations and the promotion of evidence-based practice. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association.
67.
SpillaneJ.JenningsN. (1997). Aligned instructional policy and ambitious pedagogy: Exploring instructional reform from the classroom perspective. Teachers College Record, 98, 449–481.
68.
SpillaneJ.BurchP. (2006). The institutional environment and instructional practice: Changing patterns of guidance and control in public schools. In MeirH.RowanB. (Eds.), The new institutionalism in education (pp. 87–102). New York, NY: SUNY Press.
69.
SteinM.LaneS. (1996). Instructional tasks and the development of student capacity to think and reason: An analysis of the relationship between teaching and learning in a reform mathematics project. Educational Research and Evaluation, 2(1), 50–80.
70.
StillmanJ. (2009). Taking back the standards: Equity-minded teachers’ responses to accountability-related instructional constraints. The New Educator, 5, 135–160.
71.
TaylorB. M.PearsonP. D.ClarkK.WalpoleS. (2000). Effective schools and accomplished teachers: Lessons about primary grade reading instruction in high poverty schools. The Elementary School Journal, 101(2), 121–165.
72.
TeddlieC.ReynoldsD. (2000). The international handbook of school effectiveness research. New York, NY: Falmer Press.
73.
TrujilloT. (2013a). The disproportionate erosion of local control: Urban school boards, high-stakes accountability, and democracy. Educational Policy, 27(2), 334–359.
74.
TrujilloT. (2013b). The reincarnation of the effective schools research: Rethinking the literature on district effectiveness. Journal of Educational Administration, 51(4), 426–452.
75.
TrujilloT. (in press). The modern cult of efficiency: Intermediary organizations and the new scientific management. Educational Policy.
76.
ValdésG.BunchG.SnowC.LeeC. (with MatosL.). (2005). Enhancing the development of students’ language(s). In Darling-HammondL.BransfordJ. (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 126–168). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
WechslerM.FriedrichL. (1997). The role of mediating organizations for school reform: Independent agents or district dependents. Journal of Education Policy, 12(5), 385–401.
79.
YinR. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publishing.
80.
YoungT.HadawayN. (2006). Supporting the literacy development of English learners. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
