We show how policy makers converged to support similar reforms on a major educational issue: teacher effectiveness. Our study demonstrates the importance of idea brokers—actors that facilitate connections between preferences in policy networks and promote consensus around new policy ideas. Our study is based on analysis of testimony from 200 Congressional hearings from 2001 to 2015. We use discourse network analysis to examine network ties based on policy preferences expressed in hearings. We visualize policy networks, identify brokers, and estimate exponential random graph models to examine policy changes between the Bush and Obama administrations. We show how idea brokerage is associated with a convergence of policy preferences around teacher effectiveness among a coalition of political actors.
BaumgartnerF. R.JonesB. D. (1993). Agendas and instability in American politics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
4.
BaumgartnerF. R.JonesB. D. (2012). From there to here: Punctuated equilibrium to the general punctuation thesis to a theory of government information processing. Policy Studies Journal, 40, 1–19.
5.
BertelliA. M.WengerJ. B. (2009). Demanding information: Think tanks and the U.S. Congress. British Journal of Political Science, 39, 225–242.
6.
Booher-JenningsJ. (2005). Below the bubble: “Educational triage” and the Texas accountability system. American Educational Research Journal, 42, 231–268.
7.
BorgattiS. P. (2002). Netdraw software for network visualization. Lexington, KY: Analytic Technologies.
8.
BursteinP.HirshC. E. (2007). Interest organizations, information, and policy innovation in the U.S. Congress. Sociological Forum, 22, 174–199.
9.
BurtR. S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
10.
BurtR. S. (2004). Brokerage and closure: An introduction to social capital. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
11.
CranmerS. J.DesmaraisB. A. (2011). Inferential network analysis with exponential random graph models. Political Analysis, 19, 66–86.
12.
DalyA. J.FinneganK. S.JordanS.MoolenaarN. M.CheJ. (2014). Misalignment and perverse incentives: Examining the politics of district leaders as brokers in the use of research evidence. Educational Policy, 28, 145–174.
13.
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.
14.
FerrareJ. J.ReynoldsK. (2016). Has the elite foundation agenda spread beyond the Gates? An organizational analysis of non-major philanthropic giving in K–12 education. American Journal of Education, 123, 137–169.
15.
FerrareJ. J.SetariR. R. (2018). Converging on choice: The inter-state flow of foundation dollars to charter school organizations. Educational Researcher, 47, 34–45.
16.
FingerL. (2018). Vested interests and the diffusion of education reform across the states. Policy Studies Journal, 46, 378–401.
17.
FisherD. R.WaggleJ.LeifeldP. (2013). Where does political polarization come from? Locating polarization within the U.S. climate change debate. American Behavioral Scientist, 57, 70–92.
FrankK. A.ZhaoY.PenuelW. R.EllefsonN.PorterS. (2011). Focus, fiddle, and friends: Experiences that transform knowledge for the implementation of innovations. Sociology of Education, 84, 137–156.
20.
FullerB.WrightJ.GesickiK.KangE. (2007). Gauging growth: How to judge No Child Left Behind?Educational Researcher, 36, 268–278.
21.
GaleyS. (2015). Education politics and policy: Emerging institutions, interests and ideas. Policy Studies Journal Yearbook, 43(S1), S12–S39.
22.
GouldR.FernandezR. (1989). Structure of mediation: A formal approach to brokerage in transaction networks. Sociological Methodology, 19, 89–126.
23.
HamiltonL. S.StecherB. M.MarshJ. A.McCombsJ. S.RobynA. (2007). Standards-based accountability under No Child Left Behind: Experiences of teachers and administrators in three states. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
24.
HandcockM.HunterD.ButtsC.GoodreauS.KrivitskyP.Bender-deMollS.MorrisM. (2016). statnet: Software Tools for the Statistical Analysis of Network Data (The Statnet Project; http://www.statnet.org; R package Version 2016.9; CRAN.R-project.org/package=statnet)
25.
HandcockM.HunterD.ButtsC.GoodreauS.MorrisM. (2008). statnet: Software tools for the representation, visualization, analysis and simulation of network data. Journal of Statistical Software, 24, 1–11. Retrieved from http://www.jstatsoft.org/v24/i01
26.
HartneyM.FlavinP. (2011). From the schoolhouse to the statehouse: Teacher union political activism and U.S. state education reform policy. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 11, 251–268.
27.
HeaneyM. T. (2006). Brokering health policy: Coalitions, parties, and interest group influence. Journal of Health Politics, Policy, and Law, 31, 887–944.
28.
HecloH. (1978). Issue networks and the executive establishment. In KingA. (Ed.), The new American political system (pp. 87–107). Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute.
29.
HodgeE.SalloumS. J.BenkoS. L. (2016). (Un)commonly connected: A social network analysis of state standards resources for English/Language Arts. AERA Open, 2(4), 1–19.
30.
HunterD. R. (2007). Curved exponential family models for social networks. Social Networks, 29, 216–230.
31.
JabbarH.LondeP. G. L.DebrayE.ScottJ.LubienskiC. (2014). How policymakers define “evidence”: The politics of research use in New Orleans. Policy Futures in Education, 12, 1013–1027.
32.
JasnyL. (2012). Baseline models for two mode social network data. Policies Studies Journal, 40, 458–491.
33.
JasnyL.LubellM. (2015). Two-mode brokerage in policy networks. Social Networks, 41(May), 36–47.
34.
Jenkins-SmithH. C.NohrstedtD.WeibleC. M.SabatierP. A. (2014). The advocacy coalition framework: Foundations, evolution, and ongoing research. In SabatierP. A.WeibleC. M. (Eds.), Theories of the policy process (3rd ed., pp. 183–223). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
35.
KingdonJ. W. (1984). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
36.
KretchmarK.SondelB.FerrareJ. J. (2014). Mapping the terrain: Teach For America, charter school reform, and corporate sponsorship. Journal of Education Policy, 29, 742–759.
37.
LeifeldP. (2013). Reconceptualizing major policy change in the advocacy coalition framework: A discourse network analysis of German pension politics. Policy Studies Journal, 41, 169–198.
38.
LeifeldP. (2016). Policy debates as dynamic networks: German pension politics and privatization discourse. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
39.
LeifeldP.SchneiderV. (2012). Information exchange in policy networks. American Journal of Political Science, 56, 731–744.
40.
MayhewB. H. (1984). Baseline models of sociological phenomena. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 9, 259–281.
41.
McDonnellL. M. (2013). Educational accountability and policy feedback. Educational Policy, 27, 170–189.
42.
McDonnellL. M.WeatherfordS. M. (2013). Organized interests and the common core. Educational Researcher, 42, 488–497.
43.
McGuinnP. (2012). Stimulating reform: Race to the top, competitive grants and the Obama education agenda. Educational Policy, 26, 136–159.
44.
MehtaJ. (2013). How paradigms create politics. American Educational Research Journal, 50, 285–324.
45.
MehtaJ.TelesS. (2012). Jurisdictional politics: A new federal role in education. In HessF. M.KellyA. P. (Eds.), Carrots, sticks, and the bully pulpit: Lessons from a half-century off federal efforts to improve America’s schools (pp. 197–216). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
46.
MertonR. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science. Science, 159, 56–63.
47.
MoolenaarN. M.SleegersP. J. C. (2015). The networked principal: Examining principals’ social relationships and transformational leadership in school and district networks. Journal of Educational Administration, 53, 8–39.
48.
ObstfeldD. (2005). Social networks, the Tertius Iungens orientation, and involvement in innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 100–130.
49.
ObstfeldD.BorgattiS. P.DavisJ. (2014). Brokerage as a process: Decoupling third party action from social network structure. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 40, 135–159.
50.
PernaL. W.OroszK.KentD. C. (2019). The role and contribution of academic researchers in congressional hearings: A critical discourse analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 56, 111–145.
51.
ReckhowS. (2013). Follow the money: How foundation dollars change public school politics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
52.
ReckhowS.SnyderJ. W. (2014). The expanding role of philanthropy in education politics. Educational Researcher, 43, 186–195.
53.
RhodesR. A. W. (2006). Policy network analysis. In MoranM.ReinM.GoodinR. E. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public policy (pp. 423–445). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
54.
SabatierP. A. (1988). An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein. Policy Sciences, 21, 129–168.
55.
SabatierP. A.Jenkins-SmithH. C. (1993). Policy change and learning: An advocacy coalition approach. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
56.
SaldañaJ. (2012). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). London, England: Sage.
57.
ScottJ. (2009). The politics of venture philanthropy in charter school policy and advocacy. Educational Policy, 23, 106–136.
58.
ScottJ.JabbarH. (2014). The hub and the spokes: Foundations, intermediary organizations, incentivist reforms, and the politics of research evidence. Educational Policy, 28, 233–257.
59.
SicilianoM. D. (2016). It’s the quality not the quantity of ties that matters: Social networks and self-efficacy beliefs. American Educational Research Journal, 53, 227–262.
60.
WeirM.SkocpolT. (1985). State structures and the possibilities for “Keynesian” responses to the Great Depression in Sweden, Britain and the United States. In EvansP. B.RueschemeyerD.SkocpolT. (Eds.), Bringing the state back in (pp. 107–168). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
61.
WilsonJ. D.DennyM. J.BhamidiS.CranmerS. J.DesmaraisB. A. (2017). Stochastic weighted graphs: Flexible model specification and simulation. Social Networks, 49, 37–47.
62.
WolbrechtC.HartneyM. T. (2014). Ideas about interests: Explaining the changing partisan politics of education. Perspectives on Politics, 12, 603–630.
63.
WoodD. B.TheobaldN. A. (2003). Political responsiveness and equity in public education. American Journal of Political Science, 65, 718–738.
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.
