Handbook of Education Politics and Policy

Bruce S. Cooper,James G. Cibulka,Lance D. Fusarelli

• Éditeur: Routledge
• Année: 2014
• ISBN:
  9781135106768
• Édition: 2
• Sujet: Éducation
• Sous-sujet: Politique d'éducation

This revised edition of the Handbook of Education Politics and Policy presents the latest research and theory on the most important topics within the field of the politics of education. Well-known scholars in the fields of school leadership, politics, policy, law, finance, and educational reform examine the institutional backdrop to our educational system, the political behaviors and cultural influences operating within schools, and the ideological and philosophical positions that frame discussions of educational equity and reform.

In its second edition, this comprehensive handbook has been updated to capture recent developments in the politics of education, including Race to the Top and the Common Core State Standards, and to address the changing role politics play in shaping and influencing school policy and reform. Detailed discussions of key topics touch upon important themes in educational politics, helping leaders understand issues of innovation, teacher evaluation, tensions between state and federal lawmakers over new reforms and testing, and how to increase student achievement. Chapter authors also provide suggestions for improving the political behaviors of key educational groups and individuals with the hope that an understanding of political goals, governance processes, and policy outcomes may contribute to ongoing school reform.

Part I
The Institutional Context of Educational Politics

1
Beyond Pluralistic Patterns of Power

Research on the Micropolitics of Schools

Betty Malen and Melissa Vincent Cochran with updated references by Anchala Sobrin

The micropolitics of schools is an evolving but arguably underdeveloped field of study (Blasé & Anderson, 1995; Scribner, Aleman, & Maxy, 2003). Its conceptual boundaries and distinctive features remain elusive and contested. Its empirical foundation is broad in scope but uneven in quality. For example, studies span the space from community politics to classroom and corridor dynamics, employ various theoretical orientations, focus on different units of analysis, encompass a maze of loosely defined formal and informal arenas, and address an array of salient topics and prevalent policy issues. Some studies unpack the dynamic, power-based, and interest-driven processes through which conflict is regulated and make clear the basis of judgments rendered; others do not. Some studies explain how and why cases were selected; others do not. Some studies support broader generalizations; others are more “existence proofs.” These attributes of the field confound the prospects for developing an exhaustive, integrated, and definitive review of literature on the micropolitics of schools. Thus we adopt more modest aims.

Purpose and Perspective

We seek to update and extend the findings of an earlier review of research on the micropolitics of schools that focused on “mapping the multiple dimensions of power relations in school polities” (Malen, 1995, p. 147). The power relations emphasis was, at the time, a unifying theme in the empirical and theoretical literature on the micropolitics of schools (Bacharach & Mundell, 1993; Ball, 1987; Blasé, 1991, Bowles, 1989; Hoyle, 1986). It remains a unifying construct in the broader politics of education field (Malen, 2001b), as well as in the parent discipline. As Hochschild writes, “That… power would unify otherwise disparate articles is hardly surprising; if our discipline [political science] has any center toward which its many peripheries gravitate, it is the study of power in all of its many manifestations” (2005, p. 213).

Although power is a core element and a unifying component of political analysis, the early review (Malen, 1995) noted that studies draw on different conceptions of power and its companion terms, authority, influence, and control. Some employ “pluralist” views that concentrate on the overt manifestations of power evidenced by influence (or noninfluence) on visible, contentious, and consequential decisions. Others draw on “elitist” views that expose the more covert expressions of power apparent in the suppression of dissent, the confinement of agendas to “safe” issues, the management of symbols, and the “suffocation… [of]… demands for change in the existing allocation of benefits and privileges” (Bacharach & Baratz, 1970, p. 44). Still others draw on “radical” or “critical” views that delve into the more opaque “third face” of power and derive inferences on how power relations shape aspirations and define interests through subtle but presumably detectable processes of socialization/indoctrination that elude the awareness of individuals who succumb to them but may be evident to the analyst who searches for them (Gaventa, 1980; Lukes, 1974). All these views have their advocates and critics (Clegg, 1989; Geary, 1992). All these views are reflected in studies of the “micropolitics” of schools.

We draw on this multidimensional view of power to anchor our review of research on select but significant aspects of the micropolitics of schools. Because this field of study has not arrived at a consensus definition of “micropolitics,” we adopt a general and inclusive construction. In our view, micropolitical perspectives characterize schools as mini political systems, nested in multilevel governmental structures that set the authoritative parameters for the play of power at the site level. Confronted by multiple, competing demands, chronic resource shortages, unclear technologies, uncertain supports, critical public service responsibilities, and value-laden issues, schools face difficult and divisive allocative choices. Like actors in any political systems, actors at the site level manage the endemic conflict and make the distributional choices through processes that pivot on power exercised in various ways in various arenas (Malen, 1995). With others, we maintain that micropolitical perspectives cast schools as “arenas of struggle” (Ball, 1987; Blasé, 1991) where actors use their power to advance their interests and ideals; where conflict, competition, cooperation, compromise, and co-optation coexist; and where both public and private transactions shape organizational priorities, processes, and outcomes. Always conditioned and often constrained by broad institutional, economic, and socio-cultural forces, these actor relationships, interactions, and exchanges, and their impact on the distribution of valued outcomes, become the foci of study.

We analyze adult relationships, namely the professional-patron, principal-teacher, and teacher-teacher interactions that occur in select formal and informal arenas in public school systems in the United States because they provide telling glimpses into the micropolitics of schools.¹ We synthesize information on the sources of tension, the patterns of politics, and the outcomes of transactions in those arenas. Although most definitions of micropolitics direct attention to “those activities and strategies used by organizational participants to influence decisions that allocate scarce but valued resources within the organization” (Johnson, 2001, p. 119), scholars recognize that context situates and mediates the play of power in organizations generally and in schools more specifically (e.g., Bacharach & Mundell, 1993; Townsend, 1990). Therefore, we highlight policy developments that condition the play of power at the school site to set the stage for our analysis of key aspects of politics within U.S. public schools.

Our analysis is based on studies identified through a search for research-based articles that directly address the micropolitics of schools, for articles that might enable us to draw inferences about power relationships in school contexts even though the term “micropolitics” is not used in the text, and for articles that examine the manner in which policy developments in the broader context may affect the autonomy of schools and the discretion afforded site actors.² We began our search with major refereed journals dating from 1992–2006, and then expanded it to include citations uncovered during that process as well as other books and research reports that addressed the major themes we were uncovering.³ While we located and reviewed more than 200 articles and more than 75 additional works, we do not cite all the sources we consulted. Rather we use citations selectively, to illustrate the major themes we uncovered in the literature and to highlight disconfirming as well as confirming evidence regarding the observations and interpretations we set forth. Because much of the research takes the form of case studies, we underscore that the political dynamics we describe are not necessarily typical of the dynamics found in the vast universe of U.S. public schools. We draw on this research to generate insights, not to make definitive claims, about the micropolitics of schools and how the broader policy context may be shaping those dynamics.

The Policy Context

Our analysis suggests that the broad policy context may be affecting the micropolitics of schools by narrowing the parameters for influence at the site level,⁴ by creating alternative organizational forms, and by injecting more “external” actors into the governance, management, and operation of schools. We discuss each of these developments in turn.

Narrowing Parameters for Influence at the School Level

The initial review of literature (Malen, 1995) alluded to the modest degrees of discretion afforded site actors, given resource constraints, the “web of rules” governing site decision making, and the weak design of the various policies that were advanced to ensure that site actors had considerable (and additional) decision-making authority. This review reinforces that observation, and then argues that site autonomy has been constrained even more, by the packages of federal, state, and local policies that further circumscribe the power, limit the discretion, and restrict the influence of site actors.

The unfulfilled promise of greater discretion. Reforms aimed at “empowering” schools and the people who worked in them became prominent in the mid- to late 1980s with countless calls for site-based management councils, school-level budgeting and decision making, school improvement teams, advisory committees, and other structural arrangements that presumably would grant site actors the autonomy and the authority required to reform their schools (Bauch & Goldring, 1998; Ingersoll, 2003: Malen & Muncey, 2000). Several lines of evidence suggest that, to date, the promise of greater discretion has been largely unfulfilled.

First, the scope of “new” authority delegated to schools is still modest and temporary. Save for settings that permitted school councils to hire and fire their principals, we found little evidence of a fundamental expansion of decision-making authority in any, let alone all the critical areas of budget, personnel, and instructional programs (Croninger & Malen, 2002; Handler, 1998; Odden & Busch, 1998; Summers & Johnson, 1996). Moreover, it has become clear that whatever “new authority” was decentralized could be re-centralized (Leithwood & Menzies, 1998; Shipps, 1998; Shipps, Kahne, & Smylie, 1999). Thus site actors do not appear to have more extensive or more dependable degrees of freedom (Malen & Muncey, 2000).

Second, resource constraints and the “web of rules” embedded in the broader system continue to restrict site autonomy. Oftentimes site actors are empowered to manage budget cuts, not to initiate program improvements (Croninger & Malen, 2002; Fine, 1993; Handler, 1998). While some state governments have tried to relax rules and regulations for “high-performing” schools or to engage in various forms of “differential regulation,” these exemptions have not operated to significantly enhance site autonomy (Fuhrman & Elmore, 1995). On the contrary, they may further limit autonomy because these policies remind schools that states can deploy the punishment of a takeover as well as the reward of regulatory relief (Malen & Muncey, 2000). Whether other forms of deregulation such as charter schools, choice plans, and for-profit educational management arrangements will enhance the discretion afforded site actors remains an open, empirical question (Crawford & Forsythe, 2004; Johnson & Landman, 2000; Mintrom, 2001). But for “traditional” public schools, and particularly for low-performing schools, rule and resource constraints still limit the autonomy of site actors (Malen & Muncey, 2000; Sipple et al., 2004; Timar, 2004).

Third, the responsibilities of site actors have intensified, in part because policy packages exacted a price (stronger accountability for the promise of greater autonomy) and in part because policy rhetoric located the blame for low performance squarely on schools (Elmore, 2002; Malen et al., 2002). Schools have been given additional assignments, such as developing school improvement plans, implementing curricular frameworks, incorporating new testing procedures, adapting to various “external partners,” and otherwise “demonstrating” that they are meeting the terms of more stringent “results-based” accountability systems. These responsibilities have come in addition to, not in lieu of, other demands and obligations (Anagnostopoulos, 2003; Booher-Jennings, 2005; Mintrop, 2004; Sunderman, 2001; Wong & Anagnostopoulos, 1998).

In short, for site actors, various “empowerment” reforms resulted in a substantial increase in responsibility but not a commensurate increase in authority, a dependable increase in relevant resources, or a meaningful measure of relief from the sets of regulations and obligations that guide and govern what site actors may and must do. While “empowering” reforms did little to expand and much to limit the latitude of site actors, other initiatives, launched primarily at the state level and reinforced by federal legislation and district reaction, further constrained the autonomy of site actors (Anagnostopoulos, 2005; Conley, 2003; Timar, 2004). Recognizing that data are limited,⁵ we point to the standards and high-stakes accountability policies to illustrate that observation.

The stark reality of stricter accountability. During the 1980s and 1990s states intensified their efforts to control schools. Under the auspices of stronger accountability and coherent policy, states stepped up their efforts (a) to articulate curriculum content through various requirements, frameworks, and tests; (b) to define school programs through mandates that make schools select programs for at-risk students from a fairly short list of state-approved options, and, in so doing, to regulate the professional development that school staffs receive; and (c) to issue public sanctions ranging from public listing of “low-performing schools” to focused state interventions or full-scale reconstitution, privatization, or takeovers (Ladd, 1996; Malen, 2003). While not all states have been equally active in all domains of education, generally speaking, states appear to be coupling policy instruments in potent ways and asserting unprecedented levels of control over schools (Conley, 2003; Malen, 2003; Neuman-Sheldon, 2006; Timar, 2004).

Over the past decade, the federal government also stepped up efforts to control public schools with its rhetorical press for “results-based” accountability and its formal endorsement of graduated but stringent sanctions for schools that fail to meet the requirements of No Child Left Behind. While federal policies have been contested, they represent a renewed effort to influence the core of schooling (Cohn, 2005; McDonnell, 2005; Superfine, 2005). Likewise, districts in some settings have generated initiatives and developed responses that may limit the latitude of site actors (Anagnostopoulos, 2003; Booher-Jennings, 2005; Ogawa, Sandholtz, & Scribner, 2003; Sunderman, 2001; Wong & Anagnostopoulos, 1998).

A small but growing body of evidence indicates that these policies are changing (for better or worse) the content of curriculum (Dorgan, 2004; Firestone, Fitz, & Broadfoot, 1999; Firestone, Mayrowetz, & Fairman, 1998; Sandholtz et al., 2004; Trujillo, 2005), the pace if not the pedagogy of instruction (Dorgan, 2004; Finkelstein et al., 2000; McNeil, 2000; Swanson & Stev...

Table des matières

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• CONTENTS
• Preface: Constants and Changes in the Politics of Education
• Part I THE INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT OF EDUCATIONAL POLITICS
• Part II INTEREST GROUPS, ACTIVISTS, ENTREPRENEURS, AND EDUCATION REFORM
• Contributors
• Index