Handbook of Education Politics and Policy

Citation

Adams, C. (2009), "Handbook of Education Politics and Policy", Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 47 No. 5, pp. 668-672. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230910981125

The Handbook of Education Politics and Policy, co‐edited by Cooper et al. (2008), assembles a composition of stalwart scholars who present a comprehensive synthesis of empirical research, conceptual frameworks, judicial rulings, and policy analyses that as an integrated body of knowledge demonstrates scholarly advancements in the field while simultaneously suggesting new directions for research and policy formation. With 21 different chapters nested within one of the three themes (federal, state, and local politics of education; interest groups and institutional effects on educational politics; and the politics of equity and excellence), my objective is to frame the review around two conditions the editors argue are necessary for future scholarship on the politics of education, it must:

1. 1.

   reflect current and emerging issues; and

2. 2.

   generate new knowledge on the improvement of education.

Current and emerging political issues

Understanding the politics of education is akin to looking through a Kaleidoscope, at first glance it is difficult to see how the various shapes and colors of a Kaleidoscope form distinct patterns. It can be too be confusing to understand how the diffuse issues confronting public schools cohere around a common theme. The editors adroitly frame the handbook chapters in a way that both preserves the complexity of educational politics but also clearly demonstrates the dynamic relationships among structural, behavioral, and ideological issues across micro‐ meso‐ and macro‐boundaries. Restricting the conceptual lens to one unit of analysis could lead to misguided assumptions on the causes and consequences of political issues and policies. Illustrating the cross‐boundary relationships among political issues provides a helpful heuristic to comprehend the nature and function of educational governance. This point is illustrated with three examples.

Martha McCarthy in her chapter on “Judicial impact on educational politics and policies” argues that judicial intervention in educational policy, while extensive, has only had marginal influence on actual practice. Her claims are supported by examples of school desegregation and religious influence whereby she argues other interventions were needed to realize desegregation after Brown II, and that school boards possess the most control over the treatment of contentious religious issues. Paul Green in his chapter on the “Politics of (de)segregation,” elucidates the social conditions underlying re‐segregated school systems. He argues that residential segregation, ambivilance toward re‐segregation, and educational reforms devoid of desegregation plans are contributing factors to re‐segregated schools. Nathan Myers and James Cibulka in their chapter on “Religious faith and policy in public education,” capture the political influence of Christian conservatives. These three chapters show how local educational contexts are shaped by policies and practices at multiple levels.

A second example of the editors multidimensional treatment of a political issues is their Darwinian account of the changing nature and function of school boards that leaves the reader wondering if the scientific management structures of school boards will evolve into new (or perhaps return to old) governance forms. Patricia Ehrensal and Patricia First's chapter, “Understanding school board politics: balancing public voice and professional power,” suggests that school boards are suffering from an identity crisis that threatens their future existence. Thomas Asbury's chapter, “Hitting a moving target: how politics determines the changing role of superintendents and school board”, explains the historical roots of school boards' identity crisis, and largely attributes the problem to superintendent‐board relationships. Fritz Edelstein's chapter, “The evolving political role of urban mayors in education,” is an omen of sorts if school boards are unable to ameliorate their developmental challenges. He shows how the rapidly expanding phenomenon of mayoral influence could be the beginning of the end of school boards.

Political contention surrounding market‐based reform is a third example of how the editors interweave issues across different political boundaries to demonstrate how systemic forces at multiple levels converge and diverge to affect educational policies and practice. Darleen Opfer, Tamara Young, and Lance Fusarelli's chapter, “Politics of interest: interest groups and advocacy coalitions in American education,” portrays the role of interest groups within the institutional ecology of public education. Janelle Scott, Christopher Lubienski, and DeBray‐Pelot's chapter, “The ideological and political landscape of school choice interest groups in post‐Zelman era,” zooms in on the changing characteristics of coalitions for and against school choice. Bruce Cooper and John Sureay's chapter, “The collective politics of teacher unionism,” examines the genetic make‐up and purpose of the American Federation of Teachers and National Education Association. Gary Miron's chapter, “The shifting notion of ‘publicness’ in public education,” details the expansion of privatized educational models (vouchers, educational management organizations, and charter schools) and the impact of this free market shift on the traditional notion that education is a public good.

New knowledge on the improvement of education

The editors integrate chapters on conceptual frameworks, descriptive accounts, and research summaries to erect a strong jumping off point for future empirical studies on the changing nature of educational governance. In particular, four lines of inquiry seem to emerge from the chapters, the:

1. 1.

   application of conceptual frameworks derived largely from political science to study state policy making and the complexity of urban educational governance;

2. 2.

   use of contemporary adaptations of institution theory and micro‐political frameworks to examine social and structural changes within schools and school systems;

3. 3.

   interaction of the policy making process across federal, state, and local boundaries; and

4. 4.

   mapping out of relatively unchartered political arenas.

Michael McLendon and Lora Cohen‐Vogel's chapter, “Understanding education policy change in the American states: lessons from political science,” situates multiple streams theory, punctuated equilibrium framework, and policy innovation and diffusion theory within the cauldron of educational policy making. These authors argue that more research on policy making and implementation processes should be couched within the above theories. Dorothy Shipp's chapter, “Urban regime theory and the reform of public schools: governance, power, and leadership,” advances the use of regime theory as a useful lens to explore the enigmatic governance of urban school districts. Hanne Mawhinney's chapter, “Towards a new political leadership praxis in the rescaled space of urban educational governance,” makes a parallel argument to Shipp's proposition on the utility of broad, comprehensive frameworks to understand the governance of urban districts. Mawhinney believes the interaction of myriad conditions in urban education necessitates the uses of frameworks that can account for the interrelationships among social, structural, cultural, and ideological factors.

Understanding who or what controls public education lies at the core of every political issue. Betty Malen and Melissa Vicent Cochran's chapter, “Beyond pluralistic patterns of power: research on the micropolitics of schools,” shows how even with the local control rhetoric there is still an imbalance of power and authority between principals and teachers and parents and schools. The authors argue that more research is needed on sources of conflict among school agents, attempts to devolve authority and power, and social interactions within formal and informal arenas. Jo Bennet and Janice Hansel's chapter, “Institutional agility: using the new institutionalism to guide school reform,” frames the issue of control within an institutional context and argues that school reform is predicated largely on how schools respond to their environments. Malen and Cochran's chapter would suggest that schools' responses to changes in the institutional environment brought about by state and federal policies have not disrupted traditional school cultures. Perhaps, integrating both theoretical frameworks to explore the nexus of institutional control and local control can enhance capacity at the local level and within the institutional environment. These two chapters illustrate the compatibility of new institutionalism and micropolitics. In fact, Bennet and Hansel make this same argument. They write “Understanding the connection among the micro‐ and macro‐levels is critical to making sense of the politics of educational organizations” (p. 222).

Kenneth Wong's chapter, “Federalism, equity, and accountability in education,” is a foray into the federal system of public education. Wong's primary focus is on the role of federal legislation in reducing educational disparities between rich and poor school districts. Karen Febey and Karen Seashore Louis' chapter, “Political cultures in education at the state and local level: views from three states,” examines federalism from the lens of state and local political ideology. They argue that the application of federal policies is largely influenced by states' political cultures. Bruce Baker and Preston Green's chapter, “Politics, empirical evidence, and policy design: the case of school finance and the costs of educational adequacy,” confronts the problem of legislative efforts to bring about educational parity. As they discovered, empirical evidence lacks the level of control needed to generalize findings on finance formulas across states. A second problem is the legislative manipulation of marginal costs that can present two different funding pictures depending on the position of the legislature. Baker and Green conclude by suggesting that finance issues will become more complicated with more federal intervention.

Three chapters map out a research agenda on political arenas that have remained relatively unexplored. Catherine Marshall and Lois Andre‐Bechely's chapter, “Feminism and education politics: no longer for women only,” reviews scholarship from a feminist paradigm and suggests more feminist research is needed into the areas of the educational experiences of girls, the curricular treatment of gays and lesbians, and issues specific to adolescent girls (teen pregnancy and parenting and sexual harassment). Bonnie Fusarelli's chapter, “The politics of coordinated services for children: interinstitutional relations,” suggests that future research on coordinated services should center on social conditions within the relational network that evolves from school‐family ‐community partnerships. Frances Spielhagen and Elissa Brown's chapter, “Excellence versus equity: political forces in the education of gifted students,” addresses a paradox of No Child Left Behind and other federal reforms. As they argue, federal policies aim to enhance performance but at the same time gifted students are being marginalized by reforms predicated on improving achievement in other student populations.

The primary audience for the handbook appears to be as diverse as the political landscape of public education. Policy makers and educators alike can reference chapters that increase their understanding of the systemic nature of many controversial political issues, such as market‐based reforms, urban school governance, mayoral intercession, and the influence of interest groups and policy entrepreneurs. If the aim of educators and policy makers is to find warrants that support their position on a particular issue, they will be disappointed by the objective nature of the handbook. On the other hand, if educators and policy makers are intent on better understanding the complexity of school governance, the handbook presents many useful lenses to view the interaction of structural, behavioral and ideological forces within the cauldron educational politics. As mentioned previously, the handbook offers a great jumping‐off point for future research. Scholars of educational politics and policy benefit from the delimitation of conceptual frameworks that show promise for making sense of the complex nature of educational governance (especially in urban districts), the identification of relatively unchartered political arenas where research is lacking, and the extant evidence on the salient political issues of the day. The handbook would also be a valuable ancillary text for courses on educational policy and politics. Overall, I enthusiastically recommend the handbook for individuals who operate within the political arena of public education and scholars who study political issues in education.