2015
DOI: 10.1007/s13384-015-0187-y
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Orchestrating policy ideas: philanthropies and think tanks in US education policy advocacy networks

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
37
0
6

Year Published

2015
2015
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
5
5

Relationship

2
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 52 publications
(45 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
2
37
0
6
Order By: Relevance
“…The authors thus argue that parental fundraising further aggravates inequities between schools. In contrast to research from the US that focuses on advocacy for school choice (Lubienski, Brewer, & LaLonde, 2015;Lubienski, Scott, & DeBray, 2011), their research sheds light on a grassroots advocacy group for public education that has promoted resistance to this new trend of education privatization because they believe it undermines the long-held commitment within public education to equity between schools. After that, Gaztambide-Fernández and Parekh examine specialty arts programs of choice in Toronto's public secondary schools.…”
Section: Contributions In This Special Issuementioning
confidence: 89%
“…The authors thus argue that parental fundraising further aggravates inequities between schools. In contrast to research from the US that focuses on advocacy for school choice (Lubienski, Brewer, & LaLonde, 2015;Lubienski, Scott, & DeBray, 2011), their research sheds light on a grassroots advocacy group for public education that has promoted resistance to this new trend of education privatization because they believe it undermines the long-held commitment within public education to equity between schools. After that, Gaztambide-Fernández and Parekh examine specialty arts programs of choice in Toronto's public secondary schools.…”
Section: Contributions In This Special Issuementioning
confidence: 89%
“…They note the rise of new policy actors, including philanthropic organizations and foundations (e.g., Ferris, Hentschke, & Harmssen, 2008), think tanks (e.g., Lubienski, Brewer, & La Londe, 2016), forprofit companies, and new non-profit organizations (e.g., Bulkley & Burch, 2011); how these new actors interact in policy networks (e.g., Ball & Exley, 2010); and the waning influence and engagement of traditional policy actors in education policy making (DiMartino & Scott, 2013).…”
Section: Advocacy For and Resistance To The Privatization Of Educationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Of course, it must be noted that this petitioning of national and state authorities assumes that these authorities are indeed still relevant to the school. Greater moves towards Charter schools in the USA, in the context of increasing neoliberal and libertarian agendas (Kretchmar, Sondel, & Ferrare, 2014;Lubienski, Brewer, & La Londe, 2016;Tanner, 2013), and the very presence of the PISA for Schools test itself, would appear to suggest that schools (and teachers), rather than systems, are increasingly positioned as the most important educational unit. This means that national and state-level authorities may, in the context of this enhanced global-local nexus, have a diminished ability to intervene in all schools, with this logic presuming that schools and teachers are, by extension, solely responsible for the performance of their students, outside of broader socioeconomic and cultural influences.…”
Section: Teachers 'Talking Back': Using Pisa For Schools To Challengementioning
confidence: 99%