The Political Dynamics of District Reform: The Form and Fate of the Los Angeles Public School Choice Initiative

Abstract

Background Scholars widely acknowledge that politics help explain why policies are adopted and how they play out in states, districts, and schools. To date, political analyses of education reform tend to isolate a particular policy and examine the politics of its adoption or implementation, but pay less attention to the effects of the politics of surrounding reforms and broader issues. Purpose In this article, I use the instrumental case of the Los Angeles Public School Choice Initiative (PSCI) to demonstrate the ways in which the political dynamics of other policy issues in the same local environment greatly affect the form and fate of a reform. The article examines what led to the adoption of PSCI and what explains its implementation and adaptation over time. Research Design The study employed an embedded case study design and gathered 3 years of data from leader interviews, observations, interviews, and focus groups in nine case study schools, media articles, and documents. I drew on an ecological-political framework to analyze these data and to understand the evolution of PSCI. Findings I find that PSCI provided a vehicle to advance the goals of six education reform “subgames”—decentralization, charter expansion, accountability, union reform, academic rigor, and community empowerment—as well as goals of two broader local “games” of electoral politics and bridging, and that each was consequential to at least one or more phase of PSCI. At times in its evolution, players seeking success in one area of reform aligned with, used, or were used by players seeking success in other areas of reform. It is the interactions of these players in relation to the environment and to others working to advance complementary and conflicting reform issues and goals that explains how a reform touted to improve accountability and learning for low-performing schools and to empower the community became a broader referendum on school governance and reform writ large. Conclusions Consistent with recent scholarship, this research demonstrates that an increasingly broad set of actors are engaging in decisions around public schooling and changing the nature of educational governance. The study also illustrates the value of examining local policy with an ecological-political lens and poses several hypotheses that could be explored in future studies. Finally, it suggests that prior to adoption, policymakers consider the extent to which a new policy advances or competes with the goals of surrounding reforms and investigate ways to bolster bridging games.

Distinguishing aspects of sustainability

“…Recent research has criticized this traditional interpretation of sustainability (Adams & Gaetane, 2011), with a shift from stability to a more dynamic interpretation of the concept of sustainability (Fagen & Flay, 2009). Successful educational innovations are characterized in particular by the fourth dimension, adaptiveness: with a view to successful and sustainable innovation, continual adjustments must be made with regard to the content and design of the concept guiding the innovation (Elias, 2010;Marsh, 2016). Innovations that are adapted to the specific context and needs of the school appear to be more successful in the long term with the continuation of the innovative program (Benz et al, 2004).…”

Business-Inspired School Reform in the Era of Financialization: Not Business as Usual

“…There are cases when a school district using a portfolio management model places emphasis on community engagement and capacity building, as the Los Angeles Unified School District has attempted in its Public School Choice Initiative (Burch & Smith, 2016). In Los Angeles, district leaders worked to engage multiple stakeholders in key decisions concerning the planning of school models in the district’s portfolio, including parents in democratic deliberation and training facilitators to ensure that all voices were heard (Marsh et al, 2015). Even in this case, however, the attempt to employ democratic practices proved largely unsuccessful, a result that researchers attributed to power imbalances, information asymmetries, language differences, and long-standing distrust between the community and the school district (Marsh et al, 2015).…”

“…In Los Angeles, district leaders worked to engage multiple stakeholders in key decisions concerning the planning of school models in the district’s portfolio, including parents in democratic deliberation and training facilitators to ensure that all voices were heard (Marsh et al, 2015). Even in this case, however, the attempt to employ democratic practices proved largely unsuccessful, a result that researchers attributed to power imbalances, information asymmetries, language differences, and long-standing distrust between the community and the school district (Marsh et al, 2015). Studies like this also call attention to the possibility that authentic democratic practices may be particularly difficult—if not impossible—to develop in the context of market competition, especially when profits are at stake for some actors.…”

“…Studies like this also call attention to the possibility that authentic democratic practices may be particularly difficult—if not impossible—to develop in the context of market competition, especially when profits are at stake for some actors. As Marsh et al (2015) point out, “the political activity resulting from competition—another key lever of change in PSCI [Public School Choice Initiative]—greatly affected the quantity and quality of parent engagement” (p. 78).…”

Transformational Resistance and Parent Leadership: Black Parents in a School District Decision-Making Process

“…Therefore, these meetings might be described by theorists as sites for deliberative public engagement. The deliberative democratic model advances the interest of the public through engagement in public discourse (Marsh, Strunk, Bush-Mecenas, & Huguet, 2015). If individuals have different ideas about a process or outcome, they can engage in dialogue and healthy, well-reasoned discussions that will ultimately influence the decision-making process and lead to more optimal outcomes.…”