Neo-democracy in educational policy-making: a critical case study of neoliberal reform in Massachusetts

Abstract

This paper explores changes to the educational policy-making arena through case study analysis of a Massachusetts law passed in 2012 that limits seniority-based job protections for public K-12 teachers. I use data from interviews with policy stakeholders, observations of public meetings, and policy artifacts to explore struggles over democratic engagement in what unfolded as a highly undemocratic policy development process. Using the policy cycle framework, I explore the ways that political pressure and political discourses shaped the policy development process through various contexts of political struggle. Ultimately, I argue that the case is indicative of what I am calling ‘neo-democratic’ decision-making, in which high-level interest group conflict leads to narrow forms of democratic engagement.

Keywords:

• Discourse analysis
• qualitative research
• policy analysis
• politics
• democratic engagement

Notes

1. It is important to note that I view grassroots organizing as one example among the many possible forms of deliberative democratic engagement. I focus on grassroots organizing because it is central to the mission statements of Stand for Children and the MTA.

2. Because some individuals fall into multiple stakeholder categories, the numbers listed here add up to more than 32 total interviews. In particular, two rank-and-file union members were also either current or former local-level members of Stand for Children.

3. I introduce key informants as their responses become relevant to the overarching themes of the case. According to the informed consent agreement for this research, the names of all interview participants have been replaced with pseudonyms. I sought permission from each interview participant regarding identification of their title and of the name of the organization that they work for or represent. In cases where I did not receive explicit permission to identify organizational names or titles, I use generic labels that indicate the participant’s location in the policy arena without attaching her or his statements to a specific organization.