Democracy (In)Action

Kretchmar, Kerry

doi:10.1177/0013124511424108

Cited by 22 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 26 publications

(57 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Unlike the urban literature, however, rural analyses rarely detail the steps policymakers take after choosing sites, such as preparation for closure, the transition of students, or the handling of properties after closure. Some urban and rural policymakers have allowed for community input in the closure or consolidation process by putting the closure to public vote, holding open forums to gather input, and creating local councils or planning committees to oversee the process (DeYoung, 2000;Ewing, 2018;Good, 2016;Hendrix, 2013;Hyndman et al, 2010;Kirshner, 2015;Kretchmar, 2014;Pappas, 2016;Shiller, 2017). And sometimes this community input has yielded changes: For example, Chicago officials responded to community input by addressing transportation issues postclosure (Gordon et al, 2018;Graham, Keys, McMahon, & Brubacher, 2014), and, in another city, others attempted to initiate a more transparent closure process after initial plans for closing a school site were retracted (Finnigan & Lavner, 2012).…”

Section: Implementation Of Closurementioning

confidence: 99%

Rethinking the School Closure Research: School Closure as Spatial Injustice

Tieken

Auldridge-Reveles

2019

Review of Educational Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent mass closings of schools have rocked cities across the United States. Though these urban closures—and widespread community protests—have made headlines, rural schools have also long experienced and opposed the closure of their schools. A large body of research examines these urban and rural closures from a variety of perspectives, including their economic motivations and policy implications. This review reexamines this literature, looking across context to show how school closure can produce spatial injustice. Advocates argue that closures further academic opportunity, efficiency, and equality. But our analysis shows that closures are unevenly distributed, disproportionately affecting places where poor communities and communities of color live, and they can bring negative effects, harming students and adults and reducing their access to an important educational and community institution. We conclude with recommendations for research and practice.

show abstract

Section: Implementation Of Closurementioning

confidence: 99%

Rethinking the School Closure Research: School Closure as Spatial Injustice

Tieken

Auldridge-Reveles

2019

Review of Educational Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Ultimately, I question the usefulness of deliberation when policymaking is a done deal. This article builds on previous inquiries into communities' influence over school closure policy (Finnigan & Lavner, 2012;Kretchmar, 2011). It also extends the empirical application of Habermasian theory in contemplating community participation in deliberative political processes (Chang & Jacobson, 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 85%

Is deliberation a laudable goal when policy is a done deal? The Habermasian public sphere and legitimacy in a market era of education policymaking

Pappas¹

2016

EPAA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The state mandated public hearings concerning school closing proposals in New York City provide a window into a diverse set of policy actors and their deliberations. Opposition to school closures is often cast as entrenched interests, emotional attachment, support for the status quo or at worst negligence. However, content analysis reveals that testimony offered by parent, community, and educator leaders contained a range of substantial critiques of school closing proposals, their motivations, justifications, and expected results. I argue that the hearings did not fully constitute a public sphere by Habermasian criteria, nor a counterpublic by Fraser and Dawson criteria. In fact, the hearings had contradictory effects; one school successfully fought closure by both resisting and reifying neoliberal logic in education policymaking. Some data demonstrates that this school’s market-based argument resonated with state authorities, while other data indicates that this market-based argument coincided with the state’s own interest to defend its legitimacy in policymaking.

show abstract

“…School closure processes have often earned their characterization of being chaotic because they lack transparency and do not provide adequate information to communities (Deeds & Pattillo, 2014;Sunderman & Payne, 2009). In a study of one school district, for instance, Kretchmar (2014) captured an erratic and inconsistent process that left community members confounded when schools that district leaders previously praised became slated for closure. Finnigan and Lavner (2012) documented another school closure process they described as burdensome for those who participated, citing the dense material and "academic" nature of discussions that sidelined already marginalized groups.…”

Section: Data-drivenmentioning

confidence: 99%

“It just doesn’t add up”: Disrupting official arguments for urban school closures with counterframes

Syeed

2019

EPAA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mass school closures have become commonplace in urban school districts. To explain their actions, school system leaders often rely on a dominant frame that presents closures as an inevitable, data-driven, and politically neutral phenomenon in an educational landscape defined by shrinking budgets, demographic changes, and increased school choice. In response, research has typically focused on how communities tell counternarratives that seek to interrupt official accounts of school closures. Using a critical frame analysis of qualitative data from the 2013 school closure process in Washington, DC, I discuss another grassroots approach to disrupting school closures: counterframes. Drawing on Critical Race Theory and social movement theory, I discuss counterframes as discursive arguments that allow communities to directly challenge official rhetoric and offer alternatives. Findings show that communities in DC crafted counterframes that pushed back on the notion that the closures were inevitable, questioned the data guiding the process, and attempted to expose hidden agendas and interests behind shuttering schools. The article concludes with the relevance of counterframes to broader educational mobilizations as well as their limitations.

show abstract

Democracy (In)Action

Cited by 22 publications

References 26 publications

Rethinking the School Closure Research: School Closure as Spatial Injustice

Rethinking the School Closure Research: School Closure as Spatial Injustice

Is deliberation a laudable goal when policy is a done deal? The Habermasian public sphere and legitimacy in a market era of education policymaking

“It just doesn’t add up”: Disrupting official arguments for urban school closures with counterframes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About