Information Politics, Transnational Advocacy, and Education for All

Magrath, Bronwen

doi:10.1086/682903

“…Furthermore, with the important exception of work by critical disability scholars who show how enduring racism, classism, and ableism thwart efforts for the inclusion of children with disabilities in mainstream classrooms (e.g., Ferri & Connor, 2005), most studies of policy advocacy highlight strategies used by advocates in successful campaigns. These strategies include conducting original research (Christens & Dolans, 2011;Magrath, 2015;McLaughlin, Scott, Dechenese, Hopkins, & Newman, 2009;Oakes, Renee, Rogers, & Lipton, 2008;Winton & Evans, 2016); consulting others' research (McDonald, 2013;Winton & Evans, 2016); engaging traditional and social media (McDonald, 2013;Ramey, 2013); and lobbying decision-makers (Opfer, Young, & Fusarelli, 2008). Some researchers demonstrate how successful advocates draw on their social networks and social capital to secure policy changes (e.g., Green, 2017;Grossman, 2012), while others examine how groups frame issues strategically (e.g., Feuerstein, 2015;Itkonen, 2009).…”

Section: What Do We Know About Educational Advocacy?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In 2014 P4E drew on its survey data to show that the likelihood of parents using private assessments is greater in the richest 25 percent of schools compared to the poorest 25 percent of schools in the province (P4E, 2014). People for Education' s use of evidence gathered through research, in this case to persuade its audiences that the problem of untimely and uneven access to assessments exists, is a common rhetorical appeal to logos, and many studies of successful policy change campaigns identify advocates' use of research evidence as an effective advocacy strategy (e.g., Best, 1987;Christens & Dolans, 2011;Magrath, 2015;McLaughlin, et al, 2009;Oakes et al, 2008;Winton & Evans, 2016). Why was this strategy ineffective for P4E for so long?…”

Section: A Rhetorical Analysis Of P4e's Advocacymentioning

confidence: 99%

Education Research in the Canadian Context

Laitsch¹,

MacKinnon²,

Young³

et al. 2019

IJEPL

1

0

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This special issue of the International Journal of Education Policy & Leadership (IJEPL), Research in the Canadian Context, marks a significant milestone for the journal. Throughout our twelve-year history, we have sought to publish the best research in leadership, policy, and research use, allowing authors to decide the topics by dint of their research. While this model still serves as the foundation for IJEPL content, we decided to give researchers a chance to engage in deeper conversations by introducing special issues. In our first special issue, researchers discuss their work within the scope of education policy, leadership, and research use within the Canadian context. While many aspects of leadership, teaching, and learning can be seen as similar across contexts, there are also issues of particular concern within national, regional, provincial, or local spheres, particularly when looking at policy and system changes. The researchers featured in this issue provide an important look into education in Canada.PolicyIn the policy realm, Sue Winton and Lauren Jervis examine a 22-year campaign to change special education assessment policy in Ontario, examining how discourses dominant in the province enabled the government to leave the issue unresolved for decades. Issues of access and equity play out within a neoliberal context focused on individualism, meritocracy, and the reduced funding of public services. While Winton and Jervis highlight the tension between policy goals and ideological contexts, Jean-Vianney Auclair considers the place of policy dialogues within governmental frames, and the challenge of engaging in broadly applicable work within vertically structured governmental agencies. One often-touted way to move beyondResearch useWithin the scope of research use, Sarah L. Patten examines how socioeconomic status (SES) is defined and measured in Canada, the challenges in defining SES, and potential solutions specific to the Canadian context. In looking at knowledge mobilization, Joelle Rodway considers how formal coaches and informal social networks nserve to connect research, policy, and practice in Ontario’s Child and Youth Mental Health program.LeadershipTurning to leadership, contributing researchers explored the challenges involved in staff development, administrator preparation, and student outcomes. Keith Walker and Benjamin Kutsyuruba explore how educational administrators can support early career teachers to increase retention, and the somewhat haphazard policies and supports in place across Canada to bring administrators and new teachers together. Gregory Rodney MacKinnon, David Young, Sophie Paish, and Sue LeBel look at how one program in Nova Scotia conceptualizes professional growth, instructional leadership, and administrative effectiveness and the emerging needs of administrators to respond to issues of poverty, socioemotional health, and mental health, while also building community. This complex environment may mean expanding leadership preparation to include a broader consideration of well-being and community. Finally, Victoria Handford and Kenneth Leithwood look at the role school leaders play in improving student achievement in British Columbia, and the school district characteristics associated with improving student achievement.Taken together, the research in this special issue touches on many of the challenges in policy development, application, and leadership practice, and the myriad ways that research can be used to address these challenges. We hope you enjoy this first special issue of IJEPL!

show abstract

“…Furthermore, with the important exception of work by critical disability scholars who show how enduring racism, classism, and ableism thwart efforts for the inclusion of children with disabilities in mainstream classrooms (e.g., Ferri & Connor, 2005), most studies of policy advocacy highlight strategies used by advocates in successful campaigns. These strategies include conducting original research (Christens & Dolans, 2011;Magrath, 2015;McLaughlin, Scott, Dechenese, Hopkins, & Newman, 2009;Oakes, Renee, Rogers, & Lipton, 2008;Winton & Evans, 2016); consulting others' research (McDonald, 2013;Winton & Evans, 2016); engaging traditional and social media (McDonald, 2013;Ramey, 2013); and lobbying decision-makers (Opfer, Young, & Fusarelli, 2008). Some researchers demonstrate how successful advocates draw on their social networks and social capital to secure policy changes (e.g., Green, 2017;Grossman, 2012), while others examine how groups frame issues strategically (e.g., Feuerstein, 2015;Itkonen, 2009).…”

Section: What Do We Know About Educational Advocacy?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In 2014 P4E drew on its survey data to show that the likelihood of parents using private assessments is greater in the richest 25 percent of schools compared to the poorest 25 percent of schools in the province (P4E, 2014). People for Education' s use of evidence gathered through research, in this case to persuade its audiences that the problem of untimely and uneven access to assessments exists, is a common rhetorical appeal to logos, and many studies of successful policy change campaigns identify advocates' use of research evidence as an effective advocacy strategy (e.g., Best, 1987;Christens & Dolans, 2011;Magrath, 2015;McLaughlin, et al, 2009;Oakes et al, 2008;Winton & Evans, 2016). Why was this strategy ineffective for P4E for so long?…”

Section: A Rhetorical Analysis Of P4e's Advocacymentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond Rhetoric: How Context Influences Education Policy Advocates’ Success

Winton

¹

,

Jervis

²

2019

IJEPL

1

0

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article discusses findings from a study of a 22-year campaign to change special education assessment policy in Ontario by the advocacy organization People for Education (P4E) and explains how dominant discourses enabled the government to leave the issue unresolved. Based on a rhetorical analysis of 58 documents, the article identifies strategies used by P4E to persuade Ontario’s government and citizens to view students’ uneven access to educational assessments as a problem. Further, since this problem differently impacts children by class and geographical location, it perpetuates inequities. Despite using strategies deemed effective in other change efforts, arguments mobilized by P4E have not been persuasive in a neoliberal context that champions responsibilized individualism, meritocracy, human capital development, and reduced funding of public services.

show abstract

“…The use of expert knowledge in policy-making processes has been captured by a wide range of conceptual frameworks: epistemic communities (Haas, 1989(Haas, , 1992(Haas, , 2004, transgovernmental regulatory networks (Slaughter, 2004a), transnational advocacy networks or organizations (Keck & Sikkink, 1999;Magrath, 2015) or communities of practices (Adler, 1992;Adler & Pouliot, 2011). Agreeing with the assessment of Claire Dunlop, who notes that the existing literature on expert knowledge reveals "superficial engagement" with the concept of experts (2012:233), this section will dedicate its attention to clarifying "where" experts are located in the EU institutional structure and who they are.…”

Section: Experts In the Eu Institutional Structurementioning

confidence: 99%

The Mundane Face of Europeanization: Norm Implementation through Expert Interactions in Georgia 2012-2020

Anderlini

0

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Numerous studies, using the Europeanization theoreticalframework, have looked into why and how EU-supportednorms and policies are adopted in non EU-Member States, focusingeither on the mechanisms through which they are diffusedor on the local actors´ responses to such demands. However,the practical implementation of such norms and policies in thirdcountries has only received modest attention in academic andpolicy-related studies. Indeed, the “law in the books” is not necessarilythe “law in action”.Going beyond the top-down approach that have extensively characterized Europeanization studies, this dissertation will operatea return to the “mundane face” of Europeanization and looks intohow expert interactions matter for EU law implementation. It showsthat those experts ae highly enthusiast and willing to implement EUdemands and adapted them to fit in their domestic context. Theyact as policy champions and show high degrees of policy saliencywhen fulfilling their tasks. Nevertheless, those champions operatein a difficult administrative and political environment that complicatesEU law compliance, with low administrative capacity, highdegree of staff turn-over, shortages of knowledgeable staff andpolitical actors that might hinder EU law implementation if it is toocostly or in contradiction with domestic vested interests.

show abstract

Information Politics, Transnational Advocacy, and Education for All

Cited by 6 publications

References 22 publications

Education Research in the Canadian Context

Education Research in the Canadian Context

Beyond Rhetoric: How Context Influences Education Policy Advocates’ Success

The Mundane Face of Europeanization: Norm Implementation through Expert Interactions in Georgia 2012-2020

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About