The Changing Role of Interest Groups in Education: Nationalization and the New Politics of Education Productivity

Abstract

The politics of education in the United States has changed in recent decades from one approximating professionally dominated subgovernments to issue networks, which are characterized by more ideational, macropolitical interest groups as well as shifting and unstable coalitions. This transformation is caused, first, by the growth of national discourse and federal power The two often go hand in hand but are not synonymous, and nationalizing influences have expanded despite unresolved debate about the federal role in education. Other courses include the intensified debate, divergent demands for reform of public schools, and the expanding role of the political right. The new politics of education productivity has reshaped the way discourse on education policy is conducted and the perceptions of common interests. Despite nationalizing trends in setting policy agendas, implementation of reforms is dominated by local politics, where micropolitical interests often frustrate reformers. This tension is built into our political system.

The micropolitics of school district decentralization

“…Macropolitics of education encompasses the school districts external environment as well as its relationships at the local, state, and federal levels as well as private and public sector organizations. The external policy environment of the Drayton County Public School District involved relations and interactions between and among organizations including state agencies, local business groups, and national interest groups that shared a common interest in advancement of educational reform (Cibulka 2001). These entities influenced adoption of their reform agendas that included decentralization (SBM), distributed leadership and Total Quality Management (TQM) (Blase and Björk 2009).…”

“…The terms macropolitics and micropolitics refer to two broad dimensions of the politics of education and involve conflictual as well as cooperative processes including individual and group interests, power and influence, strategic interaction, values, and ideologies (Ball 1987;Blase and Björk, 2009). In the United States, macropolitics of education describe the school district's external environment and its relationships at the local, state, and federal levels as well as interaction of private and public organizations within, between, and among these levels (Cibulka 2001). Scholars concur that nationally-initiated legislation including educational reform and interaction among private and public organizations have significant effects on politics at the district and school levels related to adoption and implementation processes (Blase and Björk 2009).…”

Education Reform and the Political Safeguards of Federalism

“…10 School administrators saw themselves "as the embodiment of the public interest, its vigilant protector." (Cibulka, 2001) By the 1950s, the progressives' cult of professionalism gave way as those outside the education establishment began to question the effectiveness of the existing system. Public support for federal aid to education swelled after the Soviets launched Sputnik in 1957.…”

“…A pervasive sense that the U.S. was slipping behind galvanized reform efforts in the area of math and science, leading to passage of the National Defense Education Act (NDEA). (Cibulka 2001) To implement the NDEA, the federal government channeled funding through non-governmental agencies, thereby circumventing the professional-dominated SEAs. Like the New Deal youth programs before it, the NDEA was therefore designed with an eye toward decreasing the "establishment's" influence over federal aid.…”

Early start: preschool politics in the United States

“…64 More-demanding school curriculums, stricter requirements for teachers, minimum competency tests for high school graduation, and a variety of other reforms were portrayed as ways to compete in the global economy. This "new politics of education productivity" affected how people discussed education reform and their perceptions of what was at stake (Cibulka 2001).…”