Engaging Families, Educators, and Communities as Educational Advocates

Sue Winton, Lauri Johnson

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• Print ISBN: 9780367892289
• eBook ISBN: 9781351349284
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

This edited collection broadens understanding of family–school–community partnerships by focusing on how community groups, educators, and university professors engage with public education to achieve their own goals rather than goals defined by schools, school systems, and governments. Authors critically examine various school–community partnerships that collectively aim to improve decision-making, democratize policy processes, resist policies that support the marketization of public education, and advocate for racial equality.

The book's chapters focus on advocacy efforts within and across three national contexts—England, Canada, and the United States. Together they expand current scholarship by demonstrating how different constituencies develop alliances, experience tensions, and navigate the politics inherent in change efforts. By examining the intersections of parent and community organizing, teacher unions, and school–community partnerships across national contexts, the chapters uncover fruitful new terrain for understanding the theory and practice of educational activism. This volume was originally published as a special issue of Leadership and Policy in Schools.

Consulting, Mediating, Conducting, and Supporting: How Community-Based Organizations Engage With Research to Influence Policy

Sue Winton and Michael P. Evans

ABSTRACT

Grounded in critical policy theories and democratic conceptions of research, case studies of three community-based organizations, one in Canada and two in the U.S., were analyzed to determine if and how the groups engaged with research in their efforts to influence education policy. The findings demonstrate that the community-based organizations consulted and mediated existing research, conducted original research, and supported others’ research efforts. Collectively, engaging research helped community-based organizations realize technical, political, and transformative goals. Furthermore, the groups’ research activities helped democratize policy processes by broadening policy discourses, challenging dominant policy narratives, encouraging local dialogue and actions, and engaging participants.

How can ordinary citizens influence policy processes typically oriented toward addressing the interests of society’s most powerful members? Committed to democratic governance and public engagement in education, community-based organizations (CBOs) engage in policy change efforts with the hope of creating more inclusive and equitable policy and practices (Orr & Rogers, 2011). Their task is a formidable one: education policy processes in the U.S. and Canada are normally enacted in ways antithetical to these critical democratic ideals (Anderson, 2009; Forum for Education and Democracy, 2008; Pinto, 2012b, 2013; Trujillo, 2013; Winton, 2010). Nevertheless, a growing body of literature demonstrates that CBOs do sometimes influence policy in education (e.g., Christens & Dolan, 2011; McLaughlin, Scott, Deschenes, Hopkins, & Newman, 2009; Mediratta, Shah, & McAlister, 2009). The study described in this article builds on previous research demonstrating that an important facet of a CBO’s ability to influence policy is its capacity to collect, interpret, and utilize education research in policy processes (Baum, 2003; Renée, 2006). Drawing on data from three case studies, we examine how CBO members engage with research to better understand how community coalitions and organizations become “vital players in contemporary policy arenas” (McLaughlin, 2006, p. 223).

Unlike most studies of CBOs and other group activity in policy processes, our work is grounded in critical policy theory and adopts a broad definition of research. It joins efforts (e.g., Appadurai, 2006; Oakes, Renée, Rogers, & Lipton, 2008; Ozga, 2000) to democratize research by challenging narrow definitions of research and researchers. We identify different ways three CBOs engage with research (i.e., as producers, users, mediators, and supporters), examine how their research activities reflect their organizational purposes and goals, discuss outcomes of their engagement with research in their efforts to influence education policy, and demonstrate that their research engagements enhance democracy in education.

Defining policy, community based organizations, and research

A cursory review of the literature addressing group activity in education finds it is comprised mainly of theories and studies that are grounded in rational models of policy (Mawhinney, 2001; Williams, 2005). These approaches assume policy decisions are made by elites such as elected officials and school board members; therefore, studies of collective actors tend to focus on how groups influence formal decision-making processes (e.g., Itkonen, 2007; McLaughlin et al., 2009; Oakes et al., 2008; Renée, 2006). Our study is grounded in a critical approach that recognizes that policy is not limited to a decision or text made by an authoritative body, such as a government or school board. While these “official” texts, decisions, and bodies are part of our conception of policy, we understand that policy also includes the discourses, contexts (political, historical, social, economic), texts, groups, and individuals who shape policy decisions (intentionally or otherwise), as well as the actions of individuals who interpret and enact policy in their practice (Ball, Maguire, & Braun, 2012; Bowe, Ball, & Gold, 1992; Koyama, 2011; Levinson, Sutton, & Winstead, 2009; Taylor, 1997). Thus, those who aim to influence policy can do so in many sites using various strategies; they are not limited to targeting officials from authoritative bodies or the individuals with whom they interact (e.g., policy advisors, the media). Rather, it is possible to influence education policy by challenging dominant discourses, talking to teachers, changing local practices, or in a myriad of other ways.

Furthermore, our critical perspective recognizes that policy processes are not neutral; that is, some groups benefit while others are disadvantaged (Diem, Young, Welton, Cumings Mansfield, & Lee, 2014). Different actors have varying ability to influence policy discourses and practices, and policies typically benefit individuals and groups with the most power. Means of challenging inequities and making policy processes more democratic include increasing the number and diversity of participants in policy dialogues, increasing the public’s awareness of the effects of policy as experienced in day-to-day life in schools and communities, and taking direct political action (Pinto, 2012a; Smith, Miller-Kahn, Heinecke, & Jarvis, 2004). In this article we examine how three CBOs use research in their efforts to influence policy and implications for democratic policy processes.

There are a wide variety of groups that try to influence education policy (Scott, Lubienski, & DeBray-Pelot, 2009; Winton & Gonzalez, 2014), and a number of typologies exist to define and distinguish between them. Thomas and Hrebenar (1992), for example, define an interest group as “any association of individuals, whether formally organized or not, that attempts to influence public policy” (p. 153). This definition includes groups that may or may not be formally organized, those that are formed with the aim to influence policy and those that do so in the course of pursuing other goals, and those that are aligned with specific political parties and those that are not (Opfer, Young, & Fusarelli, 2008). Kirst and Wirt (2009) identify six kinds of interest groups in education in the U.S.: professional groups; professionally oriented groups; transcendental groups; conservative Christian groups; crisis and grass-roots groups; and testing agencies, foundations, and think tanks. Young and Everitt (2004) argue that the term interest group implies that the groups want to influence policy in ways that will only benefit their members and excludes groups that are motivated by their beliefs and whose members may not benefit directly. To capture both kinds of groups, they use the term advocacy group and define such a group as one “that seeks to influence government policy, but not to govern” (p. 5).

The groups studied in this article can be described as community-based organizations (CBOs). Recognizing the contested meaning of community (Mannarini & Fedi, 2009), we define community as a group of individuals with shared goals and interests. Our CBOs represent communities that vary in size from a single neighborhood to an entire province. All three CBOs examined promote substantial engagement of their community members in policy processes as a means to achieve more equitable and inclusive practices and outcomes.

A key interest in this article is to explain how these three CBOs engage with research in their efforts to influence dominant policy discourses and practices. Research, according to Appadurai (2006), is “the capacity to make disciplined inquiries into those things that we need to know, but do not know yet” (p. 167). This capacity enables people to increase their knowledge in relation to some goal or task; it is not only the production of new knowledge as it is typically defined in academia (Appadurai, 2006). By this definition, conducting research may involve seeking out others’ ideas and information in order to solve a problem or using a variety of approaches to gather new information about an unknown phenomenon. Individuals and groups can also participate in others’ research by contributing their knowledge.

Appadurai’s definition of research emphasizes research as a process. While we share his broad understanding of what constitutes research processes, research can also be understood as a product, that is, the knowledge gleaned from the research process. This knowledge can then be shared with others for a variety of purposes. Thus, research activities may include conducting original research, using others’ research, disseminating research, and supporting the research activities of others. Groups’ engagement with research is familiar in public health policy (e.g., Hastie & Kothari, 2009; Terry, Terry, Rauen, Uitto, & Bercovitch, 2007), but less attention has been given to how organizations use research to influence education policy. We briefly review what is known about how CBOs and other groups in education engage with research in their efforts to influence policy before introducing our three groups in more detail.

Advocacy organizations and research

Advocacy organizations in education use research in their efforts to influence elite policymakers and their decisions (Christens & Dolan, 2011; Conner, Zaino, & Scarola, 2013; Levin, 2004; McLaughlin et al., 2009; Mediratta et al., 2009; Opfer, 2001; Renée, 2006; Renée & McAlister, 2011). Renée (2006), drawing on Oakes (1992), outlines three purposes of research used by education justice organizations to influence policy processes and build their organizational capacity: technical, political, and transformative. Technical research involves using research to inform groups of the substance of specific issues and policies and to guide organizational processes and plans (Renée, 2006). In her study of 64 organizations that aim to influence policy decisions primarily at the district and state levels, Renée (2006) found the groups consulted others’ research to build their organizational capacity (e.g., educating group leaders about issues, supporting grant proposals, developing long-term plans, designing workshops, and increasing leaders’ technical knowledge). Groups also used technical research to plan and engage in contentious action. These activities include developing new policy proposals, developing campaigns, evaluating current policies, developing campaign materials, improving a policy, and evaluating the success and failure of a campaign.

Political research use involves using research to shift the distribution of power among policies, organizations, or issues and/or building the power of the organization (Renée, 2006). Groups in Renée’s study used research to build alliances with other groups, engage and recruit members, and increase credibility. All these activities help strengthen the organizations’ ability to affect policy change. Political research is also used to achieve goals when the groups plan and engage in contentious actions. These outcomes include adding legitimacy to their argument, gaining support for a policy or campaign, countering an opponent’s argument, and garnering policymakers’ and media attention.

Finally, transformative research is used to shift individuals’ and groups’ deeply held beliefs, values, and ideas; individuals and groups may include individual activists, organization members, official decision makers, and the public (Renée, 2006). Groups in Renee’s study used transformative research to build their organization’s capacity by educating members about the ways their personal situations connect to broader patterns of inequality and encouraging members to view themselves as legitimate policy actors. The groups also used research to achieve transformative purposes when planning and engaging in contentious action; they used research to educate the public and policymakers; frame discussions, debates or agendas; change the way people think about an issue; confront racism or classism; and develop a key phrase or concept to guide a campaign. Notably, the same research activity can serve multiple purposes at one time. An indicator of an education justice organization’s effectiveness is its capacity to collect, interpret, and utilize education research in policy discourse (Baum, 2003; Renée, 2006).

In addition to Renée’s (2006) distinction between purposes of research, we draw on Levin’s (2011) distinctions between contexts of research: where research is produced, where research is used, and mediating processes between the other two contexts. Some people and organizations operate in more than one context, acting variously as research producers, mediators, and/or users (Levin, 2011). Think tanks, for example, are a kind of organization that is explicitly concerned with synthesizing, creating, or disseminating research, information, ideas, and/or advice to the public, policymakers, other organizations (both private and governmental), and the media (Hess, 2007). Cooper (2010) examined knowledge-mobilization intermediary groups in Canada (i.e., groups that mediate between contexts of research use and production) and identified different roles they perform including researcher, research translator, training coordinator, consensus builder, connector, teacher, matchmaker, and problem identifier.

Our study combines Renée’s interest in the purposes of research use by advocacy organizations in education, Levin’s contexts of research, and critical policy studies’ interest in understanding how policy processes may challenge or support the status quo. The study extends Renée’s (2006) framework by distinguishing between the different ways groups engage with research to achieve technical, political, and transformative outcomes (sometimes unintended) in their education reform efforts, by adopting a broader view of what counts as research and where policymaking takes place, and by identifying how groups’ research activities support enhanced democracy in policy processes.

Methodological approach

The study discussed in this article originated from our shared interest in how CBOs engage in policy processes. It was conceived through conversations about the groups we studied independently as we discussed how each one tries to influence and democratize policy processes. We decided to revisit data collected from our initial studies (and add to it where necessary) to see if we could develop a better understanding of how the three groups use research in their education reform efforts and implications for democracy. The article’s first author conducted a case study of a CBO in Toronto, Canada, and the second author conducted two case studies in Massachusetts, U.S.. We begin this section with a description of the three groups and their shared global policy context (Rizvi & Lingard, 2010). We then describe our data sources and method of analysis.

Cases: UIA, JP-POP and P4E

United Interfaith Action (UIA) is a faith-based organization; at the time of the research its membership included twenty religious institutions in the cities of Fall River and New Bedford. UIA has been active in the community for over 10 years and has a broad-based agenda that includes issues related to public safety, immigration, job training, and most recently education. They are an affiliate of the national network People Improving Communities through Organizing (PICO) and a member of the regional Massachusetts Communities Action Network (MCAN). The education campaign documented in this study focused on the desire to implement a district-wide conflict resolution education (CRE) program to help combat a rise in violence in the community. The organization consists of a two-person staff, an executive director, and a lead organizer, whose salaries are paid by membership dues.

Jamaica Plain Parent Organizing Project (JP-POP) is a neighborhood-based organizing group related to the non-profit City Life/Vida Urbana (CLVU). Located in the Boston neighborhood of Jamaica Plain, the group is also an active member of the Boston Parents Organizing Network (BPON). JP-POP’s focus is on issues related to education and in particular bilingual and special education. The group is predominantly Spanish speaking and almost all of the members have children with special needs. They have successfully lobbied for the rights of bilingual students and funding increases for Family Community Outreach Coordinators (FCOCs) within the Boston Public Schools (BPS).

People for Education (P4E) is an organization that aims to improve public education in Ontario, Canada and promote citizens’ engagement in education. The group formed in 1996 as a social action committee comprised of parents from a school in Toronto and has since grown into a provincial organization (People for Education, n.d.-a). The organization is funded through charitable donations and grants from individuals and a range of public and private organizations (People for Education, n.d.-b). The organization currently has six staff members, and while there is no formal membership, thousands of people around the province attend...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Citation Information
• Notes on Contributors
• Introduction. Engaging Families, Educators, and Communities as Educational Advocates
• 1 Consulting, Mediating, Conducting, and Supporting: How Community-Based Organizations Engage With Research to Influence Policy
• 2 University–School–Community Partnership as Vehicle for Leadership, Service, and Change: A Critical Brokerage Perspective
• 3 Entrenched Enemies, Tactical Partners, or Steadfast Allies? Exploring the Fault Lines Between Teacher Unions and Community Organizing in the United States
• 4 Challenging School Reform From Below: Is Leadership the Missing Link in Mobilization Theory?
• 5 Boundary Spanners and Advocacy Leaders: Black Educators and Race Equality Work in Toronto and London, 1968–1995
• Index