Strategic Framing, Partisanship, and Philanthropy: The Story of the Charter School Movement

This dissertation systematically explores the origins and evolution of the charter school movement in the United States from 1985 to 2015. I begin by analyzing the role of governors in K-12 education policymaking and find that while governors have generally placed greater emphasis on K-12 education policy over time, Republican governors have demonstrated significantly more engagement on education issues than their Democratic counterparts. This is puzzling given that the K-12 education policy arena has traditionally been dominated by the Democratic Party. I also trace the relative emphasis that governors have placed on the three competing goals of American public education: social efficiency, social mobility, and democratic equality. I demonstrate that Republican governors were more likely than Democrats to use all three frames in discussing their education priorities.

I then argue that the rise of the colorblind social order in the 1980s ushered in a period of Republican leadership in education. This leadership initiated the outcome-based education reform movement, which has pushed for both standards and accountability reforms and school choice reforms. Republicans gained a leadership advantage in the K-12 education arena by developing an abstract racial equality frame and linking it with the social efficiency and social mobility frames of the standards and choice movements. The abstract racial equality frame emphasizes closing the racial achievement gap, providing equal educational opportunity for all, and promoting school choice as a civil right symbolically rather than substantively.

Next, I explore the institutional, partisan, and contextual determinants of charter school authorization and implementation. I find that Republican governors are effective policy entrepreneurs in the charter school authorization phase and that Republican state legislators serve as important policy venues in the charter school implementation phase. I also demonstrate that the urban composition of states positively impacts charter school authorization and growth. However, the racial and ethnic composition of states has no effect on charter school adoption and mixed effects on charter school implementation. This finding partially supports my theory that the symbolic nature of abstract racial equality framing has failed to produce broad, multiethnic support for charter schools.

The final section focuses on the education philanthropists and charter school advocacy organizations driving charter school growth. I find that philanthropists are both more likely to invest in right-to-work states as well as states with higher rates of union membership indicating that foundations balance strategic considerations and policy objectives. Additionally, while the size of a state’s urban population influences philanthropic charter support, its racial and ethnic composition is not a significant predictor of grantmaking. This finding, again, confirms my theory that the abstract racial equality framing of the charter school advocacy coalition is more symbolic than substantive.