Media-Based Knowledge Mobilization and Neoliberalization in the Trump/DeVos Era

• In Event: 51.020 - Inter/national Knowledge Production and Mobilization in Education in a Post-Truth Era

Abstract

This manuscript focuses on strategies and tensions around advocacy/opposition to school voucher and ‘neovoucher’ (Welner, 2008) programs in the U.S. before and during the Trump/DeVos era, analyzing 2016-2018 media entries. This study represents part of a broader project, motivated by the need to better understand how and why such policies are expanding and proliferating (Lubienski, 2018) even as scant evidence supports their efficacy (Verger, Fontdevila, & Zancajo, 2016). Our specific focus on the media reflects the recognition that contextualized “ideational” drivers (Verger et al., 2016, p. 15: e.g., conceptions of the central purpose of education and the state’s role) encouraging privatization are vital to such policies’ evolution and expansion. It is largely through the media that issues, problems, and solutions are defined and set within “ethical” frameworks, with the goal being to create “subjects predisposed toward the values” embodied by particular policies (Rizvi & Lingard, 2010, p. 22). Likewise, those resisting educational privatization and/or desiring to propose different directions must engage via the media, which for all parties play “a more significant role than ever before” (p. 22). Framed by the concept of ‘neoliberalization’ (Peck, 2010), our analysis highlights the utilization of research in media advocacy through a changing political landscape favoring reformers (e.g., the rising power of private interests in public policymaking).

We show how the Trump/DeVos arrival onto the scene as choice advocates dramatically increased attention toward these reforms, which until then had been quietly but effectively taking place at state and local levels. It has also precipitated public debates and handwringing. For example, Hess (2017) wondered how badly the “fragile choice coalition” would be harmed by a “historically unpopular president” serving as “national pitchman for school choice” after a “remarkable run over the past quarter century” that had come “with remarkably little ‘help’ from Washington” (n.p.). Many accordingly fretted over whether Trump/DeVos choice advocacy would do more harm than good, and indeed we observed a major spike in (largely critical and negative) media attention toward voucher and neovoucher policies/proposals. As they were pulled into the more intense national glow, the moral, logical, and/or empirical issues associated with these proposals were more easily highlighted. Voucher proponents also were observed to subtly shift their framings—e.g., from emphasizing ‘school choice’ to favoring more generalized ‘educational choice’ and ‘educational options,’ and from predominately emphasizing choice for the vulnerable toward predominately advocating for generalized ‘parental empowerment’ and ‘choice for all.’ We show how these and other shifts are closely tied to their evolving, state-of-the art policy vehicles. For example, the move to ‘educational options’ and ‘choice for all’ can be used to advocate neo-vouchers like the educational savings accounts in Arizona and Florida that provide additional options to families writ large. We also highlight strategies/tensions from voucher opponents and document increasingly frequent and proactive arguments. In general, we perceived voucher opponents were somewhat encouraged by widespread and more general resistance to Trump and his administration.

Authors

• Joel R Malin, Miami University - Oxford

• Christopher A. Lubienski, Indiana University

• Queenstar Mensa-Bonsu, Miami University