All Things to All People: How State-Level Policy Actors Frame School Choice

• In Event: Equity, Race, and Access Within the School Choice Landscape: The Next Wave of Research

Abstract

Objectives
School choice is one of the most prominent controversies in K-12 education policy. Choice has been associated with the conservative right (Freedberg, 2020), and described as harmful to racially minoritized students (NAACP, 2016). Others argue choice empowers teacher leadership (Kahlenberg & Potter, 2014), expands “civil rights” (Fuller, 2002), or allows for more culturally relevant education (Rofes & Stulberg, 2004).

As is often the case, the debate over school choice reflects deeper disagreements regarding underlying ideas and assumptions. In this paper, we draw on framing theory and a multiple case study of five states to ask: What are the contours of the debate over state-level school choice policy? To what extent does this debate vary across states? What factors might explain this variation?

Theoretical Framework
Framing theory attends to the ways that actors continually and intersubjectively construct shared meanings to understand situations (Goffman, 1974). Three central framing processes occur within policymaking: sensemaking, naming (including selection, categorization, and metaphorizing), and storytelling (Schon & Rein, 1995; van Hulst & Yanow, 2014).

Method & Data Sources
We conducted a multiple case study (Yin, 2013) of Oregon, Michigan, Colorado, Louisiana, and Florida. Within each state, we interviewed key actors engaged in state-level debates over choice policy, such as state board members, legislators, union leaders, charter school association leaders, and community advocates (n=58). We also collected relevant documents and public data. Guided by framing theory, our team analyzed data in iterative cycles of coding, matrix displays, and memos.

Preliminary Results
Across cases, we identified five common approaches to framing choice as a desirable policy. These approaches each centered on an espoused goal: quality, equity, liberty, plurality, and innovation. These approaches emerged in all five states, but with some variation. While actors emphasized the quality and liberty frames for all choice policies, they used the innovation frame in reference to charter schools (rather than vouchers or open enrollment). Actors in Oregon emphasized the plurality frame to a much greater degree than did actors elsewhere, while actors in Louisiana strongly voiced the quality frame. In Colorado, the liberty frame was most prominent when discussing White rural and suburban areas, while the quality and equity frames emerged when discussing predominantly Black and Latinx urban centers. We also encountered framing that constructed school choice in a negative or neutral light. In Oregon, actors articulated a frame of survival—suggesting that some districts adopted choice to remain solvent. Negative framing primarily critiqued the positive frames as deceptive, masking proponents’ true intent to profit off of choice, dismantle public education, and eliminate unions. State history, politics, and fiscal conditions contributed to patterns of variation.

Scholarly Significance
The five different approaches to positive framing show how choice is constructed as “all things to all people.” This malleability may help explain the durability of choice policy over time. Echoing other scholars (e.g., Horsford et al., 2018) our findings also demonstrate how choice framing draws on a broader cultural repertoire of market logics and neoliberal ideals.

Authors

• Taylor N. Allbright, California State Polytechnic University - Pomona

• Julie A. Marsh, University of Southern California

• Kate Kennedy, University of Southern California

• Eupha Jeanne Daramola, University of Southern California

• Haley Nelson, University of Southern California

• Huriya Jabbar, The University of Texas at Austin