Search

Scholars of political economy have raised the question of whether recent populist movements around the world signal the decline of neoliberal hegemony. What would such a decline mean for education policy, an arena that has been dominated by a neoliberal common sense for several decades? This study investigates the policy discourse of former U.S. President Donald Trump's Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, in order to assess the extent to which it aligns with the neoliberal common sense or draws upon discourses of populism that have been gaining traction in the last few years. Using methods of corpus linguistics, I engage in a critical discourse analysis of 59 of DeVos's public speeches delivered between 2017 and 2019 in comparison with a reference corpus of speeches delivered by DeVos's predecessors in the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations. The findings, informed by Ernesto Laclau's theory of populism as political logic and discourse, suggest that DeVos deploys several features of populist discourse even as she advocates policies that are characteristically neoliberal. I consider the implications of this discourse for education policy in the US.

Business-inspired school reform policies in the United States date back to the late 19th century. In the last four decades, however, while school reformers have continued to borrow policies and practices from the business world, the dominant business model itself has changed dramatically as part of the financialization of the economy. Once a bureaucratically governed social institution, focused on long-term stability and committed to multiple stakeholders, the corporation has become a destabilized network of temporary contracting relationships, singularly focused on maximizing shareholder value. This conceptual article explores what it means for schools, as public and democratic institutions, to emulate business in the era of financialization. Through analysis of several recent trends in business-inspired school reform policy, I demonstrate the diffusion of financialization logic and practices into public schools. I argue that while business may have "historically" been a problematic model for educational policy, business is now a uniquely unqualified model.

Purpose: This study contributes to a growing literature focused on institutional complexity, or the phenomenon of competing institutional logics, in PK-12 public education. Responding to calls for more nuanced characterizations of district-level administration, our purpose was to identify the logics of curriculum leadership in one large school district in the Western U.S. and examine how district leaders made sense of their multiple demands. Research Methods: Employing case study methods, we collected curricular documents and conducted 21 interviews of district-level curriculum leaders, principals, and teachers. We used inductive coding to identify patterns in the district's culture of curriculum leadership and then drew upon institutional theory to associate these patterns with particular institutional logics. Findings: We found three coexisting logics of curriculum leadership in the school district: a logic of uniformity, which called for teachers' fidelity to a prescriptive curriculum; a logic of participation, which valued teacher voice and shared leadership; and a logic of performance, which placed a premium on measurable student achievement. These logics were often incompatible or contradictory, producing mixed messages and an institutional complexity that remained largely unacknowledged among leaders. Implications: Tensions among logics of curriculum leadership may not always result in open contestation, yet if leaders do not resolve them at the district level, teachers may be unsupported in their efforts to reconcile competing demands in their classroom practices. Identifying specific logics of curriculum leadership and considering their interactions may help leaders make sense of conflicting values and better support teachers in their classroom decision making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]