Power to the People? Populism and the Politics of School Choice in the United States
Saved in:
| Title: | Power to the People? Populism and the Politics of School Choice in the United States |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Singer, Jeremy (ORCID |
| Source: | Journal of School Choice. 2021 15(1):88-112. |
| Availability: | Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 25 |
| Publication Date: | 2021 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Descriptive |
| Descriptors: | School Choice, Politics of Education, Political Attitudes, Educational Change, Neoliberalism, Access to Education, African American Community, Christianity, Religious Cultural Groups |
| Geographic Terms: | United States |
| DOI: | 10.1080/15582159.2020.1853993 |
| ISSN: | 1558-2159 |
| Abstract: | I use the definition of "populism as a discursive frame" to consider the extent to which the politics of school choice in the United States have been populist. This analysis offers a novel way to understand how political actors have forged coalitions to support school choice and suggests how they may remake their positions in an evolving political context. Populist approaches in the politics of school choice have been muted over the past three decades, as the contemporary educational reform movement has relied on political rhetoric that would foster and maintain broad-based coalitional support for its agenda. This is revealed by the dominant framing of school choice in the contemporary reform era, and by its contrast with more populist discourses throughout the politics of school choice. While populist sentiments are rising in the United States, political elites largely still rely on the contemporary reform movement's weakly populist or elitist discourse surrounding school choice. Social and geographic divisions within and between political constituencies remain obstacles to a populist turn in the politics of school choice. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2021 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1292425 |
| Database: | ERIC |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| FullText | Links: – Type: pdflink Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHyhLdzVQ1dP-MmmP1qhOxsAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDHo6mFagsncgMterzQIBEICBmvhi3cueVrGzjVOMXQU7caMxJvTJLsXgnfK-1_OJs1hQFQ09-0zCNVP42rbfHlq9GEkqlItfvR9kPnw59b38sMqvbNA5tzafO1yspV94yB7MReC94wAE8L6IABPO2jNpOnhiwVN-Aw3e62iH-ia3gd5e4MEZSjQDZ8B14ld2HxpfyV8b3aRQ5XlrumK4SmZWUstsCm0QAZ9NZvE= Text: Availability: 1 Value: <anid>AN0149576265;[2y6a]01jan.21;2021Apr02.06:27;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0149576265-1">Power to the People? Populism and the Politics of School Choice in the United States </title> <p>I use the definition of populism as a discursive frame to consider the extent to which the politics of school choice in the United States have been populist. This analysis offers a novel way to understand how political actors have forged coalitions to support school choice and suggests how they may remake their positions in an evolving political context. Populist approaches in the politics of school choice have been muted over the past three decades, as the contemporary educational reform movement has relied on political rhetoric that would foster and maintain broad-based coalitional support for its agenda. This is revealed by the dominant framing of school choice in the contemporary reform era, and by its contrast with more populist discourses throughout the politics of school choice. While populist sentiments are rising in the United States, political elites largely still rely on the contemporary reform movement's weakly populist or elitist discourse surrounding school choice. Social and geographic divisions within and between political constituencies remain obstacles to a populist turn in the politics of school choice.</p> <p>Keywords: School choice; populism; politics; discourse</p> <p>Populist sentiments are rising in the United States and globally, as reflected in the use of populist rhetoric by politicians on both the left and the right (Lewis et al., [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref1">78</reflink>]). Voters in the United States have expressed affinity for these populist appeals, for example in their support for the presidential bids of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders (Espenshade, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref2">35</reflink>]; Fraser, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref3">40</reflink>]; Lacatus, [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref4">73</reflink>]; Rehmann, [<reflink idref="bib104" id="ref5">104</reflink>]; West, [<reflink idref="bib132" id="ref6">132</reflink>]). Further, surveys of populist attitudes show that strongly populist dispositions can be found among both Democrats and Republicans (Henderson, Houston, Peterson, Shakeel, &amp; West, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref7">55</reflink>]).</p> <p>While many scholars define populism as a "thin-ideology" that political actors fuse with other ideological positions (Mudde, [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref8">90</reflink>]), it is more productively characterized as a <emph>discursive frame</emph> – a mode of politics wherein political actors define "the people" based on a shared set of interests in opposition to "elites" (Aslanidis, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref9">6</reflink>]; Laclau, [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref10">74</reflink>]; see also Carrasco, this issue). Rather than focusing on whether political movements or their core issues are populist in essence, defining populism as a discursive frame draws attention to the rhetoric that political actors use to characterize themselves and their movements in more or less populist terms. It helps make sense of a political phenomenon that has operated across the ideological spectrum and in relation to a variety of substantively different issues, and points simultaneously to the common "structural elements of populist discourse" as well as differences that emerge as a result of different circumstances and varying constructions of "the people" and "elites" (Aslanidis, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref11">6</reflink>], p. 101).</p> <p>What can we learn about school choice[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref12">1</reflink>] if we consider it through the lens of populism as a discursive frame? Who are "the people" and what are their demands? Who are the "elites" against whom they are mobilized? Rather than considering whether school choice policies are populist in nature (e.g., Coons, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref13">29</reflink>]; Shakeel &amp; Maranto, [<reflink idref="bib113" id="ref14">113</reflink>]), questions about populism and school choice should draw our attention to the politics surrounding them. Specifically, we should ask: <emph>to what extent</emph> and <emph>in what ways</emph> have the politics of school choice been populist? In other words, we should identify the degree with which the politics of school choice have been framed by a populist discourse; and we should consider its context, to understand how political actors construct "the people" and "the elites" differently in different circumstances (Aslanidis, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref15">6</reflink>]; Hawkins, Kaltwasser, &amp; Andreadis, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref16">53</reflink>]). Analyzing the politics of school choice through the lens of populism as a discursive frame offers a novel way to understand how political actors have forged coalitions in support of school choice, why some forms of school choice have been privileged over others, and how the politics of school choice may change in an increasingly populist political context.</p> <p>In the contemporary educational reform era, the political discourse used to foster broad-based coalitional support for school choice and other reforms has not been strongly populist. As a consequence, the politics of school choice have generally been weakly populist or elitist, as political actors have emphasized individualism over group-based demands and the virtues of market mechanisms over political channels as a means of improving schools and securing educational goods. This weak populism or elitism in school choice politics is revealed by the dominant arguments for school choice in contemporary reform era, which are based on empowering families as consumers and engineering school improvement through market pressures; and by their contrast with more populist approaches – most notably from the Christian Right in their pursuit of religious freedom in education, and some Black activists who have framed choice as a route to political power and educational opportunity in the face of racial subordination and inaction from policymakers.</p> <p>The current populist moment may create openings for new political coalitions around the issue of school choice, and political actors may adjust their discourse accordingly. Indeed, the politics of school choice are shifting as new fault lines between supporters of school choice on the left and right emerge and stronger opposition to school choice takes hold in the Democratic party (Goldstein &amp; Ember, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref17">45</reflink>]; Henig, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref18">58</reflink>]; Hess, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref19">59</reflink>]; Valant, [<reflink idref="bib126" id="ref20">126</reflink>]). Political elites, however, have yet to shift to strongly populist frames for school choice. Further, existing social and geographic coalitional divisions within and between the major political parties may stand in the way of a more populist turn in the politics of school choice.</p> <hd id="AN0149576265-2">Populism as a discursive frame</hd> <p>Populism is a notoriously contested term, in part because populist movements appear across the ideological spectrum (Müller, [<reflink idref="bib93" id="ref21">93</reflink>]) and in part because the term populism is primarily used analytically and not as a self-identity by political actors (Panizza, [<reflink idref="bib94" id="ref22">94</reflink>]). One popular approach is to define populism as a "thin" ideology – one that "can be easily combined with very different (thin and full) other ideologies" (Mudde, [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref23">90</reflink>], p. 544). From this perspective, the term is often deployed normatively, to emphasize the risk that populist movements pose to liberal democracy or to champion "real" populism as a force for social progress (Aslanidis, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref24">6</reflink>]; Müller, [<reflink idref="bib92" id="ref25">92</reflink>]).</p> <p>Aslanidis ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref26">6</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref27">7</reflink>]) criticizes the "thin" ideology approach to populism because it can lead scholars to rely on normative and <emph>ad hoc</emph> analytic decisions to identify political movements and political issues as either populist or not populist. As an example, Aslanidis ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref28">6</reflink>]) points to competing analyses of the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street: one author presents the Tea Party as populist and Occupy Wall Street as not populist based on the presence of a "vertical and unified structure" (Urbinati, [<reflink idref="bib125" id="ref29">125</reflink>], p. 130), while another author brands Occupy Wall Street as populist and the Tea Party as not populist based on their particular political views (Postel, [<reflink idref="bib100" id="ref30">100</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib101" id="ref31">101</reflink>]). In fact, the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street both had a high degree of populism, even if the form and substance of their movements diverged. As Aslanidis ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref32">6</reflink>]) puts it, "political parties are not easily classified as either populist or non-populist ... populist discursive elements are scattered across the ideological spectrum and ... their intensity varies with time" (p. 95).</p> <p>This understanding of different degrees of populism also supports methodological pluralism in populism scholarship (Aslanidis, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref33">6</reflink>]). Increasingly, researchers have used quantitative methods, for example measuring populist sentiment with an attitude scale (Castanho Silva, Jungkunz, Helbling, &amp; Littvay, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref34">22</reflink>]; Van Hauwaert, Schimpf, &amp; Azevedo, [<reflink idref="bib127" id="ref35">127</reflink>]) and testing its association with political factors like trust, party identification, and political participation (e.g., Anduiza, Guinjoan, &amp; Rico, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref36">1</reflink>]; Geurkink, Zaslove, Sluiter, &amp; Jacobs, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref37">42</reflink>]). These quantitative studies capture populist attitudes with <emph>continuous</emph> measures, rather than in a binary way. In addition, while many of these studies draw on Mudde's ([<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref38">90</reflink>]) "thin" ideology definition of populism, Aslanidis ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref39">6</reflink>]) points out that quantitative researchers "do not operationalize programmatic commitments, organizational structures ... [or] indicators of ideological disposition" (pp. 96–97). Rather, they rely on rhetorical constructs that place "the people" in an antagonistic relationship with "elites", essentially locating populism in political discourse rather than ideology.</p> <p>Thus, a productive alternative to the "thin ideology" definition to populism is <emph>populism as a discursive frame</emph> (Aslanidis, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref40">6</reflink>]). This approach to populism comes from the political theory of Laclau ([<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref41">74</reflink>]), who wrote that "a movement is not populist because in its politics or ideology it presents actual contents identifiable as populistic, but because it shows a particular logic of articulation of those contents – whatever those contents are" (p. 33). In other words, populism relies on a discourse that constructs "the people" and an antagonistic relationship between "the people" and some power bloc (typically "elites"). Aslanidis ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref42">6</reflink>]) builds on Laclau's work by connecting it to frame theory (Goffman, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref43">44</reflink>]), and bridges it with ideology-based definitions of populism: "if we do away with the unnecessary ideological clause in Mudde's ([<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref44">90</reflink>]) formulation, we are left with a purely discursive definition ... it becomes an anti-elite discourse in the name of the sovereign People" (Aslanidis, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref45">6</reflink>], p. 96).</p> <p>The form and substance of a populist movement, however, depends on who "the real people" are (Müller, [<reflink idref="bib93" id="ref46">93</reflink>]) – in other words, who is included in "the people," what political demands they share, and against whom their interests are framed. This is why understanding the particular context for the expression of populism is necessary: the particular way that populist sentiments are expressed depend in part on how "the people" and their demands are subjectively constructed and how specific political issues or platforms fit into that cultural milieu. For example, Hawkins et al. ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref47">53</reflink>]) observe similar associations between populist intensity and ideological views in Greece and Chile but show that a voter's degree of populism explains voting patterns better in Greece than in Chile, suggesting global similarities and contextual differences. Likewise, Henderson et al. ([<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref48">55</reflink>]) observe that more intensely populist attitudes are associated with stronger <emph>support</emph> for generic national standards in U.S. education, but stronger <emph>opposition</emph> to the specific Common Core national standards, highlighting the influence of particular political histories on the expression of populism with respect to specific issues. Therefore, just as it is important to examine the specific discourses that political actors use to frame their movements as populist, it is necessary to understand how those discourses interact with their political and cultural contexts (Aslanidis, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref49">6</reflink>]; Hawkins et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref50">53</reflink>]).</p> <p>Drawing on the definition of populism as a discursive frame, I examine the dominant school choice discourses in the contemporary educational reform movement, along with the more strongly populist discourses of the Christian Right and factions of Black school choice supporters. The contemporary reform movement, spanning roughly the past three decades and facing the possibility of disruption now (Henig, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref51">57</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref52">58</reflink>]; Hess, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref53">59</reflink>]), has ushered in a number of different school choice policies, including vouchers, inter- and intra-district choice, magnet schools, and charter schools. Following my analysis of the contemporary reform era, I turn to the current "populist moment" to consider what role populism might play in the shifting politics of school choice.</p> <p>The focus of this analysis is the overarching discourse used to frame school choice. The enactment of school choice policies has varied from state to state, and the motivations of political actors and interest groups who have allied to enact them has also varied (Bulman &amp; Kirp, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref54">19</reflink>]; Henig, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref55">57</reflink>]; Hess, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref56">60</reflink>]). Likewise, families who have engaged in and expressed support for school choice have done so for a multiplicity of reasons (Ellison &amp; Aloe, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref57">34</reflink>]; Pedroni, [<reflink idref="bib96" id="ref58">96</reflink>]; Wells, Lopez, Scott, &amp; Holme, [<reflink idref="bib131" id="ref59">131</reflink>]; Wilson, [<reflink idref="bib134" id="ref60">134</reflink>]). By focusing on the broader political discourse, this analysis highlights the varying degrees to which reformers and activists have used populist framings in their effort to forge political coalitions and promote school choice policies, revealing the role that populist dynamics have played in school choice politics recently and offering clues about what role they might play in the future.</p> <hd id="AN0149576265-3">School choice in the "Excellence for all" era</hd> <p>The contemporary educational reform movement can be characterized by a largely bipartisan commitment to "excellence for all" that reconciles concerns for global economic competitiveness with demands for educational equity (Schneider, [<reflink idref="bib107" id="ref61">107</reflink>]). Democrats and Republicans alike, through the presidencies of Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr., and Obama, embraced market-based and accountability proposals to spur school improvement, with the twin-goal of (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref62">1</reflink>) making social mobility through education possible by giving students skills and credentials needed for the labor market and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref63">2</reflink>) meeting the country's labor needs in the context of globalization (Apple, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref64">4</reflink>]; Carpenter, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref65">20</reflink>]; Labaree, [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref66">72</reflink>]; Schneider, [<reflink idref="bib107" id="ref67">107</reflink>]). As part of this bipartisan policy agenda, reformers have expanded school choice. Supporters of school choice have drawn on the premise that choice policies can free students from poorly performing schools while simultaneously promoting school improvement more broadly through school-based autonomy and market pressures (Archbald, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref68">5</reflink>]; Berends, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref69">10</reflink>]).</p> <p>The coalitional pressures that emerged from this "excellence for all" formulation are evident in the way school choice policies have been designed and implemented. For example, vouchers, which were core to Milton Friedman's ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref70">41</reflink>]) intellectual conception of school choice, have been embraced by Republicans more than Democrats, especially as conservatives have embraced a free market vision for school choice and promoted the use of vouchers for private and religious schools (Carpenter &amp; Kafer, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref71">21</reflink>]). Liberals, however, had experimented with vouchers in the 1960s and 1970s as a way to give low-income and racially minoritized families, especially in urban districts, access to higher-quality schools (Forman, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref72">38</reflink>]). As a compromise, vouchers have tended to be means-tested rather than universal, such as for low-income students in Milwaukee, Cleveland, and Washington, D.C.; or for students with disabilities in Arizona, Florida, and Ohio (Carpenter et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref73">21</reflink>]).</p> <p>In contrast to the more modest expansion of vouchers, charter schools have proliferated (Berends, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref74">10</reflink>]; Henig, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref75">57</reflink>]; Wong &amp; Langevin, [<reflink idref="bib135" id="ref76">135</reflink>]). Charters represented a compromise that satisfied Democrats and Republicans – offering a more regulated form of choice than vouchers while preserving an avenue for choice in the face of opposition to vouchers (Bulman &amp; Kirp [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref77">19</reflink>]) – that fit comfortably within the logic of the contemporary reform movement. As Henig ([<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref78">57</reflink>]) writes, "the rhetoric supporting charters and the broader array of reforms was largely cut from the same cloth – including elements of market choice and competition and outcome orientation combined with a fundamental critique of traditional local districts, bureaucratization, and unions" (p. 18). Enthusiasm for charters has especially been bolstered by evidence that "no excuses" charter schools significantly improve the test scores of low-income and racially minoritized students (Ladner, [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref79">75</reflink>]), satisfying contemporary reformers' demand for excellence and equity. Yet, results on the whole have been mixed, with this bipartisan coalition increasingly split over "a truly market-based model" for charter schools versus more centralization and bureaucratic regulation (Henig, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref80">58</reflink>], p. 938; see also, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref81">57</reflink>]; Hess, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref82">59</reflink>]).</p> <p>The politics of school choice in this contemporary reform movement have been weakly populist or even elitist. Guided by neoliberal market logics, contemporary reformers have construed families as consumers and education as a primarily private good (Horsford, Scott, &amp; Anderson, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref83">61</reflink>]; Labaree, [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref84">72</reflink>]; see also Carrasco, this issue). There have been more intensely populist factions within this reform movement, including the Christian Right in its fight for religious freedom in schools; and some Black activists and families, especially based in urban districts. These groups, in contrast to the dominant reform discourse, use political rhetoric to identify themselves as a "people" and to identify a group of elites against whom their interests in school choice are framed. For the most part, though, the politics of school choice in this era have not been driven by the strongly populist construction of "the people" in an antagonistic relationship with elites.</p> <hd id="AN0149576265-4">Markets as a policy instrument</hd> <p>One dimension of the contemporary politics of school choice has been the joining of neoliberal market rationalities with the push for school effectiveness (Apple, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref85">4</reflink>]). The core of the argument is that schools should be freed from bureaucracy and placed in the market, simultaneously vesting more authority in school managers and subjecting them to competitive pressures that will force schools to improve in order to attract students (Gewirtz, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref86">43</reflink>]). This rhetorical pivot was effective for conservatives who had previously argued for school choice on more market-ideological terms. Ronald Reagan's ambition for a national voucher plan, for example, drew largely on Friedman's ideological libertarianism, and all three of his administration's attempts to pass voucher bills in the 1980s faltered (Viteritti, [<reflink idref="bib129" id="ref87">129</reflink>]). By contrast, Chubb and Moe ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref88">27</reflink>]), whose "landmark book on education and markets probably did more to propel the choice debate than any piece of literature before or since," positioned their work as "more a validation of James Coleman than of Milton Friedman" (Viteritti, [<reflink idref="bib130" id="ref89">130</reflink>], p. 213). In other words, the authors brought their arguments for choice in line with the rising concern for educational excellence that motivated policymakers to establish state and national standards and test-based accountability systems (Darling-Hammond, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref90">30</reflink>]; Hutt, [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref91">64</reflink>]; Labaree, [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref92">72</reflink>]; United States Department of Education, [<reflink idref="bib123" id="ref93">123</reflink>]).</p> <p>By aligning their political efforts with concerns for school quality and school effectiveness, school choice supporters have largely relied on a more elite and technocratic discursive frame (Mehta, [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref94">88</reflink>]). Some advocates have argued from the school improvement perspective that school choice can be a "panacea" (Chubb &amp; Moe, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref95">28</reflink>]) or a "rising tide to lift all boats" (Hoxby, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref96">62</reflink>]), and that it is "the country's best hope" for improving schools (Peterson, [<reflink idref="bib99" id="ref97">99</reflink>]). Others have taken a more tempered approach, presenting market mechanisms as "merely a tool of public policy" that, when applied appropriately, can correct for "government failure" in the provision of educational services (Hannaway &amp; Woodroffe, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref98">49</reflink>], p. 3–4). Likewise, school choice advocates have linked these arguments to the embrace of "more entrepreneurial and business-minded approaches to education reform" (Schneider, [<reflink idref="bib107" id="ref99">107</reflink>], pp. 29–30). The intersection of managerialism and market rationalities has helped foster bipartisan support for school choice and other market-based reforms (Apple, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref100">4</reflink>]; Horsford et al., [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref101">61</reflink>]; Scott &amp; Holme, [<reflink idref="bib111" id="ref102">111</reflink>]).</p> <p>The markets-as-policy-instruments perspective has been especially prominent in urban districts that have adopted portfolio management models (Bulkley, Henig, &amp; Levin, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref103">18</reflink>]; Quinn &amp; Ogburn, [<reflink idref="bib102" id="ref104">102</reflink>]), where "managers of choice" have pursued school choice reforms as part of an elite policy agenda (Scott, [<reflink idref="bib108" id="ref105">108</reflink>]). New Orleans offers the quintessential example: in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, policymakers transformed the district through a host of market-based reforms, including reopening nearly all of its schools as charter schools and creating city-wide open enrollment (Jabbar, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref106">65</reflink>]). Reformers, including a highly influential network of think tanks and philanthropies, promoted these efforts as the key to improving the city's schools (Debray, Scott, Lubienski, &amp; Jabbar, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref107">32</reflink>]). As opposed to a populist push for the interests of "the people" in opposition to elites, the push for markets as a policy instrument, in New Orleans and elsewhere, has reflected more of an elite and technocratic form of politics, wherein policymakers have framed school choice and other privatization and accountability policies as a way to "tinker" with educational systems (Scott &amp; Holme, [<reflink idref="bib111" id="ref108">111</reflink>]; Tyack &amp; Cuban, [<reflink idref="bib121" id="ref109">121</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0149576265-5">"The people" as consumers</hd> <p>Another dimension of the contemporary politics of school choice is the argument that choice can provide disadvantaged families with access to better educational opportunities by allowing them to opt out of their assigned schools (Archbald, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref110">5</reflink>]; Scott, [<reflink idref="bib110" id="ref111">110</reflink>]). Advocates of this "equity approach to school choice" have often couched their support in moral terms – for example, that "we cannot justify consigning poor children to failing schools when other alternatives are available" and that "school choice should not be a privilege confined to the economically advantaged" (Viteritti, [<reflink idref="bib130" id="ref112">130</reflink>], p. 207). They have also drawn upon the rhetoric of the civil rights movement to position school choice as a social justice issue (Scott, [<reflink idref="bib109" id="ref113">109</reflink>]). Liberals have organized their support for school choice around these arguments when seeking to expand open enrollment policies and charter schools in urban districts (Forman, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref114">38</reflink>]; Ladner, [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref115">75</reflink>]; Logan, [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref116">81</reflink>]). Conservatives have also used equity-oriented arguments in order to advance their interests in school choice, such as targeted voucher proposals for low-income families (Boyd, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref117">16</reflink>]; Viteritti, [<reflink idref="bib129" id="ref118">129</reflink>]).</p> <p>Early versions of this argument were inspired by demands for educational equity and self-determination, especially from Black communities and civil rights organizations, and in particular by the freedom schools movement and by demands for community control (Forman, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref119">38</reflink>]). Yet, this "liberation" (Archbald, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref120">5</reflink>]) or "empowerment" (Scott, [<reflink idref="bib110" id="ref121">110</reflink>]) thread in the politics of school choice reimagines parents as consumers who shop for schools rather than citizens who demand educational goods from their government (Pedroni, [<reflink idref="bib97" id="ref122">97</reflink>]; Scott, [<reflink idref="bib109" id="ref123">109</reflink>]). Consequentially, the parent-as-consumer politics of school choice have mostly been weakly populist. As school choice reforms redirect families away from "mechanisms of the state [such as] litigation, democratic participation, and elections" and toward market mechanisms, they "disrupt traditional pathways to community engagement and reshape them along individualistic dimensions of parental choice" (Scott &amp; Holme, [<reflink idref="bib111" id="ref124">111</reflink>], p. 252).</p> <p>In other words, the parent-as-consumer politics of school choice have tended to atomize rather than aggregate individual demands, so that school choice policies are framed as a way to empower individuals rather than meet the demands of "the people". Indeed, while choice is often promoted as a way to give families more freedom and agency over their children's education, rarely has it been framed antagonistically as "empowering the powerless, at the expense of often arrogant experts and distant governing boards" (Shakeel &amp; Maranto, [<reflink idref="bib113" id="ref125">113</reflink>], p. 2). The weak populism that emerges is reflected in parents' strategic engagement in school choice, rather than strongly populist demands for choice as a good in and of itself (Ellison &amp; Aloe, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref126">34</reflink>]).</p> <p>If the overarching politics of school choice <emph>have</emph> had an antagonism, it has been toward traditional public schools and the "street-level bureaucrats" (Lipsky, [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref127">80</reflink>]) that populate them. While some have argued that teachers could be empowered by school choice reforms (Maranto, [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref128">84</reflink>]), teachers have largely become antagonists in school choice politics. "Excellence for all" reformers have responded to parent and community frustration with public schools by antagonizing teachers, unions, and traditional public school and district leaders, in order to promote school choice and other marketization, privatization, and accountability reforms (Gewirtz, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref129">43</reflink>]; Hursh, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref130">63</reflink>]; Scott, [<reflink idref="bib110" id="ref131">110</reflink>]). Yet, families' views have been more nuanced. Their negative perceptions of traditional public schools and desire for more choice have coexisted with sympathy for the hard work of teachers and support for strengthening the public school system (Ellison &amp; Aloe, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref132">34</reflink>]; Henderson et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref133">55</reflink>]; Pedroni, [<reflink idref="bib96" id="ref134">96</reflink>]). Along with the atomization of school choosers as individuals rather than an aggregation of them as a "people" with shared demands, this partial antagonism of traditional public schooling has resulted in a weakly populist politics rather than an intensely populist one.</p> <hd id="AN0149576265-6">Populist dimensions of Black support for school choice</hd> <p>Black communities have been central to the politics of school choice, especially because many market-based policies have been targeted at urban districts that serve a disproportionately high share of Black families (Scott &amp; Holme, [<reflink idref="bib111" id="ref135">111</reflink>]). Especially in the context of arguments about the relationship between school choice and racial segregation (Frankenberg, Siegel-Hawley, &amp; Wang, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref136">39</reflink>]; Monarrez, Kisida, &amp; Chingos, [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref137">89</reflink>]; Ritter, Jensen, Kisida, &amp; McGee, [<reflink idref="bib105" id="ref138">105</reflink>]), many policy elites have defended school choice policies – and particularly urban charter schools – as reforms that are distinctly meant to serve disadvantaged Black communities who have been otherwise denied educational opportunities (Ladner, [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref139">75</reflink>]; Wilson, [<reflink idref="bib134" id="ref140">134</reflink>]). To a large extent, where elite policy actors have driven the politics of school choice toward Black communities, they have relied on the discourses of markets-as-policy-instruments and parents-as-consumers, as described above (Scott, [<reflink idref="bib109" id="ref141">109</reflink>]).</p> <p>A more populist thread, however, has also run through Black engagement in the politics of school choice. Some Black activists and families have framed their support for school choice in opposition to White families who have hoarded educational opportunities and White (often White liberal) policymakers who have failed to provide quality schools to Black families, especially in high-poverty urban districts.</p> <p>Howard Fuller, the former superintendent of the Milwaukee Public Schools and a vocal school choice advocate, represents this more populist form of Black engagement in school choice politics. Fuller and his advocacy organization, the Black Alliance for Educational Options (BAEO), allied with conservative foundations and think-tanks to advocate for Milwaukee's means-tested voucher program, and later advocated nationally for vouchers and other forms of school choice (Pedroni, [<reflink idref="bib97" id="ref142">97</reflink>]). Fuller's remarks at the 2001 BAEO national symposium offer an example of the populist tenor of his political discourse:</p> <p>One group is being prepared to run the world, while the other is being prepared to take orders from those who run the world." Fuller castigates affluent Whites for their retreat into gated communities and laments the waste, narrow profitability, and ethical bankruptcy of America's prison-industrial society. He criticizes public school teachers who, according to Fuller, feel that, "My check's gonna come whether you learn or not." This criticism is also extended to White liberal reformers, who are always ready to construct a "new 5-year plan that will at some point get to you" ... For Fuller, the issue is not "choice," but who has it ... He sharply criticizes liberal Whites who argue that the voucher program will leave the neediest behind in urban public schools, and asks, "Why do you ask that question, when you left us behind [in urban public schools]?" (Pedroni, [<reflink idref="bib97" id="ref143">97</reflink>], pp. 50-51)</p> <p>As his comments show, Fuller establishes a clear antagonism between low-income Black families, particularly in urban districts, and the power bloc whose action (or inaction) has oppressed them educationally and economically: White and affluent families, urban district teachers and leaders, and White liberal policymakers.</p> <p>The distinction between this strongly populist framing of Black interest in school choice and the less populist evocation of the civil rights agenda and parents-as-consumers is one of degree and of kind. As discussed above, policymakers who have seized on civil rights discourse have certainly antagonized teachers and unions as "special interests" who stand in the way of Black children's opportunities (Hursh, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref144">63</reflink>], p. 6). Yet, it is a weaker and more narrow antagonism than the one found in Fuller's rhetoric, which bends less toward the notion of a failing system and more forcefully toward blaming elites for the problems that Black families face in urban schools and communities. This more strongly populist framing is also more explicitly racialized: it draws an antagonistic posture toward <emph>White</emph> policymakers and <emph>White</emph> families specifically. In contrast, school choice supporters who have used civil rights rhetoric have tended to focus on teachers, unions, and districts as antagonists, rather than pointing toward racialized forms of political, economic, and spatial inequality (Scott, [<reflink idref="bib110" id="ref145">110</reflink>]).</p> <p>To the extent that Black families, community leaders, and activists have adopted this racialized and strongly antagonistic discourse about school choice, they have engaged in a more populist form of school choice politics. While they have allied with school choice supporters who draw more readily on neoliberal market rationalities, they have strategically seized upon the idea of parents-as-consumers, ultimately using a strongly populist discourse in their efforts to secure political power and educational opportunities (Pedroni, [<reflink idref="bib96" id="ref146">96</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib97" id="ref147">97</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0149576265-7">School choice, populism, and the Christian Right</hd> <p>The politics of school choice for religious freedom in education, pursued by the Christian Right, has also been strongly populist. As Apple ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref148">3</reflink>]) writes, the Christian Right has "ground[ed] their positions on education and social policy in general in particular visions of biblical authority, 'Christian morality,' gender roles and the family" (p. 44). In the context of secularization and the declining cultural power of Christian groups (Chaves, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref149">26</reflink>]), the Christian Right has expressed concerns about marginalization in educational institutions (see Maranto, this issue, for a discussion of some of these concerns).</p> <p>In their political engagement with educational issues, leaders of the Christian Right have used intensely populist rhetoric. They have framed the interests of a moral Christian "people" against "elite" forces who impose non-Christian values and practices through schools and other social institutions (Apple, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref150">3</reflink>]). For example, they have argued against mandated curricula and state standards "as an un-Godly assault on traditional values" and an elitist attempt to "brainwash children" (Boyd, Lugg, &amp; Zahorchak, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref151">17</reflink>], p. 347). Likewise, they have used an antagonism toward homosexuality and gay rights to depict policies related to curricula, student services, discipline, and school staffing as part of an elitist pro-homosexual agenda (Lugg, [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref152">82</reflink>]).</p> <p>The Christian Right's support for school choice has fit within this populist paradigm as well. As with factions of Black school choice supporters, the Christian Right does not necessarily hold an ideological commitment to free market principles. Rather, they've embraced school choice policies like homeschooling, charters, vouchers, and private school tax credits as a way to exit traditional public schools and enter or create educational institutions more in line with their own values (Apple, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref153">3</reflink>]). In this turn toward choice, the Christian Right has framed itself as a people "victimized by current laws and by the educational system ... [whose] cultural identity can only be maintained through the use of public money to establish and expand the rights of parents to school their children in any manner they see fit" (Apple, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref154">3</reflink>], p. 161). Thus, for the Christian Right, the politics of school choice have been intensely populist, even as they have allied with reformers who are engaged in a weakly populist or even elitist mode of politics.</p> <hd id="AN0149576265-8">Populism and the changing politics of school choice</hd> <p>On the political left and right, in the United States and globally, the past several years have seen a sharp rise in populist politics (Lewis et al., [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref155">78</reflink>]). Donald Trump, in his campaigning and as president, relied heavily on an authoritarian-inflected and ethno-nationalistic form of right-wing populism that has also swept across European countries (Kellner, [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref156">69</reflink>]; Martinelli, [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref157">85</reflink>]; Müller, [<reflink idref="bib93" id="ref158">93</reflink>]; Peters, [<reflink idref="bib98" id="ref159">98</reflink>]). The left has seen a rise of populist politics as well, centered on an antagonism toward the political influence of corporations and the "1%", embodied in the U.S. by Bernie Sanders' campaigns for president (Meade, [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref160">86</reflink>]; Rehmann, [<reflink idref="bib104" id="ref161">104</reflink>]).</p> <p>Has this populist moment infused more populism into the politics of school choice? In elite partisan politics, it does not seem so, especially because the dominant neoliberal discourses of the contemporary reform era still figure prominently in arguments for school choice (Stone, [<reflink idref="bib117" id="ref162">117</reflink>]). For example, Trump administration Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos has made individualist arguments in the tradition of Margaret Thatcher: she has said that there is "no such thing as public money" and there is no such thing as an education "system," only individual students, parents, and teachers (Strauss, [<reflink idref="bib118" id="ref163">118</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib119" id="ref164">119</reflink>]). She has also carried forward arguments that market competition will lead to school improvement, especially when defending school choice policies in the face of mixed results (Strauss, [<reflink idref="bib119" id="ref165">119</reflink>]). Although DeVos is aligned with the Christian Right and their educational goals (Peters, [<reflink idref="bib98" id="ref166">98</reflink>]; Rizga, [<reflink idref="bib106" id="ref167">106</reflink>]), she has not publicly taken on their strongly populist position, instead mostly relying on the weakly populist discourse of parents-as-consumers to support the use of public funds for private religious schools (Strauss, [<reflink idref="bib119" id="ref168">119</reflink>]). Likewise, at the 2020 Republican National Convention, school choice, which arguably received more attention than any other concrete policy goal (Cauterucci, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref169">23</reflink>]), was not framed in strongly populist terms. Donald Trump Jr.'s argument about school choice incorporated some more populist undertones, including an antagonism toward "big money union bosses" and a view that "a great education cannot be the exclusive right of the rich and powerful" (Stoll, [<reflink idref="bib116" id="ref170">116</reflink>]). However, his and others' comments on school choice mostly drew on the weakly populist frame of contemporary school choice politics, for example that students' educational opportunities should not be limited "just because of their ZIP code" and that "when a parent has a choice, their kid has a better chance" (Cauterucci, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref171">23</reflink>]; Stoll, [<reflink idref="bib116" id="ref172">116</reflink>]).</p> <p>The growing debate among Democratic lawmakers on school choice has also not had a strongly populist dimension. Arguments about school choice have become more prominent within the Democratic party, especially as presidential candidates positioned themselves for the 2020 primaries (Booker, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref173">15</reflink>]; Goldstein &amp; Ember, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref174">45</reflink>]; Valant, [<reflink idref="bib126" id="ref175">126</reflink>]). On one hand, school choice advocates have sought to disarticulate their support for "managed choice" from the more libertarian and market-ideological positions of conservatives (e.g., Chait, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref176">24</reflink>]; Harris, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref177">50</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref178">51</reflink>]; Leonhardt, [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref179">77</reflink>]). These arguments double down on the elite and technocratic rhetoric of markets-as-policy-instrments. On the other hand, opponents of choice have focused on issues like for-profit charter management and the siphoning off of public school funds (Goldstein &amp; Ember, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref180">45</reflink>]), which to some extent fits within a leftist populist antagonism toward corporate interests, but also fits with more traditional Democratic support for teachers' unions and opposition to charter schools (Anzia, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref181">2</reflink>]; Fraser, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref182">40</reflink>]; Kirst, [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref183">70</reflink>]). Other prominent Democrats have mostly sidestepped the issue of school choice, instead focusing on access to quality early childhood education, increased teacher pay, and increased funding for high-poverty schools (Green, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref184">46</reflink>]; Harris, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref185">52</reflink>]).</p> <p>Among families in urban districts and rank-and-file educators, however, there is evidence of an emerging populist mode of politics. Many Black and Hispanic families and community leaders in urban districts who have embraced school choice have historically approached these policies as opportunities for recognition and self-determination in addition to access to higher quality educational options (Pedroni, [<reflink idref="bib96" id="ref186">96</reflink>]; Wells et al., [<reflink idref="bib131" id="ref187">131</reflink>]; Wilson, [<reflink idref="bib134" id="ref188">134</reflink>]). As largely Democratic constituents and voters, some have responded to Democratic opposition to choice and charters by expressing their strong support for school choice (Barnum, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref189">8</reflink>]; Green, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref190">46</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref191">47</reflink>]). To the extent that these arguments position the interests of Black and Hispanic families and students against a party establishment that takes their support for granted (Green, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref192">46</reflink>]), they reflect a more populist version of the "liberation" and "empowerment" politics of choice. The vitality of this populist energy was evident at an Elizabeth Warren rally in 2019, during which parent activists protested against her educational policy agenda in support of school choice (Barnum, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref193">8</reflink>]). At the same time, families, activists, and educators who <emph>oppose</emph> school choice in these communities are tapping into the very same demands for recognition and self-determination (Ferman, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref194">36</reflink>]), arguing against "the illusion of choice" (Gross, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref195">48</reflink>]) and "billionaire privatizers" (Medina &amp; Goldstein, [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref196">87</reflink>]). Whether the seeds of populism in these grassroots politics grow into a more cohesively populist movement for or against school choice remains to be seen (Henig, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref197">58</reflink>]).</p> <p>The role of teachers and teachers' unions in promoting more strongly populist politics also merits attention, given the spike in teacher and union activism over the past few years. Starting off in Republican-dominated states like West Virginia and Oklahoma and spreading to Democratically-governed cities like Los Angeles and Chicago, this wave of teacher strikes reflects a growing discontent with austerity measures and accountability policies in education (Blanc, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref198">13</reflink>]; Dunn, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref199">33</reflink>]; Jacobson, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref200">66</reflink>]; Karp &amp; Sanchez, [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref201">68</reflink>]; Medina &amp; Goldstein, [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref202">87</reflink>]). While these strikes have largely not focused on school choice, they have functioned to galvanize family and community support for traditional public education, teachers, and teachers' unions; and opposition to policymakers and politicians who have denigrated them for decades. Still, it is unclear whether teacher activists taking citywide and statewide action will join their arguments for better pay and learning conditions with broader arguments for traditional public schools and against school choice (Anzia, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref203">2</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0149576265-9">Discussion</hd> <p>Through the lens of populism as a discursive frame (Aslanidis, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref204">6</reflink>]), the politics of school choice in the contemporary reform era appear weakly populist or even elitist, with an emphasis on individuals over groups and market mechanisms for acquiring educational goods over political channels for demanding them. When organized around an argument for markets as a policy instrument for school improvement, the politics of school choice have been driven by an elitist and technocratic embrace of competitive market pressures within the markets-and-accountability framework for improving student achievement and closing racial and socioeconomic test score gaps (Darling-Hammond &amp; Adamson, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref205">31</reflink>]). When organized around empowering students and parents as consumers in an educational marketplace, they have been weakly populist, drawing to an extent on an antagonism toward existing schooling options and school systems but mostly emphasizing individual freedom in a marketplace and individual opportunities rather than group demands (Ellison &amp; Aloe, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref206">34</reflink>]; Pedroni, [<reflink idref="bib96" id="ref207">96</reflink>]; Scott, [<reflink idref="bib109" id="ref208">109</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib110" id="ref209">110</reflink>]; Scott &amp; Holme, [<reflink idref="bib111" id="ref210">111</reflink>]).</p> <p>This faint degree of populism in the political discourse of contemporary educational reformers is clear in contrast to examples of more strongly populist political rhetoric. The Christian Right has pursued school choice as a mechanism for opting out of schools that are not seen as aligned with Christian values, framing this political fight in opposition to secular and anti-Christian elites. In addition, many Black activists and community members have framed their interest in school choice in opposition to White, affluent families who have hoarded educational opportunities and White lawmakers who have left Black families behind. The populist push for school choice in both of these cases reflects an immediate desire to secure the rights of "the people" to exit traditional public schools and secure more favorable educational opportunities, as well as a broader antagonism toward elites that are described as a threat to their rights, opportunities, and political power more broadly.</p> <p>With populist sentiments rising and school choice politics shifting, will the politics of school choice take a more strongly populist turn? Henderson et al. ([<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref211">55</reflink>]) found in their recent survey research that respondents with the most strongly populist attitudes rate U.S. schools more poorly and have a more favorable view of school choice policies (including charter schools, tax credits, universal and targeted vouchers, and homeschooling) than respondents with the least populist attitudes. They also identify these strongly populist sentiments across the political spectrum – among conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats – and among all racial or ethnic groups. They also note that populist attitudes are stronger for those who are older, lower-income, more religious, and less educated. Their findings suggest that a populist approach to school choice politics could join the interests of a politically and racially diverse group who share more critical views of traditional public schools, more favorable views of school choice, and often more challenging socioeconomic circumstances. At the same time, in states like Michigan, Wisconsin, and Kentucky, backlash to privatization and funding cuts in public education signal the possibility for populist opposition to school choice (Berkshire, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref212">11</reflink>]).</p> <p>Existing social and geographic divisions within political constituencies, however, remain obstacles to a more populist form of politics in support of (or opposition to) school choice (Chambers, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref213">25</reflink>]; Ferman, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref214">37</reflink>]; Henig, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref215">58</reflink>]). For Republican constituencies, the Christian Right remains firmly invested in school choice, as reflected in the recent Supreme Court case on the use of public funds for religious schools in Montana (Totenberg &amp; Naylor, [<reflink idref="bib120" id="ref216">120</reflink>]). DeVos, for example, celebrated the ruling against "bigoted Blaine Amendments" as a proclamation that "religious discrimination is dead" (United States Department of Education, [<reflink idref="bib124" id="ref217">124</reflink>]). In many rural communities, however, pride in traditional public schools remains strong, and demands for politicians to adequately fund them are growing (Berkshire, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref218">11</reflink>]; Berkshire &amp; Schneider, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref219">12</reflink>]). It is possible that working-class Whites in these communities would be receptive to a more populist framing of school choice that antagonizes teachers and administrators, as researchers have documented working-class White families' resentment toward educational professionals as a result of condescending experiences with them (e.g., Lareau, [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref220">76</reflink>]; Williams, [<reflink idref="bib133" id="ref221">133</reflink>]). Still, if they remain supportive of their own public schools, even while criticizing the state of the nation's public schools writ large (Henderson et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref222">55</reflink>]), a populist frame that construes rural communities in opposition to urban elites or state lawmakers may work against school choice rather than in support of it (Hess, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref223">60</reflink>]; Shakeel &amp; Maranto, [<reflink idref="bib112" id="ref224">112</reflink>]).</p> <p>On the left, while Democratic constituencies share strong support for teachers and unions, they are split on school choice along racial lines, with Black and Hispanic Democrats supporting school choice policies in greater numbers (Henderson et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref225">55</reflink>]). If families of color who support school choice take up a more populist frame, their rhetoric may draw on the populist example of Howard Fuller and BAEO, described above; or it could take the form of a more protective populism, with families defending their right to attend the charter schools or other schools of choice that they have increasingly turned to over the last few decades (Green, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref226">46</reflink>]). These kinds of arguments could create new antagonisms toward other members of the Democratic coalition, including White liberals and advocates for traditional public schools. In addition, unionized teachers oppose school choice more clearly than any other group (Henderson et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref227">55</reflink>]). A division between teachers and families of color on the issue of choice echoes a historical tension in urban education in particular, wherein the interests of families and teachers have often been in conflict (Pedroni, [<reflink idref="bib96" id="ref228">96</reflink>]). More recently, teacher activism has been further invigorated as policymakers and district leaders have demanded that they return to schools in the context of the coronavirus pandemic (Belsha, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref229">9</reflink>]; Hemphill &amp; Marianno, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref230">54</reflink>]); and this resistance to in-person schooling may strain relationships between teachers and the families – especially less advantaged families who are already more likely to have less positive relationships with school staff and who face even greater challenges with childcare and distance learning. Further, in light of urban gentrification, there is evidence that suggests affluent families are more willing to move into certain neighborhoods when school choice is an option (Mann, Bennett, &amp; Rogers, [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref231">83</reflink>]; Pearman &amp; Swain, [<reflink idref="bib95" id="ref232">95</reflink>]), suggesting that gentrifying families and urban politicians encouraging new development and residential growth may remain committed to school choice (Lipman, [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref233">79</reflink>]). Over time, racial and socioeconomic inequalities related to gentrification could create new rifts over school choice as well. These kinds of splits may complicate Democrats' ability to articulate shared educational interests among their constituencies in a more populist tone without fracturing their coalition.</p> <p>Political actors may see an opportunity here to remake political coalitions in support of or opposition to school choice. If they do adopt a more strongly populist frame for school choice, the question is: who would "the people" be? For example, as reflected in recent remarks by Trump, the Republican party may use a more populist frame that antagonizes Democratic party leaders and educational elites in opposition to the interests of low-income Black and Hispanic families in order to win their support (Stoll, [<reflink idref="bib115" id="ref234">115</reflink>]). Yet, the party's most intensely populist argument in the domain of education has been to frame socially conservative Americans in opposition to liberals and leftists who want to challenge narratives of American exceptionalism and incorporate a greater focus on racial issues in American history (Ujifusa, [<reflink idref="bib122" id="ref235">122</reflink>]). These arguments are often implicitly racialized, speaking to the concerns of White Americans in the face of a multiculturalist opposition (Johnson, [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref236">67</reflink>]). Thus, the multiple impetuses for school choice – to provide more cultural control over the curriculum or to provide access to higher quality schools – create some tension around how "the people" are constructed, as they speak to somewhat distinct constituencies (Scafidi &amp; Wearne, this issue). Likewise, opponents of school choice seeking to unite supporters of public schools across geographic contexts may need to contend with cultural and political divisions between urban, suburban, and rural communities. Political actors seeking to seize on the populist moment and the issue of school choice in order to reshuffle political alliances will need to contend with the challenge of finding uniting antagonisms in a political context that is increasingly polarized (Klein, [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref237">71</reflink>]).</p> <p>Given these within-party and between-party divisions, it remains unclear whether supporters and opponents of school choice might break from the dominant elitist or weakly populist approaches to school choice politics. It is also unclear how the public health and economic upheaval brought on by the novel coronavirus pandemic will affect the momentum of populist politics (Mudde, [<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref238">91</reflink>]). Still, as the social, political, and economic contexts of education shift, the political framing of arguments for and against school choice may shift as well.</p> <hd id="AN0149576265-10">Conclusion</hd> <p>This article explored the extent to which the politics of school choice in the contemporary reform era have been populist, and the political dynamics that might promote or suppress a more populist frame for school choice politics at this conjuncture. As a broad review, it offers insight into the utility of thinking about school choice through the lens of <emph>populism as a discursive</emph> (Aslanidis, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref239">6</reflink>]), to identify who "the people" are based on their shared political demands, what antagonisms have played a role, and the influence of their political contexts.</p> <p>Future studies of the politics of school choice from a populist perspective can look more closely at political discourses and events surrounding school choice reforms to identify how "the people" are constructed in response to particular local dynamics, including the constituencies involved, the existing cultural and policy contexts, and competing frames and logics (Quinn &amp; Ogburn, [<reflink idref="bib102" id="ref240">102</reflink>]; Quinn, Oleberger, &amp; Meyerson, [<reflink idref="bib103" id="ref241">103</reflink>]). They can also explore the extent to which families who support or oppose school choice at the grassroots or who are engaged in school choosing construct their own views of school choice in populist terms, and whether or how the degree of populism in their own attitudes aligns with the broader arguments for choice in which their political engagement is embedded (Ellison &amp; Aloe, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref242">34</reflink>]; Hawkins et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref243">53</reflink>]; Pedroni, [<reflink idref="bib96" id="ref244">96</reflink>]). Finally, future research can look carefully at whether the degree of populism in school choice political discourse varies based on the specific policy (e.g., vouchers, charter schools, magnet schools, homeschooling), especially because different forms of school choice are differentially polarized in American politics (Henderson et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref245">55</reflink>]).</p> <p>Finally, the analysis presented here is also a reminder that arguments about whether school choice <emph>is</emph> or <emph>is not</emph> populist are in fact normative arguments for or against choice more than analytic arguments. Populist politics are organized around "empty signifiers": "symbolic vessels filled with particular content depending on the specifics of the political context within which they are invoked and the cultural toolbox at work" (Aslanidis, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref246">6</reflink>], p. 98). Thus, for example, assertions that school choice meets populists demands to "end the state's artificial constriction of the intellectual options of ordinary families" (Coons, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref247">29</reflink>], p. 201), or that "school choice is the ultimate populist reform, allowing parents rather than experts to decide the educational program(s) working best for their children" (Shakeel &amp; Maranto, [<reflink idref="bib113" id="ref248">113</reflink>], p. 1), are themselves populist arguments. In adopting a more normative definition of populism to describe school choice, they construct a "people" and an antagonism to promote school choice through a populist frame. Given the history of ideological support and opposition to school choice (Blissett, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref249">14</reflink>]; Henig, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref250">56</reflink>]; Smith, [<reflink idref="bib114" id="ref251">114</reflink>]; Vasquez Heilig, Brewer, &amp; Adamson, [<reflink idref="bib128" id="ref252">128</reflink>]), such normative arguments may proliferate if populist sentiments continue to grow. Thus, examining the role of populism as a discursive frame in school choice politics will help illustrate how supporters and opponents may remake their positions in an evolving political context.</p> <hd id="AN0149576265-11">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.</p> <p>Correction Statement</p> <p>This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.</p> <ref id="AN0149576265-12"> <title> Note </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref12" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> I use the term school choice broadly to mean "a variety of programs providing families the option to choose the school their children attend" instead of their residentially-assigned school. These include "magnet schools, charter public schools, vouchers, tuition tax credits, homeschooling, and supplemental educational services" (Berends, [10], p. 160).</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0149576265-13"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Anduiza, E., Guinjoan, M., &amp; Rico, G. (2019). Populism, participation, and political equality. European Political Science Review, 11 (1), 109 – 124. doi: 10.1017/S1755773918000243</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref63" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Anzia, S. F. (2020). The backlash against school choice and accountability policies: The organizations and their politics. Urban Affairs Review, 56 (3), 981 – 993. doi: 10.1177/1078087419867162</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref148" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Apple, M. (2001). Educating the "right" way: Markets, standards, god, and inequality. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref64" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Apple, M. W. (2004). Creating difference: Neo-liberalism, neo-conservatism and the politics of educational reform. Educational Policy, 18 (1), 12 – 44. doi: 10.1177/0895904803260022</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref68" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Archbald, D. (2004). School choice, magnet schools, and the liberation model: An empirical study. Sociology of Education, 77 (4), 283 – 310. doi: 10.1177/003804070407700402</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref9" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Aslanidis, P. (2016). Is populism an ideology? A refutation and a new perspective. Political Studies, 64(1S), 88 – 104. doi: 10.1111/1467-9248.12224</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref27" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Aslanidis, P. (2017). Avoiding bias in the study of populism. Chinese Political Science Review, 2, 266 – 287. doi: 10.1007/s41111-017-0064-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref189" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Barnum, M. (2019, November 22). " I'm going to make sure I got it right": What Elizabeth Warren told charter activists after protest at Atlanta event. Chalkbeat. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.chalkbeat.org/2019/11/22/21121837/i-m-going-to-make-sure-i-got-it-right-what-elizabeth-warren-told-charter-activists-after-protest-at">www.chalkbeat.org/2019/11/22/21121837/i-m-going-to-make-sure-i-got-it-right-what-elizabeth-warren-told-charter-activists-after-protest-at</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref229" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Belsha, K. (2020, April 29). Returning to school buildings in the fall will be complicated. In some places, it's far from clear it will happen. Chalkbeat. https://<ulink href="http://www.chalkbeat.org/2020/4/29/21241856/returning-to-school-buildings-fall-coronavirus">www.chalkbeat.org/2020/4/29/21241856/returning-to-school-buildings-fall-coronavirus</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Berends, M. (2015). Sociology and school choice: What we know after two decades of charter schools. Annual Review of Sociology, 41, 159 – 180. doi: 10.1146/annurev-soc-073014-112340</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Berkshire, J. (2020). Trump's education policy is an opportunity for Democrats. The Nation. https://<ulink href="http://www.thenation.com/article/politics/trump-education-policy-democrat/">www.thenation.com/article/politics/trump-education-policy-democrat/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Berkshire, J., &amp; Schneider, J. (2020). The rural schools conundrum. Have You Heard? Retrieved from https://haveyouheardblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Rural-schools-conundrum-transcript.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Blanc, E. (2019). Red state revolt: The teachers' strike wave and working-class politics. Verso.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Blissett, R. S. L. (2020). Proving I'm right: Charter school policy and selective exposure to information. Educational Policy, 34 (6), 894 – 917. doi: 10.1177/0895904818802102</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Booker, C. (2019, November 18). Cory Booker: Stop being dogmatic about public charter schools. The New York Times. https://<ulink href="http://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/18/opinion/cory-booker-public-charter-schools.html">www.nytimes.com/2019/11/18/opinion/cory-booker-public-charter-schools.html</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Boyd, W. L. (2007). The politics of privatization in American education. Educational Policy, 21 (1), 7 – 14.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Boyd, W. L., Lugg, C. A., &amp; Zahorchak, G. L. (1996). Social traditionalists, religious conservatives, and the politics of outcome-based education: Pennsylvania and beyond. Education and Urban Society, 28 (3), 347 – 365. doi: 10.1177/0013124596028003006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bulkley, K. E., Henig, J. R., &amp; Levin, H. M. (2010). Between public and private: Politics, governance, and the new portfolio models for urban reform. Harvard Education Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bulman, R. C., &amp; Kirp, D. L. (1999). The shifting politics of school choice. In S. D. Sugarman &amp; F. R. Kemerer (Eds.), School choice and social controversy (pp. 36 – 67). The Brookings Institution.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carpenter, B. (2019). The discursive tapestry of economic and educational story lines. Educational Policy, 33 (1), 234 – 256. doi: 10.1177/0895904818807313</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carpenter, D. M., &amp; Kafer, K. (2012). A history of private school choice. Peabody Journal of Education, 87 (3), 336 – 350. doi: 10.1080/0161956X.2012.679587</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Castanho Silva, B., Jungkunz, S., Helbling, M., &amp; Littvay, L. (2020). An empirical comparison of seven populist attitudes scales. Political Research Quarterly, 73 (2), 409 – 424. doi: 10.1177/1065912919833176</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cauterucci, C. (2020, August 25). School choice was the main policy mentioned at Monday's RNC. Why? Slate. Retrieved from https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/08/school-choice-rnc-obsession.html</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chait, J. (2017, September 06). Charter schools are losing the narrative but winning the data. New York Magazine. <ulink href="http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/09/charter-schools-losing-the-narrative-but-winning-the-data.html">http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/09/charter-schools-losing-the-narrative-but-winning-the-data.html</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chambers, S. (2020). Fighting for America's schools: Towards a more democratic approach. Urban Affairs Review, 56 (3), 973 – 980. doi: 10.1177/1078087419867161</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chaves, M. (1994). Secularization as declining religious authority. Social Forces, 72 (3), 749 – 774. doi: 10.2307/2579779</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chubb, J. E., &amp; Moe, T. (1990a). Politics, markets and America's schools. Brookings Institution Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chubb, J. E., &amp; Moe, T. (1990b). America's public schools: Choice is a panacea. The Brookings Review, 8 (3), 4 – 12. doi: 10.2307/20080159</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Coons, J. E. (2000). The populist moment in American education. Revista Espanola De Pedagogia, 58 (216), 197 – 210.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Darling-Hammond, L. (2004). Standards, accountability, and school reform. Teachers College Record, 106 (6), 1047 – 1085. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9620.2004.00372.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Darling-Hammond, L., &amp; Adamson, F. (2016). The critical choice in American education: Privatization or public investment? In F. Adamson, B. Astrand, &amp; L. Darling-Hammond (Eds.), Global education reform: How privatization and public investment influence education outcomes (pp. 131 – 168). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Debray, E., Scott, J., Lubienski, C., &amp; Jabbar, H. (2014). Intermediary organizations in charter school policy coalitions: Evidence from New Orleans. Educational Policy, 28 (2), 175 – 206.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dunn, A. H. (2018). Leaving a profession after it's left you: Teachers' public resignation letters as resistance amidst neoliberalism. Teachers College Record, 120, 1–34. ID Number: 22107.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ellison, S., &amp; Aloe, A. M. (2019). Strategic thinkers and positioned choices: Parental decision making in urban school choice. Educational Policy, 33 (7), 1135 – 1170. doi: 10.1177/0895904818755470</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Espenshade, D. (2020). Populism in American elections: Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. Foreign Policy Research Institute. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.fpri.org/article/2020/06/populism-in-american-elections-bernie-sanders-and-donald-trump/">www.fpri.org/article/2020/06/populism-in-american-elections-bernie-sanders-and-donald-trump/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ferman, B. (2017). The fight for America's schools: Grassroots organizing in education. Harvard Education Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ferman, B. (2020). Where now? Current observations, future directions. Urban Affairs Review, 56, 994 – 1107. doi: 10.1177/1078087419867163</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Forman, J., Jr. (2005). The secret history of school choice: How progressives got there first. The Georgetown Law Journal, 93, 1287 – 1319.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Frankenberg, E., Siegel-Hawley, G., &amp; Wang, J. (2010). Choice without equity: Charter school segregation and the need for civil rights standards. The Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED509773.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fraser, N. (2019). The old is dying and the new cannot be born: From progressive neoliberalism to Trump and beyond. Verso.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Friedman, M. (1955). The role of government in education. In R. A. Solo (Ed.), Economics and the Public Interest. Rutgers University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Geurkink, B., Zaslove, A., Sluiter, R., &amp; Jacobs, K. (2020). Populist attitudes, political trust, and external political efficacy: Old wine in new bottles? Political Studies, 68 (1), 247 – 267. doi: 10.1177/0032321719842768</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gewirtz, S. (2002). The managerial school: Post-welfarism and social justice in education. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Northeastern University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goldstein, D., &amp; Ember, S. (2019, May 23). Sanders's education plan renews debate over charter schools and segregation. The New York Times. https://<ulink href="http://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/23/us/politics/bernie-sanders-charter-schools.html">www.nytimes.com/2019/05/23/us/politics/bernie-sanders-charter-schools.html</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Green, E. L. (2019, November 26). Minority voters chafe as Democratic candidates abandon charter schools. The New York Times. https://<ulink href="http://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/26/nyregion/charter-schools-democrats.html">www.nytimes.com/2019/11/26/nyregion/charter-schools-democrats.html</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Green, E. L. (2020, February 25). Charter schools in surprise political fight as Trump and Democrats turn away. The New York Times. https://<ulink href="http://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/25/us/politics/charter-schools-trump-devos-democrats.html">www.nytimes.com/2020/02/25/us/politics/charter-schools-trump-devos-democrats.html</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gross, A. (2018, February 14). Detroit parents, teachers and youth push back on 'school choice' at education town hall. Detroit Free Press. https://<ulink href="http://www.freep.com/story/news/education/2018/02/14/detroit-town-hall-equality-choice/333715002/">www.freep.com/story/news/education/2018/02/14/detroit-town-hall-equality-choice/333715002/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hannaway, J., &amp; Woodroffe, N. (2003). Chapter 1: Policy instruments in education. Review of Research in Education, 27 (1), 1 – 24. doi: 10.3102/0091732X027001001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harris, D. N. (2016, November 25). Betsy DeVos and the wrong way to fix schools. The New York Times. https://<ulink href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/25/opinion/betsy-devos-and-the-wrong-way-to-fix-schools.html">www.nytimes.com/2016/11/25/opinion/betsy-devos-and-the-wrong-way-to-fix-schools.html</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harris, D. N. (2017, March 17). Why managed choice is better than a free market for schooling. Brookings. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/why-managed-competition-is-better-than-a-free-market-for-schooling/">www.brookings.edu/opinions/why-managed-competition-is-better-than-a-free-market-for-schooling/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harris, D. N. (2019, June 26). Are the education proposals of the Democratic presidential candidates really that liberal? Brookings. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.brookings.edu/blog/brown-center-chalkboard/2019/06/26/are-the-education-proposals-of-the-democratic-presidential-candidates-really-that-liberal/">www.brookings.edu/blog/brown-center-chalkboard/2019/06/26/are-the-education-proposals-of-the-democratic-presidential-candidates-really-that-liberal/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hawkins, K. A., Kaltwasser, R. C., &amp; Andreadis, I. (2020). The activation of populist attitudes. Government and Opposition, 55, 283 – 307. doi: 10.1017/gov.2018.23</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hemphill, A. A., &amp; Marianno, B. D. (2020). Teachers' unions, collective bargaining, and the response to COVID-19. Education Finance and Policy, uncorrected proof. https://doi.org/10.1162/edfp_a_00326</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Henderson, M. B., Houston, D., Peterson, P. E., Shakeel, M. D., &amp; West, M. R. (2020). Amid pandemic, support for online learning, parent poll shows: Results from the 2020 Education next survey of public opinion. Education Next. https://<ulink href="http://www.educationnext.org/amid-pandemic-support-soars-online-learning-parent-poll-shows-2020-education-next-survey-public-opinion/">www.educationnext.org/amid-pandemic-support-soars-online-learning-parent-poll-shows-2020-education-next-survey-public-opinion/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Henig, J. R. (2008). Spin cycle: How research is used in policy debates: The case of charter schools. Russell Sage Foundation.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Henig, J. R. (2018). Charter schools in a changing political landscape. In I. C. Rotberg &amp; J. L. Glazer (Eds.), Choosing charters: Better schools or more segregation? (pp. 6 – 23). Teachers College Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Henig, J. R. (2020). Prospects for grassroots influence: Can we be realistic without being fatalistic? Urban Affairs Review, 56 (3), 930 – 942. doi: 10.1177/1078087419867164</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hess, F. (2020, February 18). Why charter schoolers are feuding with Betsy DeVos. Forbes. https://<ulink href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/frederickhess/2020/02/18/why-charter-schoolers-are-feuding-with-betsy-devos/#757cb2573636">www.forbes.com/sites/frederickhess/2020/02/18/why-charter-schoolers-are-feuding-with-betsy-devos/#757cb2573636</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hess, F. M. (2019, May 8). School choosing: Replying to Christopher deMuth's "Trumpism, nationalism, and conservatism." The American Mind. Retrieved from https://americanmind.org/features/post-trump-politics/schooling-choice/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Horsford, S. D., Scott, J. T., &amp; Anderson, G. L. (2019). The politics of education policy in an era of inequality: Possibilities for democratic schooling. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hoxby, C. (2003). School choice and school productivity: Could school choice be a tide that lifts all boats? In C. Hoxby (Ed.), The economics of school choice (pp. 287 – 342). University of Chicago Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hursh, D. (2013). Raising the stakes: High-stakes testing and the attack on public eduation in New York. Journal of Education Policy, 28 (5), 574 – 588. doi: 10.1080/02680939.2012.758829</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hutt, E. (2016). The 'crisis' problem: On the pervasiveness of crisis rhetoric in American education research. In P. Smeyers &amp; M. Depaepe (Eds.), Educational Research: Discourses of change and changes of discourse (pp. 153 – 172). Springer International Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jabbar, H. (2015). 'Drenched in the past:' the evolution of market-oriented reforms in New Orleans. Journal of Educational Policy, 30 (6), 751 – 772. doi: 10.1080/02680939.2015.1047409</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jacobson, L. (2020). Strike tracker. Education Dive. https://<ulink href="http://www.educationdive.com/news/tracker-teachers-on-strike/547339/">www.educationdive.com/news/tracker-teachers-on-strike/547339/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Johnson, T. R. (2019, July 16). Donald Trump has made it clear: The only 'real Americans' are white and Christian. The Guardian. https://<ulink href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/16/trump-real-americans-white-christian">www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/16/trump-real-americans-white-christian</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Karp, S., &amp; Sanchez, A. (2018). The 2018 wave of teacher strikes. Rethinking Schools, 32, 4. https://<ulink href="http://www.rethinkingschools.org/articles/the-2018-wave-of-teacher-strikes">www.rethinkingschools.org/articles/the-2018-wave-of-teacher-strikes</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kellner, D. (2018). Donald Trump as authoritarian populist: A Frommian analysis. In J. Morelock (Ed.), Critical theory and authoritarian populism (pp. 71 – 82). University of Westminster Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kirst, M. W. (2007). Politics of charter schools: Competing national advocacy coalitions meet local politics. Peabody Journal of Education, 82 (2–3), 184 – 203. doi: 10.1080/01619560701312939</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Klein, E. (2020). Why we're polarized. Profile Books.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Labaree, D. F. (1997). Public goods, private goods: The American struggle over educational goals. American Educational Research Journal, 34 (1), 39 – 81. doi: 10.3102/00028312034001039</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lacatus, C. (2019). Populism and the 2016 American election: Evidence from official press releases and twitter. PS, Political Science &amp; Politics, 52 (2), 223 – 228.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Laclau, E. (2005). Populism: What's in a name? In F. Panizza (Ed.), Populism and the mirror of democracy (pp. 32 – 49). Verso.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ladner, M. (2018). No excuses charter schools: The good, the bad, and the over-prescribed. In J. P. Greene &amp; M. Q. McShane (Eds.), Failure up close: What happens, why it happens, and what we can learn from it (pp. 109 – 122). Rowman &amp; Littlefield.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lareau, A. (2003). Unequal childhoods: Class, race, and family life. University of California Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leonhardt, D. (2017, May 2). School vouchers aren't working, but choice is. New York Times. https://<ulink href="http://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/02/opinion/school-vouchers-charters-betsy-devos.html">www.nytimes.com/2017/05/02/opinion/school-vouchers-charters-betsy-devos.html</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lewis, P., Barr, C., Clarke, S., Voce, A., Levett, C., &amp; Gutierrez, P. (2019, March 6). Revealed: The rise and rise of populist rhetoric. The Guardian. https://<ulink href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2019/mar/06/revealed-the-rise-and-rise-of-populist-rhetoric">www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2019/mar/06/revealed-the-rise-and-rise-of-populist-rhetoric</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lipman, P. (2011). The new political economy of urban education Neoliberalism, race, and the right to the city. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lipsky, M. (1971). Street level bureaucracy and the analysis off urban reform. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 6, 122 – 159. doi: 10.1177/107808747100600401</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Logan, S. R. (2018). A historical and political look at the modern school choice movement. International Journal of Educational Reform, 27 (1), 2 – 21. doi: 10.1177/105678791802700101</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lugg, C. A. (1998). The religious right and public education: The paranoid politics of homophobia. Educational Policy, 12 (3), 267 – 283. doi: 10.1177/0895904898012003003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mann, B., Bennett, H., &amp; Rogers, A. (2020). Gentrification, charter schools, and enrollment patterns in Washington, D.C.: Shared growth or new forms of educational inequality? Peabody Journal of Education, 95 (3), 211 – 228.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maranto, R. (2015). Did the teachers destroy the school? Public entrepreneurship as creation and adaption. Journal of School Leadership, 25, 69 – 101. doi: 10.1177/105268461502500104</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martinelli, A. (2016). Beyond Trump: Populism on the rise. Edizioni Epoké - ISPI.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Meade, R. (2019). Populist narratives from below: Occupy Wall Street and the tea party. IdeAs, 14, 1 – 15.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Medina, J., &amp; Goldstein, D. (2019, January 28). Success of Los Angeles teachers strike rocks charter schools, and a rich supporter. The New York Times. https://<ulink href="http://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/28/us/charter-schools-los-angeles.html">www.nytimes.com/2019/01/28/us/charter-schools-los-angeles.html</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mehta, J. (2013). The penetration of technocratic logic into the educational field: Rationalizing schooling from the progressives to the present. Teachers College Record, 113 (5), 1 – 40.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Monarrez, T., Kisida, B., &amp; Chingos, M. (2019). Charter school effects on school segregation. Urban Institute.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mudde, C. (2004). The populist zeitgeist. Government and Opposition, 39 (4), 541 – 563. doi: 10.1111/j.1477-7053.2004.00135.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mudde, C. (2020, March 27). Will the coronavirus 'kill populism'? Don't count on it. The Guardian. https://<ulink href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/27/coronavirus-populism-trump-politics-response">www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/27/coronavirus-populism-trump-politics-response</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Müller, J.-W. (2014). "The people must be extracted from within the people": Reflections on populism. Constellations, 21 (4), 483 – 493. doi: 10.1111/1467-8675.12126</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Müller, J.-W. (2017). The age of perplexity: Rethinking the world we knew. The rise and rise of populism? Madrid, BBVA : OpenMind, Penguin Random House Grupo Editorial. https://<ulink href="http://www.bbvaopenmind.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/BBVA-OpenMind-Jan-Werner-M&amp;#252;ller-The-Rise-and-Rise-of-Populism-1.pdf">www.bbvaopenmind.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/BBVA-OpenMind-Jan-Werner-M&amp;#252;ller-The-Rise-and-Rise-of-Populism-1.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Panizza, F. (2005). Introduction: Populism and the mirror of democracy. In F. Panizza (Ed.), Populism and the mirror of democracy (pp. 1 – 31). Verso.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pearman, F. A., &amp; Swain, W. A. (2017). School choice, gentrification, and the variable significance of racial stratification in urban neighborhoods. Sociology of Education, 90 (3), 213–235. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040717710494</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pedroni, T. C. (2006). Acting neoliberal: Is Black support for vouchers a rejection of progressive educational values? Educational Studies, 40 (3), 265 – 278. doi: 10.1080/00131940701301911</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pedroni, T. C. (2007). Market movements: African American involvement in school voucher reform. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Peters, M. A. (2018). The end of neoliberal globalization and the rise of authoritarian populism. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 50 (4), 323 – 325. doi: 10.1080/00131857.2017.1305720</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Peterson, P. E. (2016). The end of the Bush-Obama regulatory approach to school reform. Education Next, 16 (3), 22 – 32.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Postel, C. (2012a). Occupy: A populist response to the crisis of inequality. Mittelweg, 36 (5). https://<ulink href="http://www.roosevelt.nl/sites/zl-roosevelt/files/occupy.pdf">www.roosevelt.nl/sites/zl-roosevelt/files/occupy.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Postel, C. (2012b). The tea party in historical perspective: A conservative response to a crisis of political economy. In L. Rosenthal &amp; C. Trost (Eds.), Steep: The precipitous rise of the tea party (pp. 25 – 46). University of California Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Quinn, R., &amp; Ogburn, L. (2020). Ideas and the politics of school choice policy: Portfolio management in Philadelphia. Educational Policy, 34 (1), 144 – 165. doi: 10.1177/0895904819881159</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Quinn, R., Oleberger, C. R., &amp; Meyerson, D. (2016). Getting to scale: Ideas, opportunities, and resources in the early diffusion of the charter management organization, 1999-2006. Teachers College Record, 118 (90303), 1 – 44.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rehmann, J. (2016). Bernie Sanders and the hegemonic crisis of neoliberal capitalism: What's next? Socialism and Democracy, 30 (3), 1 – 11. doi: 10.1080/08854300.2016.1228874</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ritter, G., Jensen, N., Kisida, B., &amp; McGee, J. (2010). A closer look at charter schools and segregation. Education Next, 10 (3), 69 – 73.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rizga, K. (2017). Betsy Devos wants to use America's schools to build "God's kingdom". Mother Jones. https://<ulink href="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/01/betsy-devos-christian-schools-vouchers-charter-education-secretary/">www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/01/betsy-devos-christian-schools-vouchers-charter-education-secretary/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schneider, J. (2012). Excellence for all: How a new breed of reformers is transforming America's public schools. Tennessee : Vanderbilt University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scott, J. (2008). Managers of choice: Race, gender, and the political ideology of the "new" urban school leadership. In W. Feinberg &amp; C. Lubienski (Eds.), School choice policies and outcomes: Philosophical and empirical perspectives on limits to choice in liberal democracies (pp. 149 – 176). SUNY Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scott, J. (2013a). A Rosa Parks moment? School choice and the marketization of civil rights. Critical Studies in Education, 54 (1), 5 – 19. doi: 10.1080/17508487.2013.739570</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scott, J. (2013b). School choice and the empowerment imperative. Peabody Journal of Education, 88 (1), 60 – 73. doi: 10.1080/0161956X.2013.752635</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scott, J., &amp; Holme, J. J. (2016). The political economy of market-based educational policies: Race and reform in urban school districts, 1915-2016. Review of Research in Education, 40, 250 – 297. doi: 10.3102/0091732X16681001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shakeel, M. D., &amp; Maranto, R. (2019). Left behind? School choice in rural communities. Journal of School Choice, 13 (4), 463 – 466. doi: 10.1080/15582159.2019.1691852</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shakeel, M. D., &amp; Maranto, R. (2020). Journal of School Choice special issue call for manuscripts, due June 15, 2020: Elitism, populism, and school choice. Journal of School Choice, 14, 5 – 8. doi: 10.1080/15582159.2020.1713456</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith, K. (2005). Data don't matter? Academic research and school choice. Perspectives on Politics, 3 (2), 285 – 299. doi: 10.1017/S1537592705050218</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stoll, I. (2020a). Trump presses school choice, charters in campaign preview. Education Next, 15 July. https://<ulink href="http://www.educationnext.org/trump-presses-school-choice-charters-campaign-preview/">www.educationnext.org/trump-presses-school-choice-charters-campaign-preview/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stoll, I. (2020b). At national convention, Republicans push school choice. Education Next, 25 August. https://<ulink href="http://www.educationnext.org/national-convention-republicans-push-school-choice/">www.educationnext.org/national-convention-republicans-push-school-choice/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stone, C. N. (2020). Rhetoric, reality, and politics: The neoliberal cul-de-sac in education. Urban Affairs Review, 56 (3), 9343 – 9972. doi: 10.1177/1078087419867165</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Strauss, V. (2017, September 12). In front of kids, Betsy DeVos says school is too often a 'mundane malaise'. The Washington Post.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Strauss, V. (2019, May 7). Betsy DeVos: 'There is no such thing as public money' and 5 other revealing things she just said – Or wouldn't say. The Washington Post.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Totenberg, N., &amp; Naylor, B. (2020, June 30). Supreme court: Montana can't exclude religious schools from scholarship program. NPR. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.npr.org/2020/06/30/883074890/supreme-court-montana-cant-exclude-religious-schools-from-scholarship-program">www.npr.org/2020/06/30/883074890/supreme-court-montana-cant-exclude-religious-schools-from-scholarship-program</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tyack, D., &amp; Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward Utopia: A century of public school reform. Harvard University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ujifusa, A. (2020). Trump targets history class as well as school choice in bid for second term. Education Week, 28 August. https://<ulink href="http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2020/08/26/trump-targets-history-class-as-well-as.html">www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2020/08/26/trump-targets-history-class-as-well-as.html</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> United States Department of Education (1983). A nation at risk. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/risk.html</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> United States Department of Education (2020). Secretary deVos on Espinoza: Religious discrimination is dead. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/secretary-devos-espinoza-religious-discrimination-dead">www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/secretary-devos-espinoza-religious-discrimination-dead</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Urbinati, N. (2014). Democracy disfigured: Opinion, truth and the people. Harvard University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Valant, J. (2019, October 22). What Elizabeth Warren's K-12 plan reveals about education politics today. Brookings. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.brookings.edu/blog/brown-center-chalkboard/2019/10/22/what-elizabeth-warrens-k-12-plan-reveals-about-education-politics-today/">www.brookings.edu/blog/brown-center-chalkboard/2019/10/22/what-elizabeth-warrens-k-12-plan-reveals-about-education-politics-today/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van Hauwaert, S. M., Schimpf, C. H., &amp; Azevedo, F. (2020). The measurement of populist attitudes: Testing cross-national scales using item response theory. Politics, 40 (1), 3 – 21. doi: 10.1177/0263395719859306</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vasquez Heilig, J. V., Brewer, J. T., &amp; Adamson, F. (2019). The comingling of neoliberal ideology, methods, and funding in school choice politics and research. In M. Berends, A. Primus, &amp; M. G. Spring (Eds.), Handbook of research on school choice (2nd ed., pp. 335–250). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Viteritti, J. P. (2005). School choice: How an abstract idea became a policy reality. Brookings Papers on Education Policy, 8, 137 – 156. doi: 10.1353/pep.2005.0011</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Viteritti, J. P. (2010). School choice and market failure: How politics trumps economics in education and elsewhere. Journal of School Choice, 4 (2), 203 – 221. doi: 10.1080/15582159.2010.483923</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wells, A. S., Lopez, A., Scott, J., &amp; Holme, J. J. (1999). Charter schools as postmodern paradox: Rethinking social stratification in an age of deregulated school choice. Harvard Educational Review, 69 (2), 172 – 205. doi: 10.17763/haer.69.2.k34475n478v43022</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> West, C. (2016, November 17). Goodbye, American neoliberalism. A new era is here. The Guardian. https://<ulink href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/17/american-neoliberalism-cornel-west-2016-election">www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/17/american-neoliberalism-cornel-west-2016-election</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Williams, J. C. (2017). White working class: Overcoming class cluelessness in America. Harvard Business Review Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wilson, T. S. (2016). Contesting the public school: Reconsidering charter schools as counterpublics. American Educational Research Journal, 53 (4), 919 – 952. doi: 10.3102/0002831216658972</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wong, K. K., &amp; Langevin, W. E. (2007). Policy expansion of school choice in the American states. Peabody Journal of Education, 82 (2–3), 440 – 472. doi: 10.1080/01619560701313085</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Jeremy Singer</p> <p>Reported by Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib104" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib132" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib90" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib113" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib126" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib93" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib94" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib92" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib125" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib100" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib101" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib127" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib96" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib131" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib134" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib107" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib135" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib129" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib130" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib123" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib88" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib99" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref98"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib111" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref103"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib102" firstref="ref104"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib108" firstref="ref105"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref106"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref107"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib121" firstref="ref109"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib110" firstref="ref111"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib109" firstref="ref113"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref116"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref117"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib97" firstref="ref122"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref127"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib84" firstref="ref128"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref130"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref136"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib89" firstref="ref137"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl73" bibid="bib105" firstref="ref138"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl74" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref149"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl75" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref151"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl76" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref152"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl77" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref156"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl78" bibid="bib85" firstref="ref157"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl79" bibid="bib98" firstref="ref159"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl80" bibid="bib86" firstref="ref160"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl81" bibid="bib117" firstref="ref162"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl82" bibid="bib118" firstref="ref163"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl83" bibid="bib119" firstref="ref164"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl84" bibid="bib106" firstref="ref167"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl85" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref169"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl86" bibid="bib116" firstref="ref170"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl87" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref173"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl88" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref176"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl89" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref177"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl90" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref178"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl91" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref179"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl92" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref183"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl93" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref184"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl94" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref185"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl95" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref191"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl96" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref194"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl97" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref195"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl98" bibid="bib87" firstref="ref196"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl99" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref198"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl100" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref199"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl101" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref200"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl102" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref201"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl103" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref205"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl104" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref212"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl105" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref213"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl106" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref214"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl107" bibid="bib120" firstref="ref216"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl108" bibid="bib124" firstref="ref217"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl109" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref219"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl110" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref220"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl111" bibid="bib133" firstref="ref221"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl112" bibid="bib112" firstref="ref224"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl113" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref230"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl114" bibid="bib83" firstref="ref231"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl115" bibid="bib95" firstref="ref232"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl116" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref233"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl117" bibid="bib115" firstref="ref234"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl118" bibid="bib122" firstref="ref235"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl119" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref236"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl120" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref237"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl121" bibid="bib91" firstref="ref238"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl122" bibid="bib103" firstref="ref241"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl123" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref249"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl124" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref250"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl125" bibid="bib114" firstref="ref251"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl126" bibid="bib128" firstref="ref252"></nolink> |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: eric DbLabel: ERIC An: EJ1292425 AccessLevel: 3 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: Power to the People? Populism and the Politics of School Choice in the United States – Name: Language Label: Language Group: Lang Data: English – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Singer%2C+Jeremy%22">Singer, Jeremy</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2666-2972">0000-0002-2666-2972</externalLink>) – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+School+Choice%22"><i>Journal of School Choice</i></searchLink>. 2021 15(1):88-112. – Name: Avail Label: Availability Group: Avail Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals – Name: PeerReviewed Label: Peer Reviewed Group: SrcInfo Data: Y – Name: Pages Label: Page Count Group: Src Data: 25 – Name: DatePubCY Label: Publication Date Group: Date Data: 2021 – Name: TypeDocument Label: Document Type Group: TypDoc Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Descriptive – Name: Subject Label: Descriptors Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22School+Choice%22">School Choice</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Politics+of+Education%22">Politics of Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Political+Attitudes%22">Political Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Change%22">Educational Change</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Neoliberalism%22">Neoliberalism</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Access+to+Education%22">Access to Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22African+American+Community%22">African American Community</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Christianity%22">Christianity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Religious+Cultural+Groups%22">Religious Cultural Groups</searchLink> – Name: Subject Label: Geographic Terms Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22United+States%22">United States</searchLink> – Name: DOI Label: DOI Group: ID Data: 10.1080/15582159.2020.1853993 – Name: ISSN Label: ISSN Group: ISSN Data: 1558-2159 – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: I use the definition of "populism as a discursive frame" to consider the extent to which the politics of school choice in the United States have been populist. This analysis offers a novel way to understand how political actors have forged coalitions to support school choice and suggests how they may remake their positions in an evolving political context. Populist approaches in the politics of school choice have been muted over the past three decades, as the contemporary educational reform movement has relied on political rhetoric that would foster and maintain broad-based coalitional support for its agenda. This is revealed by the dominant framing of school choice in the contemporary reform era, and by its contrast with more populist discourses throughout the politics of school choice. While populist sentiments are rising in the United States, political elites largely still rely on the contemporary reform movement's weakly populist or elitist discourse surrounding school choice. Social and geographic divisions within and between political constituencies remain obstacles to a populist turn in the politics of school choice. – Name: AbstractInfo Label: Abstractor Group: Ab Data: As Provided – Name: DateEntry Label: Entry Date Group: Date Data: 2021 – Name: AN Label: Accession Number Group: ID Data: EJ1292425 |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1292425 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1080/15582159.2020.1853993 Languages: – Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 25 StartPage: 88 Subjects: – SubjectFull: School Choice Type: general – SubjectFull: Politics of Education Type: general – SubjectFull: Political Attitudes Type: general – SubjectFull: Educational Change Type: general – SubjectFull: Neoliberalism Type: general – SubjectFull: Access to Education Type: general – SubjectFull: African American Community Type: general – SubjectFull: Christianity Type: general – SubjectFull: Religious Cultural Groups Type: general – SubjectFull: United States Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: Power to the People? Populism and the Politics of School Choice in the United States Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Singer, Jeremy IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 01 Type: published Y: 2021 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 1558-2159 Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 15 – Type: issue Value: 1 Titles: – TitleFull: Journal of School Choice Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
