Measuring And Understanding Education Advocacy
reformadvocatesNorth ing and UnderstandingEducation AdvocacyGrover J. (Russ) Whitehurst, The Brookings InstitutionDavid Stuit, Claire Graves, and Lauren Shaw, Basis Policy ResearchMarch 2015
Executive SummaryTremoved from consideration. Thus, these casestudies span the range of legislative outcomes, froma strong legislative victory for proponents of change(Louisiana), to a compromise victory for thoseproponents (North Carolina), to a loss (Tennessee).Do such advocacy efforts succeed in influencing thepublic policy that governs education?In our prior report, we introduced a new methodto study influence: the Survey with Placebo (SwP),which asks respondents to rate the influence ofa non-existent advocacy group (the placebo),along with actual entities engaged in advocacy. Bycomparing the scores of real organizations withthose of the placebo group, a scale of influence witha known zero point is generated. This allows us toquantify the amount of influence any organizationexercises and to test for the statistical significance ofdifferences between influence scores.he traditional delivery system for publicK-12 education in the U.S. is being disruptedby forces from without (e.g., forms ofcompetition, including charter schools)and from within (e.g., new regulatory requirements,including meaningful teacher evaluation and theCommon Core). As in any sizable sector of theeconomy, challenges to the status quo in educationare often met by organized advocacy efforts.Because education in this country is by-and-largea public enterprise, champions of change anddefenders of the status quo must turn to electedand appointed officials to advocate for their desiredoutcome.This report sheds light on that question byexamining the influence and approach of advocacyorganizations in three states that recently enactedor considered school reform legislation: Louisiana,Tennessee, and North Carolina. It builds uponresearch we conducted for a previous report whichfocused exclusively on Louisiana.In Louisiana, we examined the activity of advocacygroups leading up to the 2012 passage of the state’somnibus school choice legislation, House Bill 976. InNorth Carolina, we studied the activity of advocacygroups with respect to Senate Bill 337, a piece ofcharter school legislation that ultimately passedthe legislature in 2013 after undergoing a variety ofmodifications. In Tennessee, we explored advocates’involvement in a voucher bill known as the TennesseeChoice and Opportunity Scholarship Act (SenateBill 196 / House Bill 190), which was debated by thestate’s 108th General Assembly but was ultimatelyIn this study, we again employ the SwP technique,amended slightly based on lessons learned from itsfirst use. Because the examined advocacy groupsrepresent a diverse range of missions, utilize avariety of advocacy tactics, and focus efforts ondifferent stages of the policymaking process, we alsoemploy a Critical Path Analysis (CPA) to differentiateadvocacy organizations in terms of the paths throughwhich they exercise influence. The CPA allows usto identify the particular goals and tactics of eachorganization in order to evaluate the degree to whichthat particular organization was able to implement itsstrategy successfully.Applying these two methods to the case studies inLouisiana, North Carolina, and Tennessee providedseveral compelling findings with respect to theinfluence process and success of advocacy efforts,and also with regards to the future use of suchmeasures in evaluating advocacy.Grover J. (Russ) Whitehurstis the Herman and GeorgeR. Brown Chair in EducationStudies and a senior fellowin Governance Studies at theBrookings Institution.David Stuit is a foundingpartner of Basis PolicyResearch.Claire Graves is a researchassociate at Basis PolicyResearch.Lauren Shaw is a researchassociate at Basis PolicyResearch.1
Key Findings with respect to theinfluence process:nnn2The advocacy organizations we studiedare a clearly recognized influence withineach of the respective states. They have animpact on the introduction of policy into thelegislative arena, the content of legislation,and the votes of members of the legislature.Perceived influence closely tracksoutcomes. When the policy of interest isnot passed into law, opponents are creditedwith substantially greater influence than insites where the policy is successful.The effort to influence political outcomes,just like politics itself, is local. For example,approaches appropriate to a state in whichthe governor is the dominant political forcewith respect to the legislation of interest, aswas the case in Louisiana, will be differentthan in a state in which the legislature ismore powerful, as was the case in NorthCarolina.nAdvocacy organizations that are nominallyin the same camp in terms of beingsupporters or opponents of a piece oflegislation frequently have differentobjectives when it comes to the contentof the bill. Contradictory messaging, orpublicly visible discord, among advocacyorganizations that appear to be part ofthe same pro-legislation team provideopenings that opponents exploit in theirown advocacy efforts.nCoordination among advocacyorganizations that have related policy goalsstrengthens total impact. In Louisiana,for example, one of the advocacy groupsfocused on obtaining coordination andcooperation among all groups supportingthe legislation. This allowed each group inthe coalition to focus on what it could dobest and provided opportunities for workingthrough any conflicts in policy goals amongthe advocacy organizations out of thepublic eye.Key Findings with respect to methodsand measures:nThe Survey with Placebo (SwP) can detectmeaningful differences in the perceivedinfluence of advocacy groups and betweenthe actual influence groups vs. the placeboorganization.nRespondents to the SwP typically separatetheir own positions as supporters oropponents of the legislation from theirratings of influence. Overall, organizationson the winning side of a legislative battleare perceived by respondents to be moreeffective than those on the losing side.nCritical Path Analysis (CPA) with advocacygroup leaders and with those playing criticalroles in the political process surroundingthe issue of interest reveals significantinformation that cannot be gatheredthrough the SwP. For example, one learnshow a particular advocacy organizationgoes about generating grassroots supportand focusing it at times and places thathave political leverage. The expense andlabor required to conduct the CPA makesit impractical to pursue on a regular basis,but interested parties may considerleveraging this method in sites where theyare particularly interested in developinga better understanding of the advocacyenvironment and the specific strategiesthat advocates deploy.
Measuring and Understanding Education AdvocacyIntroductionEducation policy in the U.S. is in a periodof intense political focus. The traditionaldelivery system for public K-12 education isbeing disrupted from without by forms ofcompetition, including charter schools, and fromwithin by new regulatory requirements, includingmeaningful teacher evaluation and the CommonCore.Challenges to the status quo within any sizablesector of the economy are often accompanied byorganized advocacy. This is true in K-12 educationas well, but education is a special case in that itis by-and-large a public enterprise in which alldecisions involving management and resourcesare grounded in the politics of local school boards,mayoral administrations, and state and federalgovernment. Those whose interests are served by thetraditional system of delivery as well as those whowant substantial change must turn to elected andappointed officials and those who influence them tomake their case.In this context, a new generation of educationadvocacy groups has emerged, seeking to exerciseinfluence and benefitting from the financial supportof philanthropies. They often are pitted againstorganizations that oppose disruptive change, suchas teacher unions and associations representingschool boards and school district administrators,and that have historically advocated for their policypreferences with little in the way of an organizedcounterweight from those with different policypreferences.This report sheds light on this new world of organizededucation reform advocacy by examining theinfluence and approach of advocacy organizationsin Louisiana, Tennessee, and North Carolina thatwere active in the politics of recent school reformlegislation unique to each state. In Louisiana, astate on which we focused in a previous report, weexamined the activity of advocacy groups leading upto the passage in 2012 of the state’s omnibus schoolchoice legislation, House Bill 976, which led to thestatewide expansion of the New Orleans voucherprogram as well as other aspects of educationalchoice. In North Carolina, we studied the activity ofadvocacy groups with respect to Senate Bill 337, apiece of charter school legislation that ultimatelypassed the legislature in 2013 after undergoing avariety of modifications that weakened its originalintent to provide more autonomy to the charterschool sector. In Tennessee, we explored advocates’involvement surrounding a voucher bill known as theTennessee Choice and Opportunity ScholarshipAct (Senate Bill 196 / House Bill 190), whichwas debated in the 2013 and 2014 sessionsof the state’s 108th General Assembly butwas ultimately removed from consideration.The advocacy groups involved in each ofthese states represent a range of the types oforganization involved in education advocacyacross the nation; and our case studies spanThis report sheds lightthe range of legislative outcomes from a stronglegislative victory for proponents of changeon this new world of(Louisiana), to a compromise victory fororganized educationthose proponents (North Carolina), to a loss(Tennessee).reform advocacyby examining theinfluence andapproach of advocacyorganizations inLouisiana, Tennessee,and North Carolina.Our efforts to understand education advocacyrequired us to create new measurement toolsand methodological approaches to addresstwo longstanding challenges in the study ofsocial influence. The first is that typical surveymethods that ask respondents to rate or rankorder various entities in terms of influenceproduce only ordinal or interval data. Thus, onecan learn that organization Alpha is rankedfirst in terms of influence whereas organizationBeta is ranked second, or that Alpha receiveda mean score on a scale of influence of 6.5whereas Beta received a mean of 6.0. But one cannotdetermine what the numbers and rankings meanin absolute terms. Is it that Alpha and Beta differedsomewhat in their influence but neither had muchimpact, or is it that they differed somewhat andboth had substantial impact? There is no way to tellwith the results of a traditional survey of perceivedinfluence.3
To address the challenge of providing an anchor tothe numbers produced by a reputational survey,we introduced in our previous report—and refinein the present report—a survey method that allowsfor measurement of influence on a ratio scale, i.e.,a scale in which there is a non-arbitrary zero point.Our method, called the Survey with Placebo (SwP),requires respondents to rate the influence of afictional advocacy group (the placebo) along withactual entities engaged in advocacy. By comparingthe scores of real organizations with those of theplacebo group we generate a scale of influence witha known zero point (the score given to the placeboorganization). This allows us to quantify the amountof influence any organization exercises and to testfor the statistical significance of differences betweeninfluence scores.The second challenge is to capture information thatdifferentiates advocacy organizations in terms ofthe paths through which they exercise influence.Imagine two advocacy organizations that operatein very different realms—one engages in personallobbying of legislators whereas the other deployssocial media to impact public opinion. To be sure,it would be valuable to be able to evaluate theperceived influence of the two organizations on thesame scale, as we do with the SwP. But it is alsoimportant to understand the particular goals andtactics of each organization in order to evaluatethe degree to which that particular organizationwas able to successfully implement its action plan.Our methodological approach to differentiating thetactics and goals of advocacy organizations is calledCritical Path Analysis (CPA): High-level officials ineach advocacy organization participate in structuredinterviews in which they are asked to define theirinfluence efforts in terms of the channels they useand the actions they deploy at different stages of theadvocacy process. These revealed plans are thensubjected to validation by structured interviews withknowledgeable respondents outside the organizationwho are in a position to have observed whether theactivities described by the official of the advocacyorganization were actually observed in practice.4Background onLegislationLouisiana School Choice LegislationLouisiana’s 2012 House Bill 976, which becameAct 2 upon being signed into law in April of thatyear, creates or alters four different programs andprocesses. Most notably, it expands eligibility forLouisiana’s existing voucher program, StudentScholarships for Educational Excellence (SSEE),from only students in New Orleans to all studentsstatewide in families with a total income notexceeding 250 percent of the federal povertyguidelines and who are entering kindergarten,were enrolled in a Louisiana public school withan accountability grade of C, D, or F, or received ascholarship the previous school year. Students areeligible to transfer to participating private schoolsor to public schools with an A or B grade. This issometimes referred to as the “voucher portion”of the bill, and was considered the heart of thelegislation.The law also makes a number of changes tocharter school statutes. It requires the stateBoard of Elementary and Secondary Education(BESE) to approve a common charter application,recruit chartering groups, and create a process forauthorizing multiple charter schools. BESE is alsogiven the ability to approve charter proposals if alocal school board fails to comply with the charterapplication requirements. Related to authorizers,HB 976 requires BESE to establish proceduresfor certifying local charter authorizers, includingnonprofit organizations and universities, for thepurpose of accepting, evaluating, and approvingapplications for charter schools from charteringgroups.In addition, the legislation permits parents ofstudents attending a public school with a letter grade
Measuring and Understanding Education Advocacyof D or F for three consecutive years to petition BESEto transfer the school to the Recovery School District,a state-run district tasked with turning aroundchronically low-performing schools. Finally, the billrequires BESE to create a process through whichvirtual course providers, postsecondary institutions,or corporations can be authorized to provide coursesto Louisiana students.The bill passed with a comfortable margin in bothhouses, gaining 58 percent of the vote in the Houseand 62 percent in the Senate. The bill garneredbi-partisan support in Louisiana’s Republicandominated legislature, with 29 percent of HouseDemocrats and 47 percent of Senate Democratsvoting in favor of the bill.North Carolina Charter SchoolLegislationAs originally introduced, Senate Bill 337 proposed avariety of changes to laws governing charter schoolsin North Carolina. The centerpiece of the legislationwas the proposed creation of the North CarolinaPublic Charter Schools Board, which would operateindependently of the State Board of Education andtake on responsibility for authorizing and overseeingcharter schools. Among many other provisions, thebill was also intended to eliminate requirements forcharter school teacher licensure, require charterschool boards to adopt a policy regarding whetherthey would conduct criminal background checks,and require the transfer of local school districtfunds to charters within thirty days. Over thecourse of the legislative process, the bill underwentnumerous substantive changes. These included theestablishment of a charter school advisory boardrather than an independent board, the reductionof the percentage of teachers in a charter schoolrequired to hold licenses rather than the eliminationof all licensure requirements, and a mandate forcharter schools to adopt criminal background checkpolicies that mirror those in their local district. Thefinal version of the bill was signed into law in July 2013.the legislation. Both chambers are marked byRepublican control, and no Republican lawmakervoted against the bill in either chamber. Democratswere almost equally as likely to support as to opposethe bill in the House (46 percent of Democrats votedyes while 54 percent voted no), but voted moreconsistently against the bill in the Senate (31 percentvoted in support and 69 percent in opposition).While the final vote count represents the ultimatesuccess of policy passage, the major efforts ofthe advocacy groups of interest in our study weredirected toward the content of the policy understudy—not its ultimate passage.Tennessee School VoucherLegislationThe Tennessee Choice and OpportunityScholarship Act (Senate Bill 196 / HouseBill 190) was introduced in 2013 on behalfof Governor Bill Haslam at the beginning ofTennessee’s two year legislative cycle. Asoriginally filed, the legislation would haveallowed a limited number of low-incomestudents in the state’s bottom five percent ofschools to receive vouchers that could be usedto attend private schools. The program wouldhave been initially capped at 5,000 vouchers,increasing to 20,000 over time.During the 2013 session, Governor Haslamresisted efforts to amend the program toexpand eligibility to more students, ultimatelywithdrawing his legislation rather than allowingit to be altered. Movement on the pair of billsresumed in 2014, and they were each amendedin committee to broaden the pool of eligiblestudents, though the two chambers’ amendmentsdiffered in their approach. Senate Bill 196 passedthe Senate with a wide margin (21 to 10). However,indicating that the bill lacked enough support amongcommittee members, the House sponsor withdrewthe legislation from the lower chamber’s financecommittee, killing the bill for the session.By comparingthe scores of realorganizations withthose of the placebogroup we generate ascale of influence witha known zero point(the score given to theplacebo organization).The bill passed with 82 percent of voting Senatorsand 80 percent of voting Representatives supporting5
MethodsAdministration of the SwPThis section describes in greater detail the twomethods used to measure the influence of advocacygroups on policy outcomes in our research sites,highlighting how the methods were refined in yeartwo based on findings from year one.Survey with PlaceboThe first method, the SwP, is a variant of the“attributed influence” surveys used by politicalscientists to study influence of interest groups.1 Ineach research site, we distributed a survey to all statelegislators along with a group of political insiders whowere expected to have first-hand knowledge of thefactors that influenced the legislation under study.The inclusion of a placebo organization known tohave had zero influence distinguishes this methodfrom the typical attributed influence survey.Advocacy groups included on the SwPEach research site survey included five to six realadvocacy groups involved with the policy issueunder study and a placebo group known to havehad no involvement in the influence process in thatstate.2 The mix of real advocacy
1 T he traditional delivery system for public K-12 education in the U.S. is being disrupted by forces from without (e.g., forms of competition, including charter schools)
WASH advocacy, including an assessment of the current situation, goals to drive future WASH advocacy, key gaps, and opportunities for the WASH sector to become more effective in its advocacy work. Global Advocacy for WASH: Manuals Stronger Health Advocates, Greater Health Impacts: A workbook for policy advocacy strategy development (PATH, 2014)
MANUAL FOR FACILITATORS OF ADVOCACY TRAINING SESSIONS SECTION 1 BASIC PRINCIPLES BASIC PRINCIPLES OF FACILITATING ADVOCACY EVENTS The facilitation of advocacy training sessions or of other group processes related to advocacy initiatives requires a variety of technical, pedagogical, political, and artistic skills and knowledge.
2B Identify potential barriers and relevant strategies to overcome them 53 2C Collaboratively develop an individual’s self-advocacy strategy and arguments 59. 2D Provide opportunities for practising self-advocacy 65 2E Identify and utilise self-advocacy resources 68. 2F Support individuals
Advocacy is speaking up, drawing a community s attention to an important issue, and directing decision makers toward a solution. Advocacy is working with other people and organizations to make a difference. (CEDPA, 1995). Advocacy is putting a problem on the agenda, providing a solution to that problem and building
Advocacy Toolkit WWW.FAMILIESUSA.ORG Advocacy can make a significant difference in ensuring that everyone has access to coverage, care, and improved health. You and your organization can play a vital role in educating public officials about issues important to health care consumers. The goal of this toolkit is to help people new to advocacy.
Patient Self-Advocacy and Patient Satisfaction Patient self-advocacy is defined as "representing one's own interests within the health care decision-making process" (Wright, Frey, & Sopory, 2007, p. 36). Patients with self-advocacy may seek health information and may interact effectively with their health care providers, and as a result .
information and worksheets that you can use to build advocacy skills and try out different self-advocacy strategies. Informal Advocacy Plan – Step by Step Step 1: Problem Analysis Questions to ask yourself: What is the problem or issue? If there is more than one, focus on
Advocacy is not some kind of magic superpower where you miraculously persuade someone to give you what you want, even against their will or their best interests. So, don’t worry if you’re not Derren Brown or David Blaine: advocacy is something that everyone can do, and with a bit of
