THE  DARK  SIDE  OF  EDUCATION:     STATE  LEVEL  POLICYMAKING  IN  THE  AGE  OF  ACCOUNTABILITY       By     Brian  Boggs                           A  DISSERTATION     Submitted  to     Michigan  State  University   in  partial  fulfillment  of  the  requirement     for  the  degree  of       Educational  Policy  –  Doctor  of  Philosophy   K-­‐12  Educational  Administration  –  Doctor  of  Philosophy     2014                           ABSTRACT     THE  DARK  SIDE  OF  EDUCATION:    STATE  LEVEL  POLICYMAKING  IN  THE  AGE  OF   ACCOUNTABILITY     By     Brian  Boggs     States  have  become  increasingly  central  actors  in  educational  policy  with  the  advent  of   performance-­‐based  accountability  and  market-­‐oriented  educational  reforms  (Figlio  &   Ladd,  2008;  National  Research  Council,  2011;  Ravitch,  1995).    In  spite  of  this,  there  have   been  relatively  few  studies  that  have  examined  policymaking  at  the  state  level.    This  study   seeks  to  address  this  gap  by  examining  the  case  of  how  one  educational  policy,  the   Michigan  Public  Education  Finance  Act  of  2013,  got  developed  at  the  state  level.     Educational  policy  has  a  dark  side  based  on  influence,  power,  and  access.  So,  who  is  it  that   shapes  the  direction  of  educational  policy  at  the  state  level,  and  how?     Keywords:  State  level  educational  policy,  public  policy,  policy  cycle,  policy   entrepreneurship,  shaping  educational  policy,  and  researching  up.                           Copyright  by   BRIAN  BOGGS   2014     iii       ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS       Archimedes  once  said,  “Give  me  a  fulcrum  and  a  lever  and  I  can  move  the  world.”   Keeping  this  in  mind,  I  wish  to  express  my  deepest  gratitude  to  those  who  have  given  me   that  fulcrum  and  lever.  I  especially  want  to  thank  my  parents.  This  work  is  dedicated  to  my   mother,  without  whom  none  of  this  would  have  been  possible.       I  would  like  to  thank  the  committee  –  Dr.  Christopher  Dunbar,  Dr.  Dorothea   Anagnostopoulos,  Dr.  Susan  Printy,  Dr.  Barbara  Markle,  and  Dr.  Kristy  Cooper  –  for  their   time  and  support  on  my  academic  adventure.  A  special  heartfelt  feeling  of  gratitude  goes  to   Dr.  Michael  Sedlak,  for  seeing  in  me  the  passion  for  educational  policy.  And,  I  would  be   remised  without  giving  a  special  thank  you  to  two  great  mentors  who  have  shaped  my   direction  in  education  and  continue  to  inspire  my  work  daily,  Dr.  Barbara  Markle  and   Daniel  Schultz.  Also,  my  gratitude  goes  to  Dr.  Bruce  Rubenstein  and  Dr.  Thomas  Foster  who   kindled  in  me  a  passion  for  learning  and  a  quest  for  understanding  from  the  beginning  of   my  academic  career.  I  must  give  a  special  thank  you  to  Richard  McLellan  for  his  willingness   to  be  part  of  my  study.  In  addition,  I  owe  a  special  thank  you  to  the  editorial  guidance  of  Dr.   Douglas  Campbell.       To  all  my  friends,  who  are  too  numerous  to  name,  that  stood  by  me  during  the  entire   Ph.D.  process.  I  especially  want  to  acknowledge  Honey  Ghods,  Sean  Williams,  Bryan   Beverly,  Christie  Poirta,  Ryan  Goodwin,  Jacob  Raleigh,  Jonhathon  Sprague,  Almon  Perry,   Justin  Pittsley,  Amy  Roddy,  Lynn  Markland,  and  Jason  Hartz.  As  Emerson  said,  “Cultivate   the  habit  of  being  grateful  for  every  good  thing  that  comes  to  you,  and  to  give  thanks       iv   continuously.  And  because  all  things  have  contributed  to  your  advancement,  you  should   include  all  things  in  your  gratitude.”                                                 v     TABLE  OF  CONTENTS         LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................ viii LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................ ix Chapter  One:  In  the  Beginning,  There  Was  Policy .....................................................1 Introduction ..........................................................................................................1 Michigan  Historical  and  Educational  Law  Background ...............................2 The  Rise  of  Educational  Governors  and  the  Michigan  Context ...................5   Michigan  Public  Education  Finance  Act  of  2013 ..........................................10 Chapter  Two:  As  Policy  Is  Now ....................................................................................18 Review  of  the  Literature ...................................................................................18 Conducting  the  Review .....................................................................................19 Power....................................................................................................................20   Authority  and  Interest ......................................................................................21   Equity  ...........................................................................................................................  25     Ambiguity  and  Complexity  ....................................................................................  27     Relationships    ............................................................................................................  28     Policy  Elites  and  Policy  Entrepreneurs  ............................................................  30     Bringing  the  Literature  Together  .......................................................................  35     Chapter  Three:  Uncovering  the  Policy  Process  ...........................................................  37     Theoretical  Framework  .........................................................................................  37     Policy  Cycle  .................................................................................................................  37     Critical  Theory  ..........................................................................................................  40     Interest  Group  Theory  ............................................................................................  44     The  Policy  Cycle,  Critical  Theory,  and  Interest  Group  Theory  ..................  51     What  Follows  .............................................................................................................  52     Chapter  Four:  Methods    .......................................................................................................  53     Case  Study  Background    .........................................................................................  53     Phase  I:  Document  Analysis    .................................................................................  55     Phase  II:  Semi-­‐Structured  Interviews    ..............................................................  58     Limitations    ................................................................................................................  66     What  Follows    ............................................................................................................  68     Chapter  Five:  Entering  the  Lion’s  Den,  or  Let  There  Be  Policy    .............................  69     Peering  through  the  Looking  Glass  –  Where  Did  PEFA  Come  from?    ......  70     The  Governor’s  Message  .......................................................................................    71     Who  Wrote  the  Message?  .....................................................................................    78       vi   Where  PEFA  and  the  Governor’s  Message  Really  Started,     and  Why  It  Was  Proposed  ....................................................................................    85   Policy  Note  and  Connections  on  Policy  Triggers    ..........................................  90   Public  Education  Finance  Act    ..............................................................................  91   Dark  Money,  a  Private  Mechanism  to  Change  a  Public  Good    ...................  91   The  Process  of  Forming  the  Law    ........................................................................  93   Policy  Note  and  Connections  to  Policy  Formation  ........................................  99   The  Authority  to  Act  (Knowing  the  Rules  of  the  Game)    ...........................  100   Informal  Authority  View    .....................................................................................  100   Formal  Authority  View    ........................................................................................  105   Policy  Note  and  Connections  on  Authority    ...................................................  112   Policy  Formation  Thus  Far  and  What  Follows    ............................................  114                         Chapter  Six:  The  State’s  Version  of  Star  Wars    ..........................................................  116     The  Empire  Strikes  Back    ....................................................................................  116     The  Return  of  the  Jedi  (the  Alliance)    ..............................................................  119     Transparency    .........................................................................................................  121     Coalition  Building  –  Forming  a  Super  Interest  Group    ...............................  124     Connecting  One  Controversy  to  Another  –  The  EAA    ..................................  129     Skunk  Works    ..........................................................................................................  132     Policy  and  Interest  Group  Connections,  and  What  Follows    ....................  135     Chapter  Seven:  How  Policy  Dies  –  A  Public  Execution    ...........................................  138     A  Public  Execution    ................................................................................................  138     Resurrection  and  Life  after  Death    ...................................................................  141     Policy  Connections    ................................................................................................  145     Wax  Wings  and  Other  Things  that  Melt:  The  Down  Fall  of  PEFA    ..........  146     The  Governor  and  his  Champion       –  not  Dante  and  Virgil,  but  Hell  Nonetheless      ..............................................  146     A  Serious  Tactical  Error    ......................................................................................  149     Atmospherics    ..........................................................................................................  151     Policy  Connections    ................................................................................................  154     Shaping  Policy  and  the  Policy  Cycle    ................................................................  155     Policy  Is  in  the  Eye  of  the  Beholder    .................................................................  156     The  Actor  Centered  Social  Engineered  Policy  Cycle  ..................................    158     Policy  Connections    ................................................................................................  163     Concluding  Thoughts  and  Implications  for  Educational  Policy    ............  163     APPENDIX      ............................................................................................................................  166       REFERENCES    ........................................................................................................................  179                 vii   LIST  OF  TABLES       Table  1:  Summary  of  Changes  PEFA  v.  School  Aid  Act  of  1979    .............................  13   Table  2:  Consensus  for  Change  Think  Tank  Memo  Describing  "Any  Time,  Any  Place,   Any  Way,  Any  Pace"    ................................................................................................  14   Table  3:  Critical  Theory  Power  Matrix  as  Adopted  from  Glens,  2011    ................  43   Table  4:  Interest  Group  Theories    ...................................................................................  48   Table  5:  Specific  Function  of  Document  Analysis    .....................................................    57   Table  6:  Cast  of  Characters  –  Interview  Participants      ..............................................  60   Table  7:  Interview  Guide    ...................................................................................................  63   Table  8:  PEFA  Project  Goals  and  Purposes    ..................................................................  95   Table  9:  PEFA  Statutory  Outline    ......................................................................................  96   Table  10:  Per  Pupil  Funding  by  State    ............................................................................  99   Table  11:  List  of  Public  Service  Contributions  by  Private  Interests    .................  109   Table  12:  Traditionalists    .................................................................................................  123   Table  13:  Creating  Atmospherics  Conditions  for  Issue  Management    ..............  153   Table  14:    McLellan’s  Elements  of  Policy  Formation    ..............................................  157                     viii   LIST  OF  FIGURES       Figure  1:  Proportion  of  Michigan  State  of  State  Addresses  Devoted  to  K-­‐12  Education,   by  Governor      ................................................................................................................  7   Figure  2:  Policy  Cycle    ..........................................................................................................  38   Figure  3:  Research  Design  Phases  –  based  on  the  unpublished  work  of  Benjamin   Botwinski  (2013)    ....................................................................................................  55   Figure  4:  Views  on  Mclellan’s  Informal  Authority  to  Act  .......................................  101   Figure  5:  McLellan’s  Policy  Cycle  ...................................................................................  159   Figure  6:  The  Socially  Engineered  PEFA  Policy  Cycle    ............................................  162   Figure  7:  Revisiting  Schultz’s  Policy  Cycle    .................................................................  162     ix   Chapter  One:  In  the  Beginning,  There  Was  Policy1     Introduction      States  have  become  increasingly  central  actors  in  educational  policy  with  the   advent  of  performance-­‐based  accountability  and  market-­‐oriented  educational  reforms   (Anagnostopoulos,  Rutledge,  &  Bali,  2013;  Figlio  &  Ladd,  2008;  National  Research  Council,   2011;  Ravitch,  1995).    In  spite  of  this,  there  have  been  relatively  few  studies  that  have   examined  policymaking  at  the  state  level.    My  study  seeks  to  address  this  gap  by  examining   the  case  of  how  one  educational  policy,  the  Michigan  Public  Education  Finance  Act  of  2013,   developed  at  the  state  level.       At  the  heart  of  our  ideals  about  the  democratic  process,  we  all  want  a  governmental   process  that  is  egalitarian—fair  and  equitable,  with  ease  of  access  by  those  it  serves,  and   one  that  is  in  line  with  the  theoretical  ideas  and  philosophies  we  have  been  taught  that   American  government  holds.  However,  the  reality  is  that  government  is  not  that  simple  or   clear.  It  has  a  dark  side  based  on  influence,  power,  and  access,  which  leads  me  to  my   research  question:  Who  is  it  that  shapes  the  direction  of  educational  policy  at  the  state   level  and  how?  To  “effectively  display  the  complex  interplay  of  particular  circumstance[s]   and  the  regularities  of  the  human  condition”  (Lofland  et  al.,  2005,  p.  32),  a  descriptive  case   study  (Yin,  2003)  was  used  to  explore  the  inception  and  shaping  of  what  has  come  to  be   called  the  Michigan  Public  Education  Finance  Act  of  2013  (PEFA).                                                                                                                   1  The  title  of  this  chapter,  like  many  others  throughout  this  dissertation,  represents   reference  to  various  religious  or  literary  works.  This  reference  connects  to  creation  of  the   world  in  Genesis  and  is  meant  to  show  that  education  has  long  been  shaped  by  policy  –   since  the  beginning.       1   Michigan  Historical  and  Educational  Law  Background     When  considering  the  complex  relationship  between  Michigan’s  political  entities,  it   is  always  important  to  know  those  organizations’  political  development  and  history.  It  is   really  hard  to  say  which  came  first:  state  governance  or  educational  governance.  Michigan   was  created  under  the  Federal  Ordinance  of  1787—commonly  referred  to  as  the  Northwest   Ordinance—and  at  the  same  time,  provisions  were  made  for  establishing  local  schools   (Rubenstein,  2008).  The  ordinance  read  that  all  lands  north  and  west  of  the  Ohio  River   should  be  surveyed  into  six  mile  by  six-­‐mile  squares,  called  townships.  Each  six-­‐mile   square  would  then  be  divided  into  thirty-­‐six  equal  sections  of  640  acres  each.  Once   surveyed,  the  townships  were  divided  in  half  and  sold  in  their  entirety  at  a  public  auction  in   New  York.  The  remaining  lands  were  sold  in  640-­‐acre  sections  for  no  less  than  one  dollar   per  acre.  The  money  from  these  land  sales  went  to  support  the  newly  formed  and   struggling  federal  government  after  the  Revolutionary  War,  except  for  the  sale  of  land  in   section  sixteen  of  each  township,  which  went  to  establish  local  schools  –  thus  creating   public  education  in  Michigan  (Rubenstein,  2008).   According  to  MDE’s  website,  educational  authority  was  established  even  before   statehood  in  1837  (2013):  “In  1809  judicial  districts  created  schools  and  levied  taxes  to   support  them.  Twenty  years  later,  the  Territorial  Council  divided  the  districts  into  school   districts  and  gave  the  State  the  right  to  supervise  schools.”  This  is  important  because  it   illustrates  the  connection  of  the  federal  sale  of  section  sixteen  lands  to  local  townships  to   the  creation  of  districts  and  state  authority  over  those  local  districts.  In  addition,  Michigan’s   first  constitution  established  the  position  of  the  State  Superintendent  of  Public  Instruction   in  1835.       2   The  current  manifestation  of  the  state  education  system,  including  creating  the   Michigan  Department  of  Education  (MDE)  and  outlining  the  roles  and  responsibilities  of   the  state  board  of  education,  appeared  under  the  most  recent  (fourth)  state  constitution  in   1963,  and  it  was  further  defined  under  the  Michigan  Revised  School  Code  Act  451  of  1979.   Section  three  of  article  VIII  of  the  1963  constitution  states  the  relationship  between  the   state  board  of  education  and  the  legislature  most  clearly.  It  states  that  “Leadership  and   general  supervision  over  all  public  education,  including  adult  education  and  instructional   programs  in  state  institutions,  except  as  to  institutions  of  higher  education  granting   baccalaureate  degrees,  is  vested  in  a  state  board  of  education.  It  shall  serve  as  the  general   planning  and  coordinating  body  for  all  public  education,  including  higher  education,  and   shall  advise  the  legislature  as  to  the  financial  requirements  in  connection  therewith”  (MI   Constitution,  article  VIII,  §  3).     This  established  that  the  state  board  of  education,  and  thereby  their  subordinates   (namely  MDE),  are  responsible  for  the  day-­‐to-­‐day  operation  of  education  in  the  State  of   Michigan.  It  also  shows  that  MDE’s  relationship  to  the  legislature  is  one  of  an  advisory   capacity,  but  they  are  to  be  given  a  voice  nonetheless.  However,  their  advisory  capacity  is   not  specified;  the  constitution  does  not  state  if  that  means  that  MDE  can  advise  only  when   asked,  or  are  welcome  to  contribute  anytime.  Also,  despite  MDE  being  part  of  the  executive   branch  of  government,  the  preceding  section  of  the  Michigan  State  Constitution  of  1963   makes  it  very  clear  that  all  the  power  in  education  rests  with  the  legislature.  It  states,  “The   legislature  shall  maintain  and  support  a  system  of  free  public  elementary  and  secondary   schools  as  defined  by  law”  (MI  Constitution,  article  VIII,  §  2).  Simply  put,  the  legislature  is   ultimately  responsible  to  the  law  (and  in  most  cases,  the  law  they  created).  The  legislature     3   is  beholden  unto  themselves  and  those  who  have  access  to  them  and  can  influence  them.       Another  branch  of  government  that  is  heavily  involved  in  educational  agenda  setting   is  the  governor’s  office,  and  ultimately  the  governor  him/herself.  The  governor  has  the   power  as  the  chief  executive  of  the  state  to  set  the  course  of  policy.  The  Revised  School   Code,  Act  451  of  1976,  gave  the  governor  some  appointing  and  removal  power  of  school   officials,  but  it  really  did  not  specifically  state  a  role  in  terms  of  education.  However,  the   State  of  Michigan  Constitution  is  a  bit  more  detailed,  but  not  much.  It  states  that  the   governor  “is  a  non-­‐voting  ex-­‐officio”  member  of  the  state  board  of  education  and  may   appoint  vacancies  on  the  board  between  elections  (MI  Constitution,  article  VIII,  §  3).  The   state  board  of  education,  not  the  governor,  appoints  the  superintendent  of  public  education   in  the  State  of  Michigan.     Other  than  the  aforementioned  points,  the  constitution  does  not  mention  any   specific  powers  for  shaping  educational  policy  that  belong  to  the  governor.  However,  to   understand  fully  the  governor’s  role,  we  must  go  beyond  any  mention  of  education  and   consider  the  branch  in  which  education  is  placed  at  the  state  level.  MDE  is  a  part  of  the   executive  branch,  and  the  Michigan  Constitution  does  give  the  governor  direct  power  over   that  entire  branch,  specifically  “Subsequent  to  the  initial  allocation,  the  governor  may  make   changes  in  the  organization  of  the  executive  branch  or  in  the  assignment  of  functions   among  its  units  which  he  considers  necessary  for  efficient  administration”  (MI   Constitution,  article  V,  §  2).  This  kind  of  power  could  come  in  conflict  with  an  elected  state   board  of  education  and  an  appointed  state  superintendent  in  an  organization  (MDE)  that   the  governor  could  change  without  their  consent.  Conflict  can  also  occur  in  how  the   governor  decides  to  direct  the  state’s  educational  policy  agenda.     4   The  Rise  of  Educational  Governors  and  the  Michigan  Context     Most  people  are  unaware  of  the  vast  power  of  the  state  when  it  comes  to  municipal   corporations,  which  include  schools.  As  Jeffrey  Henig  argued,  “Constitutional  authority  for   public  education  has  been  vested  in  the  states”  (2013,  p.  36).  States  not  only  have  the   authority  to  regulate  but  also  to  create,  reorganize,  or  terminate,  and  this  has  been  such   since  1868,  Chief  Justice  John  Forrest  Dillon  of  the  Iowa  Supreme  Court  issued  what   became  know  as  Dillon’s  Rule.  It  states,  “Municipal  corporations  owe  their  origin  to,  and   derive  their  powers  and  rights  wholly  from,  the  legislature.  It  breathes  into  them  the  breath   of  life,  without  which  they  cannot  exist.  As  it  creates,  so  may  it  destroy.  If  it  may  destroy,  it   may  abridge  and  control”  (Henig,  2013,  p.  37).  However,  as  Henig  continued,  “While   holding  the  formal  reins  of  authority,  state  government  until  relatively  recently  left  those   reins  slack,  leaving  most  of  the  key  decisions  about  public  schooling  –  particularly  K–12  to   local  governments”  (2013,  p.  37).  However,  it  is  not  just  the  legislature  that  is  powerful  in   shaping  the  direction  of  educational  policy,  but  all  three  state  branches  of  government   (including  the  judicial  and  executive).  In  particular,  we  must  consider  the  role  of  the   governor  (the  executive)  as  the  head  of  state  government.  Realizing  that  just  as  strong   legislative  involvement  is  a  relatively  new  phenomena  in  education,  so  too  is  strong   governor  involvement,  especially  in  Michigan.     Building  on  this  idea,  Jal  Mehta  argued  in  his  article  “How  Paradigms  Create  Politics:   The  Transformation  of  American  Educational  Policy,  1980-­‐2001”  that  educational  policy   has  been  dramatically  transformed,  and  strong  governor  involvement  was  born  out  of  the   1980s.  Beginning  with  A  Nation  at  Risk,  he  suggested  that  this  change  was  caused  by   accountability  being  “introduced  into  a  sphere  that  had  long  been  loosely  coupled,  both     5   major  political  parties  reevaluated  longstanding  positions,  and  significant  institutional   control  over  schooling  shifted  to  the  federal  government  for  the  first  time  in  the  nation’s   history”  (Mehta,  2013,  p.  285).  All  of  this  led  to  a  paradigm  shift  in  educational  policy,  a   shift  which  “restricted  the  political  landscape  around  education  reform”  (Mehta,  2013,  p.   285).  However,  this  shift  did  not  and  could  not  just  occur  at  the  federal  level,  but  rather   began  with  the  states,  and  specifically  with  the  rise  of  educational  governors.     Henig  argued  that  it  is  because  of  A  Nation  at  Risk  that  governors  gained  the  political   will  to  activate  their  formal  authority  that  they  always  possessed,  but  never  used,  to  shape   educational  policy  (2013).    A  Nation  at  Risk,  Metha  argued,  defined  schools  in  a  new  way  –   it  was  about  economics  and  national  preservation.  Specially,  he  stated,  “The  idea  that   schooling  was  a  key  to  individual  mobility  was  not  new  (Grubb  &  Lazerson,  2004);  nor  was   the  idea  of  human  capital  (Schultz,  1963);  what  was  freshly  resonant  was  the  notion  that   national  (and  state)  economic  success  was  becoming  increasingly  dependent  upon  the   available  stock  of  this  human  capital”  (Mehta,  2013,  p.  297).  Governors  across  the  country   began  to  see  economic  success  and  human  capital  as  factors  within  their  realm,  and   education  was  the  mechanism  for  development.  This  changed  the  unit  of  accountability  in   two  ways.  The  first  was  from  focusing  on  broad  societal  issues  related  to  education  to   focusing  on  changing  schools  to  affect  society,  and  second,  from  schools  only  having  to   report  to  local  boards  to  state  involvement  in  accountability  systems  (Mehta,  2013).   Michigan  is  a  prime  example  of  this,  as  can  be  observed  through  gubernatorial   addresses.  As  Mehta  demonstrated,  prior  to  1983,  gubernatorial  addresses  “largely   characterized  [education]  as  an  end  that  is  important  in  itself  rather  than  as  a  means  to  a   broader  goal  of  economic  development”  (2013,  pg.  300),  if  they  mentioned  education  at  all.     6   However,  after  A  Nation  at  Risk,  ideas  of  human  capital  and  economics  for  educational   outcomes  became  prevalent.  The  first  of  such  addresses,  given  by  Governor  Blanchard  after   A  Nation  at  Risk,  directly  stated,  “This  disinvestment  in  the  future,  if  left  unchecked,  would   undermine  our  efforts  to  spur  economic  development,  create  jobs  and  improve  our  quality   of  life”  (Mehta,  2013,  p.  300).  Governor  Engler  took  this  argument  a  step  further  and  tied   education  directly  to  the  term  “workforce  development.”  The  graph  constructed  below,   based  on  Mehta’s  research,  demonstrates  how  education  went  from  being  between  0-­‐5%  of   a  Michigan  governor’s  state  of  the  state  focus  to  as  high  as  20%  (2013).  With  education   becoming  such  a  large  part  of  the  governor’s  agenda,  it  follows  that  he/she  would  become   more  active  in  setting  the  direction  of  state  education  policy  beyond  just  talking  about  it  in   speeches.       Figure  1:  Proportion  of  Michigan  State  of  State  Addresses  Devoted  to  K-­‐12  Education,   by  Governor  –  For  interpretation  of  the  references  to  color  in  this  and  all  other  figures,  the   reader  is  referred  to  the  electronic  version  of  this  dissertation.         7     One  Michigan  governor  who  did  just  that  was  John  Engler,  and  it  can  be  argued  that   he  changed  the  direction  of  state  education  policy  most  dramatically.  Looking  at  the  speech   patterns,  Engler  discussed  education  more  than  any  recent  governors.  In  an  Associated   Press  article  from  December  20,  1996,  Engler  outlined  two  executive  orders  that   dramatically  changed  who  sets  the  direction  of  educational  policy  in  the  State  of  Michigan.   Executive  Order  1996-­‐11  and  Executive  Order  1996-­‐12,  Engler  argued,  relieved  the  state   board  of  education  from  trying  to  run  the  day-­‐to-­‐day  operations  of  the  Michigan   Department  of  Education  and  vested  those  administrative  rights  with  the  state   superintendent,  where  they  belonged.  Engler  continued  that  this  would  “let  the  State  Board   of  Education  focus  on  broad  school  policy  rather  than  the  details  of  running  the  Michigan   Department  of  Education.”     However,  several  members  of  the  state  board  disagreed,  and  they  saw  this  as  a   power  grab.  According  to  the  Associated  Press  (1996  and  1999),  Art  Ellis,  the  state   superintendent,  was  a  close  associate  of  Engler  and  longtime  state  bureaucrat.  In  addition,   during  January  of  1997,  the  Republican-­‐controlled  state  board  became  Democratic.  The   Democrat-­‐controlled  state  board  eventually  filed  a  lawsuit  against  the  governor,  but  after  a   lengthy  court  battle,  the  Michigan  Supreme  Court  sided  with  Engler.  This  is  not  because  his   orders  did  not  take  away  many  of  the  board’s  powers,  because  they  did,  but  because  of  the   way  the  powers  were  assigned  in  the  first  place.  According  to  the  Associated  Press  (1996   and  1999),  the  power  the  state  board  had  over  the  Michigan  Department  of  Education  was   given  by  an  executive  order  from  1965  (specially,  Executive  Order  1965-­‐9),  not  by   constitutional  powers.  Because  MDE  was  not  created  before  the  adoption  of  the  most     8   recent  Michigan  Constitution  in  1963,  MDE  is  not  mentioned  in  the  constitution  by  name   (only  as  a  state  department  of  education),  and  therefore  it  could  be  changed  by  executive   order.     So,  why  does  this  matter  to  the  state  of  educational  policy  in  Michigan?  To  answer   this,  we  must  examine  a  legislative  analysis  prepared  by  the  House  Fiscal  Agency  for  House   Bill  5323.  It  is  important  to  note  that  while  these  executive  orders  were  put  in  place  in   1996  and  then  adjudicated  by  the  courts,  when  the  governor’s  office  went  back  to  the   Democrats  after  Engler  in  2003,  these  orders  were  never  rescinded.  However,  a  few  still   wanted  to  rescind  these  orders  and  create  a  law  that  gave  the  board  of  education  its   powers  back,  in  such  away  that  they  could  not  be  removed.  House  Bill  5323,  sponsored  by  a   democrat,  would  have  given  all  the  powers  back  to  the  board  permanently.  Although  this   bill  died  in  committee,  the  analysis  explains  the  governmental  significance  of  the  executive   orders  that  this  bill  would  have  voided  if  it  had  passed.  In  particular,  the  report  argued  that   “then-­‐Governor  John  Engler  removed  much  of  the  authority  of  the  State  Board  of   Education,  by  transferring  its  rulemaking  power  and  administrative  responsibilities  to  the   state  superintendent  of  public  instruction  …  the  shift  in  authority  strengthened  the   executive  branch  of  the  government  and  weakened  the  elected  state  board  of  education”   (House  Fiscal  Agency,  2008,  p.  1).     Ultimately,  this  gives  much  education  policy  power  to  the  state  superintendent,  who   is  closely  associated  with  the  governor’s  office,  and  who  is  a  member  of  his/her  executive   cabinet.  In  particular,  “all  of  the  administrative  and  rulemaking  statutory  powers,  duties,   functions,  and  responsibilities  set  forth  in  over  175  provisions  of  the  Michigan  Compiled   Laws  –  nearly  all  located  in  the  Revised  School  Code  and  the  State  School  Aid  Act”  were     9   given  over  to  the  state  superintendent  (House  Fiscal  Agency,  2008,  p.  1).  This  aligns  with   the  argument  that  Jal  Metha  has  made  about  the  increased  role  of  governors.  Specifically,     “The  shift  in  the  definition  [after  A  Nation  at  Risk]  and  agenda  status  [of  education]  …   brought  in  new  actors  …  As  one  Michigan  legislator  dismissively  put  it  in  discussing   education  reform  in  the  1990s:  ‘The  state  Board  of  Education  wasn’t  a  player.  The   Department  of  Ed  wasn’t  a  player’”  (2013,  p.  304).  This  raises  a  question:  who  are  the   players?  Metha  (2013)  argued  that  the  role  of  the  governor  has  become  crucial,  but  also  the   legislature  and  interest  groups  (e.g.  unions  and  business),  and  little  depends  on  state   departments  of  education  and  research.  However,  as  the  case  of  the  Michigan  Public   Education  Finance  Act  of  2013  demonstrates,  there  are  still  others  not  cited  in  the   literature  who  have  become  key  players  and  hold  immense  power  to  shape  policy.     Michigan  Public  Education  Finance  Act  of  2013   All  of  this  leads  to  this  particular  case  of  interest,  the  shaping  of  the  Michigan  Public   Education  Finance  Act  of  2013.  Before  getting  into  the  chapters  that  follow  and  the   complexity  of  the  policy  formation  process,  it  is  important  to  have  an  overview  and   background  of  PEFA  and  who  is  involved  in  its  formation.  Specifically,  the  law  lists  as  its   purposes  to:     1. “Create  a  public  education  funding  system  whose  primary  objective  is  to   create  career  ready  citizens;   2. “Provide  seamless  transition  for  the  pupil  between  early  childhood,   elementary,  secondary,  and  post  secondary  education;    10   3. “Provide  a  public  education  funding  system  that  promotes  individual   learning  styles;   4. “Enable  parents  and  pupils  to  employ  education  programming  options  that   place  the  pupil  on  a  path  for  their  future  success;   5. “Provide  greater  access  to  self-­‐paced  programs  enabling  a  pupil  below  grade   level  to  have  additional  time  and  help  to  gain  competency,  while  a  high   achieving  pupil  may  accelerate  academically;   6. “Provide  a  pupil  growth  and  assessment  tool  to  allow  for  performance   funding  and  measure  educator  effectiveness.  (PEFA,  2013,  p.  12)   However,  several  of  these  purposes  are  rather  abstract  and  do  not  say  what  the  law  will   actually  do.  For  this  we  must  turn  to  a  confidential  report  to  Governor  Snyder,  which  was   embargoed  by  his  administration  and  written  by  the  PEFA  project  team.  The  report  states   that  PEFA  is  based  on  the  governor’s  April  27,  2011,  Education  Message  to  the  Legislature.   In  this  message,  the  governor  said:   -­‐ Michigan’s  education  system  has  revolved  around  a  static  approach  to  education   delivery  that  can  be  at  odds  with  individual  learning  style.   -­‐ I  am  proposing  a  new  “Any  time,  Any  Place,  Any  Way,  Any  Pace”  public  school   learning  model.   -­‐ A  model  of  proficiency-­‐based  funding  rather  than  “seat  time”  requirements  will   foster  more  free  market  ideas  for  public  schools  in  Michigan.   -­‐ Michigan’s  state  foundation  allowance  should  not  be  exclusively  tied  to  the   school  district  a  child  attends.  Instead,  funding  needs  to  follow  the  student.    11   -­‐ Eliminate  barriers  to  true  choice  in  education  and  give  parents  and  students  the   flexibility  to  employ  education  programming  that  ensures  their  future  success.   (The  Michigan  Public  Education  Finance  Act  –  Draft  –  Confidential  –  March  21,   2013,  p.  i)   Building  on  these  tenants  of  Governor  Snyder’s  message,  a  319-­‐page  law  called  the   Michigan  Public  Education  Finance  Act  was  drafted  by  Richard  McLellan  to  replace  the   School  Aid  Act  of  1979.  The  School  Aid  Act  of  1979  is  the  allocation  law  that  is  amended   yearly  with  per  pupil  expenditures.  In  addition,  it  also  defines  funding  mechanisms,   reporting  procedures,  and  how  the  state  defines  what  a  school  district  and  school  are.  The   specifics  of  the  proposed  law  are  outlined  in  Table  1  below.  The  figure  presents  a  summary   of  the  changes  between  the  proposed  Public  Education  Finance  Act  and  the  law  it  aimed  to   replace,  the  State  School  Aid  Act  of  1979.                          12   Table  1:  Summary  of  Changes  PEFA  v.  School  Aid  Act  of  1979   Summary  of  Changes  PEFA  v.  School  Aid  Act  of  1979   -­‐ “Create  ‘Early  Graduation  Scholarships’  for  students  able  to  accelerate  successful   completion  of  high  school.   -­‐ “‘Membership’  in  district  of  his  or  her  future  education  opportunities.   -­‐ “Change  from  concept  of  ‘in  regular  attendance’  to  ‘receiving  instruction,’  meaning   that  the  archaic  ‘seat  time’  requirement  will  be  removed  to  further  more  innovative   methods  of  teaching  and  learning.   -­‐ “Change  Michigan’s  student  counting  system  to  ‘average  daily  membership’  rather   than  using  the  existing  2-­‐membership  count  day  model.  This  will  ensure  resources  are   deployed  to  the  places  where  student  learning  occurs.   -­‐ “Create  a  new  ‘performance  count  day’  as  part  of  the  move  to  performance-­‐based   funding.   -­‐ “Create  an  ‘enrollment  district’  concept  to  implement  unbundling.   -­‐ “Improve  Michigan’s  education  data  system  to:  Consolidate  reports,  create  a  master   reporting  calendar,  truly  leverage  improved  teaching  and  learning,  and  make  data   available  to  parents.   -­‐ “Encourage  district  consolidation  by  allowing  a  consolidated  district  to  receive  the   highest  of  foundation  allowances  among  merging  districts.   -­‐ “Create  incentives  for  year-­‐round  schools,  as  a  means  of  addressing  summer  learning   loss.”     The  Michigan  Public  Education  Finance  Act  –  Draft  –  Confidential  –  March  21,  2013,  p.  v.      13   This  proposed  law,  if  passed  in  its  entirety  or  through  a  series  of  individual   legislative  acts,  will  change  the  educational  landscape  of  Michigan.  It  promotes  a  market-­‐ based  approach,  with  freedom  of  choice  as  the  main  guiding  concept  of  the  law,  and   symbolizes  a  total  philosophical  shift  in  what  the  purposes  of  school  are  and  should  look   like.  The  proposed  law  wants  to  allow  education  to  occur  “Any  Time,  Any  Place,  Any  Way,   Any  Pace”  because  the  learning  model  and  funding  would  be  performance-­‐based,  and  the   state’s  foundation  allowance  would  be  tied  to  the  student,  not  to  the  district  (Shields,   2013).  However,  while  that  is  a  catchy  phrase  to  describe  education,  what  it  really  means  is   rather  unclear.  To  expand  upon  this  further,  Table2  conceptualizes  the  mantra  “Any  Time,   Any  Place,  Any  Way,  Any  Pace”  into  actionable  components  as  described  by  the  Consensus   for  Change  Think  Tank  that  contributed  to  the  public  discussion  held  on  the  bill.       Table  2:  Consensus  for  Change  Think  Tank  Memo  Describing  "Any  Time,  Any  Place,   Any  Way,  Any  Pace,"  September  2012     In  addition,  this  law  proposes  unbundling  school  systems  as  enumerated  in  bullet   point  six  of  Table  1.  This  would  allow  students  to  participate  in  some  components  of  many   school  districts  at  the  same  time,  much  as  one  bundles  and  unbundles  their  cable  and  home   phone  packages.  While  it  is  not  particularly  practical  to  think  of  one  student  attending   multiple  schools  within  the  same  geographic  region,  this  concept  takes  on  a  whole  new    14   meaning  when  we  consider  cyber  schools  being  classified  as  a  regular  school,  which  is  why   the  bill  also  includes  amending  the  Michigan  Revised  School  Code  for  cyber  schools.  In   addition,  this  proposed  law  would  impact  the  teacher  tenure  act  and  the  teaching   profession  in  order  to  create  a  more  market-­‐  and  choice-­‐based  system.  PEFA  was  also   designed  to  work  in  tandem  with  another  bill,  which  created  an  Educational  Achievement   Authority,  allowing  the  state  to  appoint  emergency  managers  to  take  over  the   responsibilities  of  the  superintendent  and  democratically  elected  officials  (Shields,  2013).     However,  how  was  PEFA  shaped  and  by  whom?  The  answer  of  who  seems  relatively   easy  to  answer,  but  it  becomes  increasing  complex  the  more  we  delve  into  the  policy   formation  process  of  PEFA.  This  proposed  law  is  being  championed  by  a  man  who  calls   himself  “the  governor’s  volunteer,”  a  Lansing  veteran  lawyer  of  forty  years  by  the  name  of   Richard  McLellan.  However,  who  is  Richard  McLellan?  He  is  much  more  than  just  another   attorney.  A  1999  article  from  the  Detroit  Free  Press  describes  him  as  one  of  the  most   prominent  and  instrumental  citizens  in  Michigan.  The  article  continues,  “He’s  seldom  seen   in  the  Capitol,  and  less  likely  to  be  noticed  …  take  a  look  at  someone  who  may  well  be  the   most  influential  person  in  Michigan  you  never  heard  of”  (Bell,  1999,  p.  B1).  The  next  logical   question  is  why  is  he  so  powerful.  He  has  no  formal  connection  to  the  legislative  process,   nor  is  he  directly  employed  by  any  branch  of  the  Michigan  government  –  he  is  a  private   citizen  who  has  written  and  is  promoting  the  Michigan  Public  Education  Finance  Act  of   2013.     McLellan  is  the  embodiment  of  the  definition  of  a  policy  entrepreneur.  Mintrom  and   Norman  (2009)  defined  a  policy  entrepreneur  as  an  individual  who  advocates  for  a  cause   and  has  the  political  capital  to  make  the  issue  part  of  the  political  agenda  (in  this  case,  for    15   the  state).  McLellan  has  been  around  the  political  scene  for  a  long  time;  he  has  well-­‐ developed  relationships  with  past  Michigan  governors  (including  serving  as  their  legal   representative  for  Governors  Miliken  and  Engler)  and  other  high-­‐ranking  members  of  the   Republican  Party,  and  he  has  received  governmental  appointments  from  Presidents  Ford   and  Bush.  McLellan  has  also  been  involved  in  issues  of  choice  in  education,  and  he  wrote   legislation  for  Michigan’s  charter  schools.  His  most  noted  educational  legislation  allowed   Bay  Mills  Community  College  (a  tribal-­‐controlled  college)  to  serve  as  an  authorizer  for   charter  schools.  Using  federal  treaties  with  tribal  nations,  he  successfully  argued  that  the   tribal  powers  established  in  treaties  superseded  the  rights  of  the  state  legislature  to   restrict  Bay  Mills’s  school  authorization  rights,  effectively  getting  around  a  law  that  placed   a  cap  on  the  number  of  charter  schools  that  Michigan  could  have.  McLellan  then  defended   this  law  before  the  Michigan  Supreme  Court  and  won  (Council  of  Organizations  v.  Governor   of  Michigan,  1997).  McLellan,  while  not  elected,  is  a  Lansing  insider  and  someone  who  has   the  power  and  political  capital  to  advance  a  policy  agenda.     McLellan  is  also  not  acting  in  isolation.  Various  state  level  agencies  and  politicians   are  cooperating  with  him  so  that  they  can  give  him  input  in  the  formation  of  the  law,  and   others  have  aligned  themselves  against  him.  What  authority  does  he  have  to  work  with   branches  of  the  state  government  to  create  this  law?  He  is  one  of  many  who  are  lining  up  to   shape  its  future  direction  and  the  direction  of  Michigan’s  education  policy.  It  is  important   that  we  find  out  who  these  people  are  and  how  they  have  shaped  the  formation  of  state   level  policy.     Anagnostopoulos  et  al.  (2013)  argued  that  “antibureaucratic  sentiment,  an  emphasis   on  market-­‐oriented  solutions,  and  political  disputes  between  governors,  state    16   superintendents,  and  state  schools  boards  combined  with  unprecedented  state  budget   shortfalls  resulted  in  significant  SEA  [State  Education  Agencies]  staff  reductions,  while  at   the  same  time  laws  like  No  Child  Left  Behind  have  reinforced  rather  than  limited  the   expansion  of  state  power”  (p.  218).  If  there  has  been,  and  continues  to  be,  expansion  of   state  power  with  reductions  in  SEA,  then  the  role  of  who  comes  to  shape  educational  policy   at  the  state  level  becomes  more  and  more  important.  And,  because  changing  educational   policy  at  the  state  level  requires  “considerable  amounts  of  fiscal,  organizational,  and   political  resources  and  [an  ability]  to  manage  the  often  competing  interests  of  the  myriad  of   actors  involved”  (Anagnostopoulos  et  al.,  2013,  p.  219),  then  there  is  opportunity  for  new   policy  actors  to  involve  themselves  in  ways  not  seen  before  at  the  state  level  in  conjunction   with  governors  and  state  legislatures.                            17   Chapter  Two:  As  Policy  Is  Now     Review  of  the  Literature   There  have  been  relatively  few  studies  that  have  examined  the  policymaking   process  at  the  state  level.  As  Anagnostopoulos  et  al.  (2013)  highlighted,  most  state  level   research  has  been  limited  and  has  focused  on  test-­‐accountability  and  “trends  in  state   legislation  and  policy  (Desimone,  Smith,  Hayes,  &  Frisvold,  2005;  Fusarelli  &  Cooper,  2009;   McDermott,  2003),  the  effects  of  state  accountability  policies  on  school  and  classroom   practices  (Firestone,  Mayrowetz,  &  Fairman,  1998;  Mintrop  &  Trujilo,  2005;  Swanson  &   Stevenson,  2002)  or  student  outcomes  (e.g.,  Amerin  &  Berliner,  2002;  Carnoy  &  Loeb,  2002;   Hanushek  &  Raymond,  2005)”  (p.  218).  However,  what  about  who  has  shaped  these  policy   reforms  and  how?     The  reason  there  is  a  dearth  in  the  literature  around  who  shapes  the  direction  of   state  educational  policy  is  not  because  the  topic  has  been  tried  and  found  wanting,  but  that   it  has  been  found  difficult  and,  therefore,  rarely  addressed.  Much  of  the  reason  for  the  lack   of  research  is  because  of  issues  of  power  and  research  consent  –  a  lack  of  access  to  those   with  power  who  form  policy  beyond  our  theoretical  or  hypothesized  understanding  of  how   government  really  functions  (Neal  &  McLaughlin,  2009;  Odendahl  &  Shaw,  2002).  There  are   plenty  of  studies  about  policy  implementation  and  how  policy  moves  through  the  system,   but  very  few  that  begin  at  policy  inception  –  essentially,  how  state  educational  policy  gets   made.       After  reviewing  the  literature,  there  is  clear  evidence  that  what  I  found  in  my  case   study  goes  beyond  existing  findings  in  the  current  literature  in  several  ways.  First,  the    18   literature  does  not  focus  on  policy  creation  (or  policy  inception),  but  rather  on   implementation.  Second,  much  of  the  body  of  work  that  even  mentions  policy  creation  is   theoretical  and  abstract.    It  does  not  give  specifics,  but  rather  relies  on  rational  models  that   envision  policy  as  stemming  from  a  need  instead  of  a  desire.  Finally,  because  of  the   accountability  era  of  education,  the  actors  who  shape  policy  have  changed,  and  this  change   is  not  clearly  understood,  nor  is  it  clear  how  that  change  has  come  to  affect  policy   formation.     Conducting  the  Review   In  conducting  my  review  of  the  relevant  literature,  I  used  a  variety  of  methods  and   sources  to  inform  the  results  of  the  review  presented  below.  First  and  foremost  was  the  use   of  the  University  of  Michigan’s  library  research  tool  known  as  Summon,  which  I  have  access   to  through  my  faculty  standing  with  the  University  of  Michigan.  Summon  uses  what  is   called  a  single,  unified  index  to  search  across  all  databases  and  resources  held  at  all  three   campuses  of  the  University  of  Michigan  and  other  research  libraries  in  partnership  with   them.  This  search  included  those  items  subscribed  to  digitally  (this  includes  American   Education  Research  Journal,  Educational  Policy,  Educational  Administration  Quarterly,  and   many  more),  those  in  print  (books,  journals,  etc.),  and  those  in  other  media  forms   (microfilm,  video,  etc.).  In  addition,  committee  members  recommended  particular  readings   that  were  informative,  and  they  made  recommendations  to  expand  further  on  our  class   readings.  Finally,  by  using  a  series  of  indexing  techniques  used  in  legal  research,  I  searched   across  volumes  of  educational  and  policy  handbooks  for  researchers  looking  for  additional   scholarly  information,  and  then  I  referred  back  to  other  source  materials  cited  by  scholars.      19   In  my  search,  I  looked  for  the  following  key  words  and  phrases:  state  level   educational  policy,  policy  formation,  policy  cycles,  policy  entrepreneurship,  shaping   educational  policy,  researching  up,  researching  upwards,  policy  elites,  and  state  policy   formation.  These  multiple  searches  brought  up  only  a  handful  of  sources,  and  many  of  them   were  on  the  concept  of  policy  implementation  and  not  formation  of  that  policy.  The   majority  of  these  studies  examined  how  policy  moves  through  whichever  system  the   researcher  chose  to  examine;  however,  these  studies  had  one  thing  in  common  –  little   examination  from  where  and  how  the  policy  emerged,  beyond  a  limited  rationale.  This  led   to  me  to  question  why  there  is  not  more  research  conducted  at  this  higher  level  of   aggregation  (Green,  1983).  My  conclusion,  which  I  explain  in  the  following  pages,  has  to  do   with  issues  of  power  and  access  by  the  policy  elites  (a  term  I  also  define).       So,  from  reviewing  the  literature,  I  did  find  a  handful  of  studies  that  provide  insight   into  policy  shaping  at  the  state  level  around  education,  and  each  of  them  reveal  certain   themes  and  gaps  in  the  literature  that  this  study  attempts  to  answer.  Six  general  themes   have  been  identified  from  the  literature  that  include  (1)  authority,  (2)  interest,  (3)  power   (politics  and  influence),  (4)  trust  and  relationships,  (5)  equity,  and  (6)  ambiguity  and   complexity.  Toward  the  end  of  my  study,  another  element  began  to  emerge  in  conjunction   with  the  idea  of  shaping  policy:  the  idea  of  policy  elites  and  policy  entrepreneurs.       Power   An  often  understated  element  of  research  is  power  relationships  between  the   researcher  and  the  participants.  As  Throne  argued,  “Some  groups  of  subjects  lack  power   relative  to  researchers  and  hence  have  less  capacity  to  freely  choose  to  participate”  (2004,    20   p.  171).  In  educational  research,  students  often  have  less  power  than  researchers,  and   researchers  therefore  have  easier  access  to  select  populations  for  research  and   experimentation.  This  is  where  informed  consent  is  designed  to  balance  these   relationships,  to  grant  the  powerless  the  same  protection  that  the  powerful  enjoy  –  an   innate  ability  to  be  left  alone  (Throne,  2004).     Throne  argued,  “It  has  often  been  observed  that  to  be  powerful  is  to  be  able  to  guard   one’s  interests,  to  protect  one’s  self  from  unwanted  intrusion  […  as  a  result  …]  The   literature  of  social  science  bears  out  this  fact;  the  bulk  of  research  has  been  on  the  less   powerful,  to  whom  researchers  have  greater  access;  only  recently  have  ethnographers   begun  to  urge  the  importance  of  studying  up”  (2004,  p.  171).  “Studying  up”  is  also  called   “researching  up”  or  “researching  upwards,”  and  simply  means  engaging  the  elite  and   “seemingly  powerful  in  the  research  process”  (Neal  &  McLaughlin,  2009,  p.  690;  Odendahl   &  Shaw,  2002),  which  this  study  does.       Authority  and  Interest   David  Cohen  argued  that  much  of  the  current  functions  of  higher-­‐level  education   governing  systems  are  the  result  of  the  expanding  responsibilities  at  the  federal  level,  but   because  of  limited  resources  and  limited  formal  authority,  the  federal  government  has  to   rely  on  other  agencies  like  states  to  carry  out  most  of  the  work  (1982).  Cohen  specifically   argued  that  “Characteristically,  when  the  federal  government  assumes  a  new  function,  it   takes  only  part  of  it,  leaving  substantial  discretion  and  authority  in  state  hands”  (1982,  p.   478).  The  state  can  then  also  delegate  those  responsibilities  to  others  with  whom  they  have    21   relationships  and  can  trust  (see  Cusick  &  Borman,  2002).  Cohen’s  study  argued  that  the   various  levels  of  government  affect  other  levels  and  governance  policies  in  education.   Cohen  questioned  the  need  to  see  power  and  organization  in  terms  of  a  zero-­‐sum   game.  Instead,  he  argued  “that  the  expansion  of  state  and  federal  policy  has  stimulated   growth  in  the  organization,  and  often  in  the  power  of  educational  agencies  at  all  levels  of   government”  (1982,  p.  476)  Part  of  this  is  because,  as  Cohen  pointed  out,  the  federal  and   state  government  will  have  given  local  districts  more  work  to  keep  them  busy  and  make   them  feel  part  of  the  process,  all  the  while  that  the  state  and  federal  governments  will  be   absorbing  local  control.  He  continued,  “Local  school  organizations  have  thus  grown  more   complex  and  fragmented  as  they  responded  to  various  state  and  federal  interventions  and   to  a  more  demanding  political  environment”  (1982,  p.  493).   Cohen  also  contended  “that  the  growth  of  public  policy  has  enhanced  power  and   expanded  organization  for  many  private  agencies  concerned  with  education  governance”   (1982,  p.  476),  thus  allowing  other  non-­‐traditional  educational  actors  to  become  involved   in  educational  policy  setting.  However,  ultimately  he  argued  that  the  elite  control  policy.   Private  groups  have  found  ways  to  expand  into  this  policy  marketplace  –  giving  them  a   voice  through  a  powerful  organizational  group.  Cohen  concluded  that  “power  and   organization  often  have  grown  in  tandem,  rather  than  growing  in  one  place  at  the  expense   of  another”  (1982,  p.  476).  This  means  that  power,  authority,  relationships,  and  interest   can  accumulate  in  many  places  at  once,  but  also  that  public  authority  has  remained  weak   comparatively  despite  this  expansion.   Building  on  this  idea,  is  also  the  idea  of  national  private  interests.  In  particular,   Diana  Ravitch  calls  this  “The  Billionaire  Boys’  Club.”  Many  “Foundations  exist  to  enable    22   extremely  wealthy  people  to  shelter  a  portion  of  their  capital  from  taxation,  and  then  to  use   the  money  for  socially  beneficial  purposes”  (Ravtich,  2011,  p.  197).  However,  it  is  unclear   whose  benefit  these  organizations  actually  serve.  These  foundations  have  not  been  overly   involved  in  education  until  more  recently,  especially  as  issues  of  politics  and  education   become  center  stage.  Ravitch  argued  “Foundations  themselves  may  not  engage  in  political   advocacy,  but  they  may  legally  fund  organizations  that  do”  (Ravtich,  2011,  p.  197).       These  foundations  representing  the  interests  of  billionaires  began  working  with   schools  in  1967,  when  the  Ford  Foundation  and  the  Carnegie  Corporation  joined  forces  to   support  an  controversial  project  in  New  Your  City  for  community  controlled  governance  of   schools.  However,  idea  ended  badly  and  caused  an  increase  in  racial  tensions  between   groups  the  project  was  meant  to  serve.  Ford,  in  particular,  learned,  “about  the  dangers  of   trying  to  engineer  social  change”  (Ravtich,  2011,  p.  197).     There  was  then  a  retreat  of  these  groups  in  the  educational  arena  until  1993.  The   Annenberg  Foundation  then  began  a  $500  million  dollar  campaign  to  improve  public   education  in  conjunction  with  President  Bill  Clinton.  The  investment  had  little  effect,  but   was  better  received  than  Ford’s  in  1967.  This  was  just  the  beginning  of  private  interests   coming  to  the  forefront  of  influencing  education.  As  the  Annenberg  project  came  to  a  close,   “New  foundations,  created  by  astonishingly  successful  entrepreneurs,  took  on  the  mission   of  reforming  American  education  …  [but]  …  the  new  foundations  had  a  plan  …  Never  in   American  history  had  private  foundations  assignment  themselves  the  task  of   reconstruction  the  nation’s  education  system”  (Ravtich,  2011,  p.  199).  These  organizations   included  W.  K.  Kellogg  Foundation,  Bill  and  Melinda  Gates  Foundation,  and  Eli  and  Edythe   Broad  Foundation,  which  was  founded  by  home  building  and  insurance  industry  baron,  and    23   Detroit  native  Eli  Broad.  However,  like  previous  foundations  and  foundations  for  other   social  arenas,  “the  new  foundations  decided  what  they  wanted  to  accomplish,  how  they   wanted  to  accomplish  it,  and  which  organizations  were  appropriate  recipients  of  their   largesse”  (Ravtich,  2011,  p.  199).     These  groups  became  known  as  venture  philanthropists  who  barrowed  this  term   from  venture  capital  finance  and  expected  returns  on  their  targeted  investments  in   education  (Ravitch,  2011).  Each  foundation  began  with  different  goals,  but  “converged  in   support  of  reform  strategies  that  mirrored  their  own  experiences  in  acquiring  huge   fortunes,  such  as  competition,  choice,  deregulation,  incentives,  and  other  market-­‐based   approaches”  (Ravitch,  2011,  p.  200).  While  these  were  familiar  concepts  in  the  world  of   business,  they  were  not  in  education,  but  became  so.  Few  in  public  education  could  resist   this  influx  of  money  and  these  foundations  began  to  “set  the  policy  agenda  not  only  for   school  districts,  but  also  for  states  and  even  the  U.S.  Department  of  Education”  (Ravtich,   2011,  p.  200).    As  Ravitch  argues,  public  education  had  been  captured  by  private  interests   who  where  unaccountable  to  anyone  or  the  democratic  process.  However,  many  see  this   generosity  as  gracious  to  the  system,  but  it  really  hides  their  hidden  agenda  to  shape   education  through  power,  money,  and  influence.       The  federal  government’s  role  is  expanding  by  funding  state  education  agencies  to   act  on  certain  policies.  As  Cohen  argued,  “[l]ocal  school  organizations  have  thus  grown   more  complex  and  fragmented  as  they  responded  to  various  state  and  federal   interventions,  and  to  a  more  demanding  political  environment”  (1982,  p.  493).  This  article,   however,  did  not  explore  what  happens  when  the  state  carries  out  its  own  changes  that  are   different  than  the  federal  government’s  wishes,  or  when  there  is  variation  between  what    24   the  federal  government  and  state  governments  agree  are  the  goals  of  a  particular  policy  or   education  in  general.  The  article  also  does  not  go  into  any  specifics  on  a  policy,  but  rather   uses  a  series  of  generalizations  about  the  political  nature  that  is  ingrained  in  education.   This  is  not  an  anachronism  on  the  part  of  the  author,  but  rather  a  demonstration  of  the   dearth  of  knowledge  around  who  and  how  educational  policy  is  shaped  at  its  inception.   However,  Cohen  did  state  that  policy  can  be  thought  of  as  a  skeletal  structure  for  politics  –   using  policy  as  a  frame  that  supports  and  directs  political  organizations.  All  of  this  is  not   without  political  consideration  because  “Policy  design  reflects  political  consideration,  and   policy  outcomes  include  politics  as  well  as  practice”  (p.  24).     Equity   Kathryn  McDermott  also  argued  that  the  role  of  the  state  in  education  has  expanded   drastically  in  the  last  fifty  years  and  since  the  Elementary  and  Secondary  Education  Act  of   1965  –  a  theme  that  also  runs  through  Cohen’s  article.  Specifically,  McDermott  argued,   “States  have  stood  in  the  center  of  the  complex  intergovernmental  network  that  governs   public  education”  (2009,  p.  749).  Given  that  there  is  a  lack  of  what  is  called  “researching   up,”  this  “chapter  identifies  major  trends  and  themes  in  state  policy  research”  (2009,  p.   749),  including  research  methods.  McDermott  was  really  providing  a  review  of  the   literature  that  is  available  on  state  level  policy  work  around  education.  It  looked  at  studies   that  included  all  “50  states,  compare  a  subset  of  states,  [and]  generalize  about  patterns  in   state  education  policy”  (2009,  p.  749).  Many  of  the  relevant  studies  McDermott  used  were   identified  by  “searching  ERIC,  visiting  the  websites  of  several  national  organizations,  and   browsing  key  journals”  (2010,  p.  749).    25   McDermott  focused  only  on  policy  and  avoided  much  discussion  about  the   ambiguity  of  politics  in  policy  making,  which  is  key  and  unavoidable  to  the  policy  making   process.  Several  of  the  sections  discuss  policies  that  states  have  developed  in  relation  to   national  movements,  but  they  do  not  really  address  the  individual  state,  especially  the   many  different  initiatives  started  by  governor’s  offices  or  state  legislatures.     One  of  the  areas  that  McDermott  did  discuss  is  “state  education  policy  and  equal   educational  opportunity”  (2010,  p.  752).  She  argued  that  all  states  have  a  constitutional   responsibility  to  provide  a  public  education  system,  and  “that  constitutions  have  generally   been  interpreted  as  guaranteeing  equal  educational  opportunity”  (McDermott,  2010,  p.   752).  A  key  component  of  insuring  equity  has  been  through  funding  –  or,  as  it  is  often   termed  –  educational  finance.  This  connects  directly  with  the  Michigan  Public  Education   Finance  Act  of  2013,  which  will  change  how  schools  are  funded  and  how  money  is   associated  with  students.  While  PEFA  does  not  spell  out  numerical  values  for  their  bill   (generally,  funding  is  amended  to  the  law  every  year),  it  does  change  the  whole  system  for   funding,  which  is  explored  in  greater  detail  in  later  chapters.     Going  back  to  the  literature,  McDermott  pointed  out  that  financing  practices  have   changed  over  the  last  60  years.  The  major  change  has  been  a  shift  “from  equity  in  spending   to  adequacy  of  educational  outcomes”  (McDermott,  2010,  p.  752).  In  other  words,  at  one   time,  educational  equity  meant  everyone  got  the  same  appropriated  amount  of  operating   revenue  from  the  proper  governmental  entity.    However,  now  the  trend  is  leaning  more   towards  the  need  for  funding  (e.g.,  children  of  peril,  to  cite  Joseph  Murphy  (2010),  require   more  resources  to  achieve  equity).      26   As  these  tax  shifts  have  occurred,  the  involvement  of  many  private  organizations   (e.g.,  Ford  Foundation)  and  philanthropic  agencies  concerned  with  equity  and  taxpayer   rights  has  increased.  This  has  brought  many  legal  challenges  of  educational  policies  into  the   foreground,  especially  concerning  the  concepts  of  “adequacy,”  and  equal  opportunity   (McDermott,  2010).  It  has  also  inspired  private  organizations  to  take  up  an  active  role  in   policy  formation  around  issues  of  equity.  These  kinds  of  involvement  and  who  these  people   are  is  discussed  later  in  the  chapter  as  the  emergent  theme  of  policy  entrepreneurs  or   policy  elites.       Ambiguity  and  Complexity   An  additional  element  that  McDermott  discussed  is  “a  general  increase  in  the   complexity  of  intergovernmental  relations  in  educational  policy”  (2010,  p.  756).  In   particular,  this  complexity  has  increased  since  No  Child  Left  Behind.  She  argued  that  the   “States  stand  in  the  middle  of  this  intergovernmental  network,  both  geographically  and   functionally”  (2010,  p.  756),  meaning  that  they  are  the  gatekeepers  between  the  federal   educational  policy  and  local  school  district  operations,  but  they  are  also  the  holders  of  all   the  legal  authority  (as  mentioned  in  Dillon’s  Rule  in  Chapter  One).  These  multilevel   relationships  have  been  sometimes  aligned  (e.g.  the  state  pushing  for  federal  reforms  or   under  the  guise  of  federal  mandates),  but  at  other  times  contradictory  and  uninformed  (e.g.   the  state  had  the  legal  authority  and  did  not  want  to  implement  federal  policy,  but  the   federal  government  was  supplying  large  amounts  of  funding,  of  which  large  amounts  were   used  to  fund  state  educational  agencies).  McDermott  stated,  “Federal  policy  objectives  are   picked  up  and  amplified  by  the  economic  and  political  structure  of  some  states,  while  in    27   others  states  they  are  deflected  and  damped”  (2010,  p.  757).  This  leads  to  a  phenomenon   that  Deborah  Stone  called  “ambiguity,”  which  occurs  when  groups  unite  behind  particular   goals  or  agendas  that  are  unclear,  and  they  each  construct  their  own  understanding  of  what   the  policy  is  asking  of  them  (2002).  If  the  groups  do  not  communicate  with  each  other   exactly  what  each  law  means  and  its  purposes,  little  can  result  except  ambiguity.  All  of  this   creates  very  complex  relationships  around  issues  of  equity  and  authority  and  explains  why   states  have  different  reactions  to  federal  policy  initiatives  and  why  there  is  often  confusion   among  districts  over  state  policies.         Relationships   In  Investigating  the  Links  to  Improved  Student  Learning,  Louis,  Leithwood,   Wahlstrom,  and  Anderson  argued  that  “Over  the  past  three  decades,  the  states  have  played   an  increasingly  active  role  in  promulgating  policies  to  promote  change  in  the  education   system  for  which  they  have  constitutional  responsibility”  (2010,  p.  218).  They  argued  that   policymakers  see  education  from  the  position  of  fostering  “economic  growth  and  social   goals,”  which  shapes  the  view  of  policy  makers  (2010,  p.  218).  While  this  is  true  and  these   are  probably  a  few  of  the  views  to  which  policymakers  subscribe,  it  is  by  no  means  all  of   them.     Louis  et  al.,  examined  how  policy  is  formed  and  moves  through  various  stages  to   implementation.  They  also  spoke  generally  about  those  involved  in  the  process,  calling  it   “policy  leadership.”  It  is  a  multiple  case  study  where  each  state  is  a  case  –  bounded  by  the   50  states  (Stake,  2004).  Some  of  it  is  qualitative  work  through  document  analysis,  but  large   sections  are  quantitative  in  nature  and  use  test  scores  and  surveys,  –  making,  it  a  mixed    28   methods  approach  (Herriott  &  Firestone,  1983).  The  authors  found  that  “Scholarship   between  policy  leadership  and  complex  social  changes  present  three  main  images”  (2010,   p.  218).  These  images  are:   1.  Technical  policy  perspective  (rational  choice  models);   2.  Political  perspective  (less  about  formation,  more  about  how  policy  issues  receive   the  governor  or  legislative  committee’s  attention);   3.  Practitioner  perspective  (school  administration).   The  authors  argued  that  most  studies  on  policy  leadership  fall  within  one  of  these  areas.   However,  rarely  are  all  three  integrated  in  a  study  –  they  are  often  viewed  as  separate   elements.  Even  in  my  study,  those  three  elements  are  not  brought  together.  As  I   demonstrate,  the  rational  models  do  not  explain  the  policy;  there  is  a  great  deal  about   issues  of  legislative  attention,  but  the  only  element  of  the  practitioner  role  comes  in  the   form  of  their  opposition  to  FEPA.  This  led  me  to  conclude  that  there  is  something  missing  in   the  alignment  or  identification  represented  by  these  three  images.     Louis  et  al.  argued  that  “Across  states,  there  is  strong  demand  for  increased   leadership  activity  at  the  state  level.  The  common  pattern  of  demand,  however,  does  not   translate  into  similar  policies  among  the  states”  (2010,  p.  220).  However,  from  where  does   this  demand  stem?  While  this  is  not  answered  in  the  literature,  I  do  answer  where  this   created  demand  stems  from  in  my  case  study.  In  essence,  just  as  McDermott  pointed  out,   there  is  great  variation  between  states.  Louis  et  al.  also  found  this  and  argued  “State   political  culture  is  more  than  the  aggregation  of  individual  preferences  and  values.  It  is   reflected  in  social  awareness,  observable  in  repeated  patterns  of  behavior  during  the   policy-­‐making  process”  (2010,  pg.  222).  This  social  awareness  is  affected  by  interest  and    29   political  views  as  well  as  by  power  and  authority,  and  that  awareness  may  manifest  itself  in   the  policymaking  process.     While  the  authors  mentioned  the  political  perspective,  they  did  not  spend  much   time  examining  how  policies  get  the  attention  of  various  political  actors.  Part  of  the  reason   is  that  Louis  et  al.’s  report  is  quantitative  in  nature  and  it  would  probably  be  hard  to   quantify  because  there  are  so  many  unique  venues  of  access,  so  it  is  hard  to  determine  any   particular  trends.  Therefore,  this  does  not  capture  the  full  complexity  of  the  policy   formation  process.  The  authors  instead  termed  the  political  aspect  of  the  policy  process  as   “networks  of  leadership  influence,”  which  exists  at  the  federal,  state,  and  local  levels  –   connecting  influence,  power,  and  politics.  These  networks  contain  within  them  the  actors   that  come  to  shape  educational  policy.       Policy  Elites  and  Policy  Entrepreneurs     Many  of  the  ideas  expressed  in  the  literature  have  to  do  with  actions  and  concepts   displayed  or  used  by  people;  however,  the  literature  rarely  mentions  what  kinds  of  actors   are  actively  involved  in  issues  of  (1)  authority,  (2)  interest,  (3)  power  (politics  and   influence),  (4)  trust  and  relationships,  (5)  equity,  and  (6)  ambiguity  and  complexity.   However,  because  of  paradigm  shifts  in  educational  policy  (Mehta,  2013),  there  becomes   room  for  changes  in  (and  an  emergence  of)  actors  that  are  able  to  participate  in  the  policy   process.     Noting  that  this  shift  occurred  in  the  1980s,  Shipps  argued  that  “New  actors  now   dominate  educational  policy  arenas”  (2011,  p.  259).  She  went  on  to  state  that  “Parents,   locally  elected  school  boards,  and  community  groups  are  less  vital  policy  actors  than  they    30   were  in  the  decades  before  1980”  (Shipps,  2011,  p.  259).  When  groups  lose  power,  a  power   void  is  created  and  has  the  potential  to  let  other  groups  or  individuals  come  to  usurp  this   unused  power.  To  complement  this  claim,  Shipps  stated  that  these  aforementioned  groups   “have  been  replaced  by  coalitions  of  policy  elites  –  notably  political  executives,  corporate   leaders,  think  tank  advocates,  and  foundations  officials  –  who  are  accustomed  to  wielding   influence  in  state  capitals  and  Washington,  D.C.”  (2011,  p.  259).     So,  what  does  it  mean  to  be  a  policy  elite?  Mintron  and  Norman  used  a  similar  term   called  a  policy  entrepreneur,  which  I  argue  is  synonymous  with  policy  elites.  Perhaps  the   difference  is  in  the  connotation  of  the  words,  not  their  denotation.  An  entrepreneur  sounds   more  business-­‐like  and  creative,  more  American,  as  opposed  to  an  elite,  who  stands  above   others  –  much  of  it  having  to  do  with  perspective,  but  the  essential  role  of  a  policy   entrepreneur  and  policy  elite  are  still  the  same.  Mintrom  and  Norman  defined  a  policy   entrepreneur  as  an  individual  who  advocates  for  a  cause  and  has  the  political  capital  to   make  the  issue  part  of  the  political  agenda  (in  this  case,  for  the  state)  (2009).  Additionally,   Henig  described  multiple  actors  being  able  to  serve  as  policy  entrepreneurs,  including   governors.  He  argued,  “The  concept  of  policy  entrepreneurship  in  the  public  sector  builds   on  the  image  of  the  private-­‐market  entrepreneur,  who  spots  a  latent  demand,  mobilizes   investment  to  create  the  product  to  meet  that  demand,  and  realizes  profit  in  return  for   acumen  and  the  assumption  of  risk”  (2013,  p.  37).  However,  it  is  more  than  just  the  private-­‐ market  vision,  because  in  education  outcomes  often  cannot  be  monetized  –  education  is  an   intangible  investment.  Henig  continued,  “Policy  entrepreneurs,  analogously,  detect  an   unmet  social  need,  unrepresented  constituency,  or  untried  policy  and  carry  it  onto  the   policy  agenda,  reaping  political  support  and  influence  as  the  primary  reward”  (2013,  p.  37).    31   While  these  policy  elites  were  coming  to  power,  local  control  and  authority  have  been   reallocated  to  higher  levels  of  authority.   Shipps  argued  that  this  pullback  of  power  from  the  local  level  to  the  state  level  was   the  direct  result  of  local  resistance  to  the  implementation  of  civil  rights  laws.  If  the  local   governing  bodies  would  not  carry  out  the  policies  given  to  them,  such  as  desegregation,   then  the  state  (who  has  the  formal  authority)  began  to  do  it  for  them.  However,  this  pulling   back  of  authority  as  a  policy  move,  Portez  (2000)  argued,  is  not  without  unforeseen  policy   consequences.  Specifically,  Shipps  argued  that  this  movement  of  educational  policy  to   higher  levels  of  aggregation,  and  inadvertently  into  the  hands  of  policy  elites,  has  changed   the  policy  process  (2011).  However,  this  change  is  not  without  consequences.  Shipps   stated,  “It  reinforces  the  credibility  of  unorthodox  ideas  about  school  reform  that  would   have  been  unthinkable  only  three  decades  ago,  and  proves  unprecedented  opportunities   for  national  organized  interest  groups  to  influence  educational  policy”  (2011,  p.  259).  All  of   this  brings  up  the  notions  of  dark  money  –money  donated  to  political  and  philanthropic   organizations  that  is  then  used  to  influence  policy.  Where  does  the  money  come  from  for   such  projects,  when  the  government  is  not  formally  behind  funding  them?   This  rise  of  policy  elites  did  not  just  occur  because  of  a  shift  in  the  focus  of  authority,   but  also  from  a  shift  in  ideals.  Shipps  argued  that  much  of  how  school  reform  is  viewed  is   related  to  ideas  of  rationalism  (2011).  Specifically,  Shipps  stated,  “This  governing  approach   relied  on  inductive  reasoning  that  painstakingly  detailed  ideal  processes,  measured  effort,   set  improvement  goals,  and  rewarded  conforming  contributions,”  much  of  which  has  roots   in  Taylorism  (2011,  p.  261).  The  result  of  these  rational  ideals  fell  short  of  what  actually   happened  during  implementation  of  school  reforms.  Shipps  went  on  to  state  that  this  was    32   not  intentional,  but  rather  a  shortcoming  of  the  system  and  human  limitations.  Specifically,   “It  wasn’t  that  educators  or  school  governors  were  especially  deficient  or  venal,  but  rather   that  all  human  being  suffered  the  cognitive  limitations  of  insufficient  time  and  incomplete   information”  (2011,  p.  261).  While  I  think  this  is  accurate,  in  terms  of  time  and  incomplete   information,  it  does  not  address  the  question  of  who  controls  the  information  and  shapes   the  focus.  Just  as  information  can  be  distributed  clearly,  it  can  also  be  distributed  to  cloud   the  waters  –intentionally  to  introduce  chaos  for  reasons  of  control  or  other  gains.  These   limitations  give  rise  to  other  forms  of  rational  systems,  but  all  eventually  produce   ambiguity  in  the  system,  allowing  actors  to  drift  unpredictably  through  decision  venues,   becoming  an  “organized  anarchy”  of  governance  (Shipps,  2011,  p.  261;  Kingdon,  1997).     This  leads  to  Kingdon’s  theories  of  agenda  setting  and  policy  streams  that   “redirected  away  from  the  decisions  themselves  and  onto  to  the  process  by  which  decisions   secured  the  attention  of  policy  makers”  (Shipps,  2011,  p.  263).  As  Kingdon  stated,  “These   streams  of  problems,  policies,  and  politics  flow  independent  of  one  another.  These   proposals  are  generated  whether  or  not  there  is  a  solution  to  a  given  problem,  the   problems  are  generated  whether  or  not  they  are  solving  a  given  problem,  the  solutions  are   recognized  whether  or  not  there  is  solution,  and  political  events  have  a  dynamic  of  their   own”  (Kingdon,  1997,  p.  2;  Shipps,  2011,  p.  263).     The  ultimate  result  was  a  shift  in  ideals  about  policymaking,  in  addition  to  shifts  in   governmental  authority  and  aggregation  mentioned  above.  Shipps  argued,  “Politics   provides  most  of  the  policy-­‐making  opportunities.  Some  can  be  anticipated,  but  there  are   also  unpredictable  events  in  the  politics  stream  that  can  offer  opportunity  for  big  policy   changes  if  exploited  quickly”  (Shipps,  2011,  p.  263).  What  this  means  is  that  “their    33   emergence  creates  brief  windows  of  opportunity  that  can  be  exploited  or  squandered  by   activist  policy  entrepreneurs,  who  have  both  the  will  –  their  advocacy  for  particular   solutions  –  and  the  energy  to  exploit  a  window  of  opportunity  before  it  closes”  (Shipps,   2011,  p.  263).     The  current  era  of  policy  formation  has  added  to  this  shifting  environment.  Shipps   argued  that  “Small  groups  of  entrepreneurial  leaders  took  advantage  of  the  political   uncertainty  created  by  contradictory  court  rulings  on  civil  rights,  incentive  legislation  like   ESEA,  and  the  new  power  of  teachers  unions”  (2011,  p.  271).  Often  civil  rights  activism  and   unions  were  able  to  capture  control  and  influence  at  the  local  levels,  where  the  rules  and   systems  were  more  operationally  defined  and  less  connected  to  each  other.  So,  in  response,   policy  entrepreneurs  worked  to  move  the  locus  of  control  to  a  state  and  federal  level.  This   “meant  operating  in  political  arenas  characterized  by  opaque,  often  ambiguous,   negotiations  between  elected  officials  and  lobbyists,  during  a  time  when  state  departments   of  education  lacked  the  capacity  to  define  and  implement  reforms  and  the  new  federal   Department  of  Education  was  politically  weak  and  vulnerable”  (Shipps,  2011,  p.  263).  This   led  to  many  policy  elites  getting  involved  in  this  arena  and  bringing  “standards  and  market-­‐ oriented  policy  instruments”  that  became  adopted  to  education  while  at  the  same  time   “entrepreneurs  simultaneously  embarked  upon  a  campaign  to  shift  public  opinion”  (Shipps,   2011,  p.  263).     It  is  these  policy  entrepreneurs  who  become  the  active  policy  shapers  and  may  use   “unorthodox  policy  instruments  …  bypassing  …  local  school  districts”  (Shipps,  2011,  p.   260).  All  of  this  is  coupled  with  “A  policy  process  that  severely  limits  the  access  and   influence  of  all  but  a  handful  of  elite  policy  actors  combined  with  these  signals  of    34   decreasing  fiscal  flexibility  to  portend  a  new  educational  policy  equilibrium.  This  means  a   new  stability  in  how  policy  is  made,  where,  and  by  whom”  (Shipps,  2011,  p.  280),  which  is   exactly  what  has  unfolded  with  FEPA  in  Michigan.  However,  what  still  remains  to  be   answered  is  how  did  they  get  involved  and  how  did  they  shape  policy?       Bringing  the  Literature  Together   What  the  literature  review  leads  me  to  conclude  is  that  policy  formation  has  not   been  the  major  focus  of  policy  analysis  and  research  at  the  state  level,  but  rather   implementation  has  been.  Part  of  this  is  because  implementation  moves  through  a  system   that  is  mostly  comprised  of  bureaucrats  and  educators  to  whom  researchers  have  access.   The  political  realm  of  policy  formation  has  many  formable  challenges  to  researching  it,  and   those  in  these  positions  often  have  the  political  capital  necessary  to  shade  their   involvement  (limited  access).  Therefore,  there  still  remains  a  gap  in  the  literature.     The  idea  of  what  triggers  policy  formation  has  largely  remained  abstract  or   theoretical  in  nature,  and  is  based  on  the  idea  of  a  rational  model  of  action,  specifically,  that   policy  arises  from  a  need.  However,  this  case  study  shows  something  different.  More   specifically,  I  show  how  a  group  of  people  set  out  to  change  the  educational  system  and   then  tried  to  create  a  policy  trigger  to  do  such.  This  is  in  direct  opposition  to  the  rational   policy  literature  that  policy  emerges  from  a  need.     Looking  closer  at  the  emergent  themes  from  the  literature,  they  point  to  issues  of   (1)  authority,  (2)  interest,  (3)  power,  (4)  trust  and  relationships,  (5)  equity,  and  (6)   ambiguity  as  key  elements  in  understanding  who  shapes  policy  and  how  at  the  state  level,   and  in  particular  with  regard  to  the  Michigan  Public  Education  Finance  Act  of  2013.  In    35   addition,  there  is  a  sketch  of  who  these  shapers  are  in  the  form  of  policy  elites.  Rainwater   and  Pittman,  by  way  of  Throne,  argued  that  “the  powerful  are  publicly  accountable  figures   –  government  officials,  police  officers,  physicians,  college  teachers  –  the  public  has  a  right   to  know  what  they  are  up  to.  Social  scientists,  they  argue,  have  an  obligation  to  generate   information  which  will  help  further  public  accountability  ‘in  a  society  whose  complexity   makes  it  easier  for  people  to  avoid  responsibilities’”  (2004,  p.  171).  While  the  phrase  “what   they  are  up  to”  is  laden  with  governmental  suspicion,  it  is  necessary  to  use  a  framework   that  will  allow  us  to  disentangle  the  political  and  social  complexities  of  policy  (given  the   above  emergent  themes),  not  merely  to  assign  blame,  but  to  critically  and  specifically  look   at  who  shapes  policy  and  how.                                                        36   Chapter  Three:  Uncovering  the  Policy  Process       In  this  chapter,  I  explore  the  theoretical  framework  that  guides  this  case  study’s   examination  of  PEFA.  I  begin  by  looking  at  a  rational  policy  cycle  perspective  as  posited  by   Daniel  Schultz  (2005).  However,  this  rational  model  does  not  account  for  the  advent  of  new   political  actors  into  the  policy  arena  in  the  age  of  school  accountability,  such  as  policy   entrepreneurs.  So,  to  explore  these  new  dynamics,  I  couple  the  policy  cycle,  both  with   critical  theory,  to  look  at  the  elements  and  relationships  of  power,  and  with  interest  group   theory,  which  looks  at  the  collation  of  power,  interests,  and  groups.       Theoretical  Framework   Policy  Cycle   After  doing  much  discerning  for  a  policy  framework  that  connects  the  limited  study   of  policy  inception  in  education  with  researching  up  and  themes  of  (1)  authority,  (2)   interest,  (3)  power,  (4)  trust  and  relationships,  (5)  equity,  and  (6)  ambiguity  found  in  the   literature,  I  have  chosen  to  employ  the  policy  cycle  as  described  by  Schultz  in  a  book   chapter  called  “How  Governments  Participate  in  Education  in  the  United  States:  A  Study  of   Policy,  Process  and  Politics.”  In  this  chapter,  Schultz  described  the  American  governmental   policy  system,  arguing  that  “The  policymaking  process  in  the  U.S.  is  driven  by  competing   values  and  cultural  forces,  and  an  intense  competition  for  resources,”  and  that  it  is  “not   possible  to  develop  effective  public  policy  without  addressing  each  of  these  key  elements”   (2005,  p.  44).  Table  2  represents  the  flow  and  development  of  policy.  This  means  that  each   policy  experiences  the  steps  shown  to  some  degree  in  its  development.  The  issue  is  that    37   each  policy  may  have  different  actors,  or  that  the  actors  play  slightly  different  roles,  which   means  the  extent  to  which  each  element  is  experienced  will  vary.     Figure  2:  Policy  Cycle       Schultz  presented  a  very  rational  model  of  the  formation  of  policy  that  seems  to   captures  all  of  the  components  of  policymaking.  Other  frameworks,  such  as  those  posed  by   Kingdon,  describe  policy  as  a  process  of  agenda-­‐setting  and  as  part  of  a  three-­‐stream   process,  and  they  focus  on  the  agenda  the  driver  of  policy,  but  do  not  describe  the  policy   elements  in  terms  of  development  or  a  cycle  (2011).  While  agenda-­‐setting  is  important,   what  I  argue  is  more  about  access  and  influence  –  it  is  what  allows  movement  in  the  policy   arena  –  (what  Kingdon  called  a  “policy  window”)  and  how  that  comes  to  shape  policy.  To   some  degree,  access  and  influence  can  be  thought  of  as  the  arrows  in  the  diagram,   especially  since  Schultz’s  framework  is  silent  on  the  human  interaction  component  (insofar    38   as  it  does  not  appear  in  the  model).  Schultz  acknowledged  that  many  of  the  tensions  of   policymaking  are  the  result  of  “changing  social  values  and  expectations,”  but  he  only   included  values  in  one  place  in  the  policy  process  model  instead  of  all  the  way  throughout   (2005,  p.  44).  Our  system  is  very  much  driven  by  social  capital  and  connectivity,  but  this   framework  does  not  represent  that.  However,  if  we  look  at  the  arrows  we  may  capture   these  nuanced  interactions  that  shape  policy.       Schultz’s  model  connects  to  one  of  the  three  images  outlined  in  Louis  et  al.’s  work   (2010).  In  particular,  Schultz’s  model  is  related  to  the  technical  policy  perspective,  which   deals  with  the  idea  of  policy  formation  being  a  rational  model.  This  helps  to  bridge  existing   literature  and  the  policy  framework.  However,  a  rational  model  does  not  include  various   aspects  of  the  human  experience  in  policy  making  (including  the  idea  that  not  all  actors  are   rational  operators).  Rational  models  attempt  to  take  complex  social  phenomena  and   interactions  and  explain  them  with  almost  mathematical  precision.     Rational  theories  do  not  account  for  the  human  condition,  irrational  and  emotional   behavior,  or  political  and  tactical  strategy,  because  they  assume  a  reasonable  and  non-­‐ political  world.  Rational  models  imply  a  logical  process  with  sound  choices  and  alternatives   –  and  maybe  even  equality  of  choice  (all  options  are  equal  both  in  choice  and  policy   outcome).  They  also  tend  to  imply  that  we  have  full  and  “good”  information  on  which  to   base  our  actions  and  decisions.  These  types  of  models  generally  also  imply  an  orderly  path   and  process  from  problem  identification  to  solution.  There  is  an  underlying  assumption  of   shared  understandings  of  the  outcomes,  goals,  and  consequences  of  actions.  However,   related  to  the  goals  and  outcomes  is  also  the  idea  that  there  are  rules  to  the  game.  Schultz’s   model  does  not  adhere  to  this  because  it  is  a  circle.  Metaphorically,  circles  are  unbreakable.    39   So,  where  does  one  enter  into  (gain  access  to)  the  process  and  where  does  it  ever  end  (and   in  what  form  are  those  final  results)?  Also,  as  we  have  learned  from  the  literature  review,   the  era  of  accountability  has  changed  the  policy  arena.  These  changes  have  brought  forth   new  actors,  and  just  as  the  change  brought  in  new  actors,  new  actors  have  changed  the   dynamics  of  the  policy  arena  (Anagnostopoulos,  2013;  Shipps,  2011).   To  capture  the  political  element  and  political  players  of  Schultz’s  rational  model  in   the  wake  of  the  era  of  accountability  and  the  introduction  of  new  actors,  it  is  necessary  to   introduce  two  other  theories  that  complement  the  policy  cycle.   Critical  Theory     The  first  of  these  is  critical  theory.    Critical  theory  “seeks  to  decloak  the  seemingly  …   neutral,  and  color-­‐blind  ways  …  of  constructing  and  administering  …  appraisals  …  of  law,   administrative  policy,  electoral  politics  …  political  discourse  [and  education]”  (Denzin  &   Lincoln,  2000,  p  159).  A  major  element  of  this  concept  “is  that  ideologies  work  to  distort   reality,”  and  then  looking  at  these  “distorting  ideologies  and  the  associate  structures,   mechanisms,  and  processes  that  help  to  keep  them  in  place”  (Glesne,  2011,  p.  9).  This  lens   “enacts  an  ethnic  epistemology,  arguing  that  ways  of  knowing  and  being  are  shaped  by  the   individual’s  standpoint,  or  position  in  the  world”  (Denzin  &  Lincoln,  2000,  p.  159).  In  other   words,  it  acknowledges  the  fact  that  we  cannot  divorce  ourselves  from  ourselves  to  remove   bias  and  become  completely  objective.  Just  as  Plato  argued  that  beauty  lies  in  the  eyes  of   the  beholder,  reality  lies  in  the  hands  of  the  experiencer  and  is  different  from  person-­‐to-­‐ person.         However,  critical  theory  is  more  than  just  realizing  that  absolute  objectivity  does   not  exist;  it  is  also  about  being  able  to  “disrupt  and  challenge  the  status  quo”  (Kincheloe  &    40   McLaren,  2000,  p.  279)  and  realizing  that  the  West,  in  all  of  its  outwardly  democratic  ways,   is  not  free  of  problems  that  marginalize,  dehumanize,  and  de-­‐democratize  citizens.  The   world  is  not  as  simple  as  blaming  or  crediting  fate  for  the  turn  of  events.  Instead,  critical   theory  “rejects  economic  determinism  and  focuses  on  the  media,  culture,  language,  power,   desire,  critical  enlightenment,  and  critical  emancipation”  to  examine  why  the  world  exists   as  it  does  (Denzin  &  Lincoln,  2000,  p  160).  It  makes  us  look  at  the  “‘tacit  rules  that  regulate   what  can  and  cannot  be  said,  who  can  speak  with  the  blessings  of  authority  and  who  must   listen,  whose  social  constructions  are  valid  and  whose  are  erroneous  and  unimportant’”   (Glesne,  2011,  p.  10).  Critical  theorists  see  “research  as  a  political  act  because  it  not  only   relies  on  values  systems,  but  challenges  value  systems”  (Glesne,  2011,  p.  10).     Critical  theory  makes  us  ask  the  question  of  how  we  look  at  experiences,  especially   those  of  race.  As  Dunbar  et  al.  stated,  “Being  ‘white’  is  the  unreflected-­‐upon  standard  from   which  all  other  racial  identities  vary”  (2001,  p.  280).  In  other  words,  white  is  normalized   and  is  the  backdrop  to  which  all  other  races  and  cultures  are  juxtaposed.  This  normalized   white  has  affected  all  levels  of  society,  including  the  interpretation  of  history,  especially  for   minority  and  urban  populations.  Is  life  simply  being  reproduced  by  the  powerful  and   privileged  that  hold  positions  of  power?       As  Hesse-­‐Biber  argued,  “A  critical  paradigm  centers  on  examining  issues  of  power,   control,  and  ideology  that  are  said  to  dominate  one’s  understanding  of  the  social  world   (e.g.,  how  power  dynamics  within  a  social  system  serve  to  generate  a  given  set  of  meanings   [dominate  ideologies]  about  social  reality  and  lived  experiences)”  (2010,  p.  455).  Kincheloe   and  McLaren  (2000)  argued  that  “power  is  a  basic  constituent  of  human  existence  that   works  to  shape  the  oppressive  and  productive  nature  of  the  human  tradition”  (p.  283).  This    41   focus  on  examining  issues  of  power  is  the  main  reason  for  employing  critical  theory  in  this   study,  which  also  aligns  with  many  of  the  elements  that  surfaced  in  the  review  of  the   literature.  Focusing  on  issues  of  power  and  politics  in  the  policymaking  process  is   paramount.   Thinking  about  Schultz’s  rational  model,  there  are  several  elements  that  are  left  out,   mainly  because  the  political  process  (while  rule  bound)  is  not  rational  in  regard  to  people’s   actions,  and  the  accountability  regime  has  changed  the  actors  and  policy  instruments   involved  in  the  policy  cycle.  It  is  important  to  discuss  who  has  been  invited  to  the  table,  but   it  is  also  important  to  note  whose  voices  are  not  being  heard  as  well  as  issues  of  power  and   political  influence.  The  previously  presented  literature  review  alludes  to  some  elements  of   this,  but  none  of  them  tackle  this  issue  head  on,  and  many  of  the  state  level  pieces  only  talk   about  politics  in  the  abstract  because  researchers  do  not  wish  to,  or  have  not  been  allowed   to,  engage  with  the  seemingly  powerful  and  elite.     So,  what  does  critical  theory  especially  add  to  the  rational  policy  cycle  perspective?   To  answer  this  question,  we  must  look  at  the  concrete  application  of  critical  theory  to  the   policy  cycle.  To  expose  this  policy  process,  I  apply  critical  theory  through  what  Kincheloe   and  McLaren  referred  to  as  a  “power  matrix”  (2000).  Specially,  they  discussed  this  in  terms   of  a  hegemonic  field,  which  “with  its  bounded  sociopsychological  horizons,  garners  consent   to  an  inequitable  power  matrix  –  a  set  of  social  relations  that  are  legitimated  by  their   depiction  as  natural  and  inevitable”  (Kincheloe  &  McLaren,  2000,  p.  283).  This  matrix   includes  using  critical  theory  to  look  at  political  acts,  tactical  rules,  and  praxis  that  occur  in   the  policy  cycle  and  are  not  accounted  for  in  a  rational  model  (Glesne,  2011).  Table  3  below    42   describes  these  three  concepts  of  how  critical  theory  was  applied  to  my  study  in  a  more   concrete  and  specified  way.         Table  3:  Critical  Theory  Power  Matrix  as  Adopted  from  Glesne,  2011   Power  Matrix  -­‐  Application  of  Critical  Theory  to  the  Policy  Cycle  Perspective   Critical  Theory  Aspect   Description     1. Political  Acts   “Focus  on  issues  of  power  and  domination   and  to  advocate  understanding”  (Glesne,   2011,  p.  10)   2. Tactical  rules   “What  can  and  cannot  be  said,  who  can   speak  with  the  blessing  of  authority  and   who  must  listen,  whose  social  constructions   are  valid  and  whose  are  erroneous  and   unimportant”  (Glesne,  2011,  p.  10  and   Kinchelow  &  McLaren,  2000,  p.  284).     3. Praxis   “A  relationship  between  thought  and  action,   between  theory  and  practice.  Praxis  refers   to  more  than  putting  theory  into  action;  it   also  involves  continual  reflection  on  and   inquiry  into  experience  and  the  meaning  of   concepts  used  in  everyday  interactions”   (Glesne,  2011,  p.  283)  …  such  as  to  …   “incorporate  dialogue  and  critical  reflection   …  to  reveal  unexamined  assumptions”  (10).       These  specific  critical  theory  elements  help  to  untangle  the  issues  of  power  from  the   policy  cycle  and  help  to  illustrate  deeply  who  came  to  shape  policy  and  how.  By  looking  at   political  acts,  tactical  rules,  and  praxis,  we  come  to  see  how  dependent  any  policy  is  on   actor-­‐centered  interactions  and  power.                43   Interest  Group  Theory   This  leads  me  to  my  second  guiding  perspective  –  interest  group  theory,  as  defined  in   the  field  of  public  administration.  This  theory  looks  at  many  of  the  same  elements  as   critical  theory,  but  in  a  different  light.  Critical  theory  tries  to  detect  and  unmask  the  beliefs   and  “practices  that  limit  human  freedom,  justice,  and  democracy,”  and  it  “critiques   historical  and  structural  conditions  of  oppression  and  seeks  transformation  of  those   conditions”  (Glesne,  2011,  p.  9).  It  is  a  reflective  critique  of  society,  whereas  interest  group   theory  is  agnostic  about  values  –  it  describes  how  people  align  in  the  political  process  to   shape  policy  formation.  In  interest  group  theory,  winning  and  losing  are  part  of  the  process,   and  power  and  influence  serve  as  the  acceptable  currency  of  the  realm.  This  theory  holds   that  “many  different  interests  compete  to  control  government  policy,  and  that  their   conflicting  interests  can  balance  out  each  other  to  provide  good  government”  (Davis,   2002).2  The  power  of  an  interest  group  is  derived  from  its:     1. Size  (number  of  members)   2. Wealth   3. Organizational  strength   4. Leadership  (often  a  policy  entrepreneur)   5. Access  to  decision  makers   6. Internal  cohesion     The  main  tenets  of  interest  group  theory  hold  that  it  is  the  “task  of  the  political  system  …  to   manage  group  conflict  by  establishing  the  rules  of  the  game,  arranging  compromises,                                                                                                                   2  This  can  also  be  called  pluralism.    44   enacting  the  deals  into  law,  enforcing  the  laws,  and  adjudicating  them”  (Davis,  2002).     Interest  group  theory  argues  that  government  is  held  together  by:   1. Latent  groups  which  support  the  system   2. Overlapping  membership  in  different  groups   3. Checks  and  balances  of  group  competition   4. Agenda  building   Opfer  et  al.  (2008)  defined  what  is  commonly  meant  when  we  use  the  term  interest   group,  and  they  explained  the  challenges  of  defining  interest  groups.  The  definition   commonly  used  by  politics  of  education  scholars  largely  focuses  on  the  goals  of  interest   groups.  It  ignores  why  interest  groups  mobilize,  typically  referred  to  as  interest  group   theory.  The  most  comprehensive  attempt  to  explain  interest  group  theories  as  it  relates  to   education  policy  was  carried  out  by  sociologists  Sipple,  Miskel,  Matheney,  and  Kearney   (1997)  whose  work  outlined  five  theories  that  can  be  used  as  frameworks  to  “examine  and   interpret  the  formation,  agenda  setting,  and  maintenance”  of  interest  groups  (p.  442).  The   first  of  these  theories,  moving  chronologically,  is  Truman’s  disturbance  theory  (1951).  The   premise  of  disturbance  theory  is  that  “humans  are  group  oriented  and  that  organizations   commonly  arise  through  the  natural  interaction  of  people  with  similar  beliefs”  (Sipple  et  al.,   1997,  p.  443).  These  naturally  occurring  similarities  also  drive  how  the  agenda  is  set  and   organized.  Given  this  natural  sorting,  there  is  always  a  variety  of  groups  forming  and   sorting  different  sizes  in  response  to  similarly  held  views,  fostering  pluralism  and,  as  Sipple   et  al.  argued,  creating  a  natural  balance  to  the  formation  of  public  policy.   The  second  theory,  Olson’s  (1965)  by-­‐product  theory,  posits  that  “individuals   primarily  act  rationally  on  behalf  of  their  own  interests  to  maximize  their  own  well-­‐being”    45   (Sipple  et  al.,  1997,  p.  443).  From  this  perspective,  individuals  are  essentially,  in  economic   terms,  rational  operators.  This  theory  presumes  that  people  generally  act  to  promote  their   best  interests.  This  means  that  their  membership  in  the  group  will  benefit  them  in  some   fashion,  and  any  “wider  social  benefits  are  rendered  only  as  a  by-­‐product”  or  residual  by   increasing  the  membership’s  worth  (Sipple  et  al.,  1997,  p.  445).  Because  membership  is   about  personal  gain,  setting  the  agenda  for  an  interest  group  can  become  challenging.  Thus,   interest  group  leaders  and  policy-­‐oriented  members  set  the  formal  external  political   agenda.       The  third  theory,  exchange  theory  by  Salisbury  (1969),  has  many  of  the  elements  of   by-­‐product  theory,  but  on  a  slightly  different  scale.  Exchange  theory  holds  that  beyond   personal  gain,  there  may  be  political  elements  that  pull  members  together–not  all  benefits   have  to  be  monetized.  “If  the  proposed  collective  political  benefits  are  sufficient  and  in   agreement  with  their  individual  interests,  individuals  are  apt  to  form  and  join   organizations”  (Sipple  et  al.,  1997,  p.  445).  Exchange  theory  argues  for  a  wider   interpretation  of  what  it  means  to  gain  from  grouping  collective  interests  together.  Gain  is   about  bettering  one’s  own  or  one’s  group’s  position,  and  “members  expect  to  succeed  and   garner  the  rewards  of  success,  whether  individual  by  or  collectively,  economically  or   politically”  (p.  445).  Similar  to  by-­‐product  theory,  exchange  theory  holds  that  agenda   setting  is  driven  by  the  politically  and  policy-­‐minded  contingent  of  the  group  –  making   leadership  an  important  driving  force  for  the  interest  group.   The  fourth  theory  is  Sabatier’s  commitment  theory  (1992),  which  holds  that   members  of  a  special  interest  group  are  generally  more  dedicated  to  a  cause  than  the   general  public.  As  Sipple  et  al.  (1997)  explained,  “Strong  conviction  to  a  topic  motivates    46   individuals  to  engage  in  political  action  and  to  exert  the  time,  energy,  and  effort  necessary   to  form  an  interest  group”  (p.  443).  Given  the  focus  on  dedication  to  the  issue  at  hand,   groups  can  be  small,  and  often  the  work  of  moving  towards  a  goal  and  bringing  together   others  are  just  as  important  as  actually  achieving  the  goal.  The  emphasis  on  dedication  also   means  that  oftentimes  those  who  are  most  committed  to  the  cause  or  issue  set  the  agenda,   and  leadership  in  these  organizations  can  take  extreme  positions.   The  last  approach  to  explaining  interest  group  formation  is  countervailing  power   theory,  posited  by  McFarland  (1992).  According  to  countervailing  power  theory,  the   reasons  why  people  join  interest  groups  are  completely  different  from  those  espoused  by   the  above  theories  focusing  on  commonality  and  economic  and  political  gain.  Instead,   countervailing  power  theory  assumes  that  groups  form  in  response  to  other  groups  that   have  mobilized  and  are  the  prevailing  voice  on  an  issue,  thereby  “filling  a  void  in  the  policy   debate”  (Sipple  et  al.,  1997,  p.  445).  The  same  issue  that  brought  the  groups  together  also   sets  the  agenda  and  drives  the  policy  advocacy  efforts  of  the  group.  Table  4  summarizes   each  of  these  theories,  their  forms,  agenda  setting  methods,  and  ways  of  maintaining  the   group.                    47   Table  4:  Interest  Group  Theories     How  Do   Order  and   Interes Disturbance     t   Groups   …   Form?   As  a  result  of   natural   interaction   and/or   societal   disturbance     Set   their   agenda s?   Naturally   forming,   based  on   common   political   views   Maintai Involvement   n  their   reflects   organiz continued   ation?   interaction   and   disturbance     Interest  Group  Theories   Commitment   By-­‐Product   Exchange   To  act  on   heightened   personal   interest  in  a   particular   issue   To  maximize   personal   gain,  also  for   political   motivations   in  some  cases   Set  by  the   most   committed   members   Set  as  a   result  of   input  from   political   members   Involvement   reflects   degree  of   interest   Involvement   reflects   political  and   economic   benefits   received   Countervail ing  Power   To  maximize   personal  gain   in  exchange  of   involvement   and   leadership   To  react  to   the   dominate   voice  of   well-­‐ organized   interest   groups   Set  by   Set  in   entrepreneurs   contrast  to   and  political   dominant   members     groups   Involvement   reflects   benefits   received   Involvement   reflects   continued   presence  of   issue  and   opposing   influence       On  the  whole,  these  prominent  interest  group  theories  explain  interest  group   formation  and  link  their  formation  to  group  characteristics,  such  as  size,  leadership,   extremism,  and  goals.  What  is  clearly  evident  from  Sipple  et  al.’s  (1997)  summary  of   interest  group  theories  is  that  these  approaches  all  assume  that  an  interest  group  is  a   formal  organization  comprised  of  individual  members  interested  in  political  action  (e.g.,  a   teacher  union).  These  theories  explaining  group  formation  do  not  explain  the  decision  of  all   the  other  types  of  interest  groups  that  fall  under  the  inclusive  definition  of  interest  groups   commonly  used  by  scholars  (c.f.  Opfer  et  al.,  2008)  to  become  politically  active.  If  many    48   interest  groups  active  in  educational  policy  are  indeed  more  than  associations  representing   individuals  (such  as  institutions,  like  corporations  and  foundations;  associations  of   institutions;  and  government  entities),  then  we  need  interest  group  theories  that  explain   their  formation  (i.e.,  what  causes  an  interest  group  to  devote  resources  to  political  action?)   and  the  dimensions  of  these  interest  groups  that  impact  their  political  activity  and   influence  (e.g.,  leadership  and  agenda  setting).  This  study  attempts  to  explain  the  formation   of  those  interest  groups  in  the  wake  of  new  educational  policy  actors.  Further,  we  need  to   know  how  these  other  types  of  interest  groups  interact  with  and  impact  formal  education   pressure  groups  comprised  of  individual  members.    In  brief,  we  need  to  expand  the   literature  on  certain  aspects  of  interest  groups,  to  correspond  to  the  increasingly  inclusive   definition  of  interest  groups.  Of  course,  as  Schlozman  (2010)  pointed  out,  once  we  include   these  institutions,  associations  of  institutions,  and  governments  as  interest  groups,  then  the   concept  of  representation  becomes  more  complicated.  For  example,  whose  interests  does  a   large  urban  school  district  that  lobbies  represent:  teachers,  staff,  administrators,  influential   families  from  upper  income  neighborhoods,  disadvantaged  students,  its  contractors?   Opfer  et  al.’s  (2008)  review  of  the  literature  on  interest  group  lobbying  emphasized   two  persistent  themes:  (1)  organized  interests  seek  to  influence  policy  and  (2)  certain   contexts  can  diminish  or  preclude  organized  interests’  abilities  to  employ  lobbying  tactics   to  secure  the  enactment  of  favorable  policies  or  prevent  unfavorable  legislation  or   regulation  (Baumgartner  &  Leech,  1998;  Lowery,  2007).  These  two  elements  proved  to  be   crucial  in  understanding  the  entry  (formation)  and  exit  of  interest  groups  in  my  case  study.   I  have  clearer  depiction  of  the  members  of  a  pressure  community  and  have  been  able  to    49   discern  whose  interests  are  actually  being  represented  in  the  educational  policy  process,  in   respect  to  PEFA  (Young,  DiMartino,  &  Boggs,  2013).       In  addition  to  discussing  the  challenges  to  defining  interest  groups,  Opfer  et  al.   (2008)  described  how  interest  groups  exert  influence  over  the  educational  policy  process.   They  point  out  that  interest  groups  employ  a  wide  range  of  lobbying  tactics,  and  that   contexts  play  an  important  role  in  the  likelihood  of  an  interest  group  successfully  exerting   influence  over  educational  policy.  They  concluded  that  traditional  educational  associations,   business  groups,  and  conservative  interest  groups  are  the  most  influential  interest  groups   in  education  policy.  Opfer  et  al.  described  how  interest  groups  have  shaped  educational   policy  through  advocacy  coalitions  in  policy  subsystems,  and  they  called  for  additional   research  on  the  role  of  policy  entrepreneurs  in  the  politics  of  education.   Lastly,  given  this  increase  in  the  centralization  of  educational  policy  at  the  state   level,  as  a  result  of  policy  changes  resulting  from  No  Child  Left  Behind  (Jacobsen  &  Young,   2013;  McDonnell,  2013),  Young,  DiMartino,  &  Boggs  (2013)  tell  us  that  we  should  not  only   be  concerned  with  the  composition  of  the  interest  group  universe  at  the  federal  level,  but   also  should  pay  close  attention  to  the  organized  interests  of  pressure  communities  at  the   state  level,  which  is  what  this  study  examines.  With  the  expansion  of  states’  power  over   educational  policy,  coupled  with  the  federal  government’s  increasing  financial  incentives,   the  establishment  of  a  plethora  of  accountability  policies  (Jacobsen  &  Young,  2013),  and  an   environment  in  the  past  few  years  that  has  experienced  dramatic  fiscal  cutbacks  in  the   education  sector  (Young  &  Fusarelli,  2011),  state  and  local  governments  (especially  the   large  urban  school  districts)  are  certainly  motivated  to  influence  federal  educational  policy   (c.f.  Schlozman,  2010).  Two  implications  result  from  considering  government  actors  as    50   interest  groups.  First,  to  deem  government  actors  as  interest  groups  is  to  allow  for  the   continued  use  of  an  inclusive  definition  of  interest  groups  in  educational  research,  which   Opfer  et  al.  (2008)  addressed.  Second,  by  considering  state  and  local  governments  as   interest  groups,  we  are  better  able  to  understand  the  interaction  between  levels  of   government  (Young,  DiMartino,  &  Boggs,  2013).     Interest  group  theory  holds  that  the  “situation  will  remain  fluid  permanently;  no   one  group  will  have  permanent  victory”  (Davis,  2002).  This  means  that  the  policy  system   will  always  be  in  flux.  Applying  this  theory  to  this  particular  case  fully  demonstrates  how   people  and  groups  align  themselves  to  interact  with  a  policy  and  add  an  additional   dimension  not  captured  in  the  rational  model  of  the  policy  cycle.  To  apply  this  theory,  I   looked  at  group  interactions  around  PEFA,  seeing  who  and  how  people  align  themselves  in   response  to  or  as  part  of  PEFA’s  creation,  public  debate,  and  final  outcome.       The  Policy  Cycle,  Critical  Theory,  and  Interest  Group  Theory   Interest  group  theory  is  not  dissimilar  from  critical  theory,  but  the  elements  that   critical  theory  hopes  to  expose  interest  group  theory  displays  in  action  as  standard  and   acceptable  practices  and  demonstrates  the  reaction  of  people  and  groups  to  the  issues  of   power  being  exerted.  Interest  group  theory  is  very  much  about  how  groups  align  with   others  to  shape  the  direction  of  policy.  In  this  view,  it  is  okay  to  minimize  others  to  get   what  you  want,  and  it  is  very  much  about  political  capital  –  a  zero-­‐sum  game.  It  is  just  part   of  life.  It  also  represents  the  reality  of  the  political  system,  which  it  refers  to  as  a  “game.”   However,  it  does  not  matter  which  theory  we  examine;  when  policy  is  formed  through   relationships  based  on  power,  the  powerless  are  always  left  out.    51   Analyzing  the  Michigan  Public  Education  Finance  Act  of  2013  using  Schultz’s  policy   cycle  tenders  much  valuable  information  about  the  formal  policy  process  that  the  state   experiences.  However,  this  rational  model  only  captures  part  of  the  story  and  some  of  the   steps.  It  does  not  capture  the  human  element  of  policy  creation  and  political  maneuvering,   which  is  at  the  heart  of  the  formation  of  any  policy,  especially  a  controversial  one.  It  also   does  not  account  for  the  addition  of  new  actors  who  have  emerged  in  the  era  of  school   accountability.  The  use  of  critical  theory  and  interest  group  theory  allowed  me  to  explore   more  fully  issues  of  power  and  the  alignment  of  interests.  Using  both  additional  theories   allowed  for  the  description  of  a  much  richer  case  of  who  shapes  educational  policy,  and   how,  at  the  state  level.           What  Follows     Now  that  I  have  established  the  theoretical  framework  that  guided  this  study,  the   next  chapter  discusses  how  I  conducted  the  fieldwork  for  the  case  study.  It  entailed  a  two-­‐ phase  process  that  included  both  document  collection  and  analysis  and  semi-­‐structured   interviews.                                    52     Chapter  Four:  Methods     This  chapter  frames  the  methods  of  this  case  study.  It  begins  by  defining  this  case   and  the  theoretical  underpinnings  of  this  approach.  This  section  discusses  how  the  study   was  set  up,  beginning  with  document  analysis  to  inform  the  formation  of  interview   questions,  then  the  selection  and  descriptions  of  the  participants,  and  finally  the  interview   questions.  The  chapter  concludes  with  an  examination  of  my  data  analysis  methods  and  the   limitations  of  my  research  approach.       Case  Study  Background     In  order  to  understand  how  educational  policy  is  formulated  and  made  at  the  state   level,  I  used  a  case  study  approach  that  examined  the  creation  of  one  policy,  the  Michigan   Public  Education  Finance  Act  of  2013,  in  one  state,  Michigan.  A  case  study  approach  works   best,  according  to  Yin,  when  “used  in  many  situations  to  contribute  to  our  knowledge  of   individual,  group,  organizational,  social,  political,  and  related  phenomena”  (2003,  p.  1).  In   this  particular  case,  my  “desire  to  understand  complex  social  phenomena”  of  educational   policy  creation  drove  me  to  look  at  issues  of  power  and  politics  (2003,  p.  2).     Using  the  Yin  case  study  method,  this  examination  of  the  shaping  of  the  Michigan   Public  Education  Finance  Act  of  2013  is  a  descriptive  case  study  (2003).3  I  traced  “the                                                                                                                   3  For  this  particular  case  study,  I  have  chosen  to  use  Yin’s  classification  of  cases  (i.e.   exploratory,  descriptive,  or  explanatory)  because  his  definitions  fit  more  closely  with  the   information  available  to  me  and  because  it  aligns  with  the  case  study  outcomes  in  terms  of   generalizability.  However,  I  could  have  used  Thomas’s  typology  of  subject  and  object  where   the  subject  is  “the  case  itself,”  and  the  object  is  “the  analytical  frame  or  theory  through   which  the  subject  is  viewed  and  which  the  subject  explicates”  (2011,  pg.  511).  Thomas’s   approach  does  not  provide  the  same  nuanced  classifications  that  Yin’s  does.  However,  if  I   were  to  use  Thomas’s  typology,  the  subject  would  be  the  Michigan  Public  Education    53   sequence  of  interpersonal  events  over  time,  described  a  subculture  that  had  rarely  been  the   topic  of  previous  study,  and  discovered  key  phenomena”  that  shaped  policy  in  the  Michigan   Public  Education  Finance  Act  of  2013  (Yin,  2003,  p.  4).  The  results  should  have   generalizability  not  only  to  theory,  but  also  “issues  of  individual  performance,  group   structure,  and  the  social  structure”  of  political/policy  environments  (Yin,  2003,  p.  4).  The   uniqueness  of  this  case  study  is  not  that  it  does  those  things  as  described  by  Yin,  but   because  it  applies  to  a  group  of  people  that  are  not  generally  studied  –  those  at  the  top  of   the  policy  formation  process.  This  aligns  with  the  concept  of  “researching  upwards,”  and   engaging  the  elite  and  “seemingly  powerful  in  the  research  process”  (Neal  &  McLaughlin,   2009,  p.  690;  Odendahl  &  Shaw,  2002).   The  end  result,  which  is  not  an  all-­‐encompassing  answer  to  the  research  question   because  such  designs  are  rarely  achievable  in  constructivist  construct,  will  be   “generalizable  to  theoretical  proposition  and  not  to  populations  or  universes”  (Yin,  2003,  p.   10).  Glesne  argued  this  is  because  a  case  study  is  a  way  of  “conceptualizing  human  social   behavior  …  and  its  linkages  to  the  social  context  of  which  it  is  a  part”  (2011,  p.  22).  In  other   words,  when  finished,  we  will  have  some  idea  of  how  the  state  system  actors  function  to   shape  policy,  albeit  one  that  will  be  different  across  different  policies  and  within  different   state  contexts.       To  conduct  this  study,  I  began  by  dividing  the  research  design  into  two  phrases,  as   shown  in  Figure  4.  The  first  phrase  of  the  study  analyzed  documents  relating  to  PEFA,   considering  my  research  question.  The  findings  from  these  documents  then  became  a  guide   to  generating  interview  questions.  This  led  to  phase  two,  conducting  a  series  of  semi-­‐                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Finance  Act  of  2013,  and  the  object  would  be  the  processes  through  which  it  was   formulated.        54   structured  interviews  of  key  policy  and  political  figures  involved  in  various  capacities  with   PEFA’s  formation  and  demise.   Figure    4:  Research  Design  Phases  –  based  on  the  unpublished  work     of  Benjamin  Botwinski  (2013)         Phase  I:  Document  Analysis   Interviews  alone  do  not  reveal  all  of  the  elements  and  nuances  of  policy  inception.   So,  in  addition  to  interviews,  document  analysis  is  necessary  to  provide  scaffolding  for  the   interview  process.  Document  analysis,  as  Bowen  argued,  is  a  “systematic  procedure  for   reviewing  or  evaluating  documents  –  both  printed  and  electronic  (computer-­‐based  and   Internet-­‐transmitted)  material”  (2009,  p.  27).  When  this  method  is  used  in  combination   with  others,  such  as  the  semi-­‐structured  interviews  that  follow,  it  serves  as  a  means  of   triangulation.  Document  analysis  has  several  advantages  in  what  Yin  (2013)  refers  to  as   exactness  and  coverage  (Bowen,  2009).  Specifically,  exactness  entails  a  record  of  “exact   names,  references,  and  details  of  events”  that  are  removed  from  immediate  memory  and   coverage  entails  a  broad  illustration  of  a  “long  span  of  time,  many  events,  and  many   setting”  (Bowen,  2009,  pg.  31).  In  addition,  there  are  five  main  tenets  that  document   analysis  serves,  which  are  discussed  in  detail  in  Table  5  below.     In  order  to  do  this,  I  collected  various  public  documents  concerning  the  Michigan   Public  Education  Finance  Act  of  2013.  One  identified  source  was  a  website  that  was  created   by  Richard  McLellan  to  track  these  documents.  It  is  completely  open  to  the  public  in  order    55   to  create  what  the  website  terms  as  governmental  transparency  (Shields,  2013).  This  site  is   designed  to  articulate  a  certain  view  of  the  proposed  law,  so  this  was  not  my  only  resource.   However,  the  site  did  contain  all  of  McLellan’s  memos  to  various  organizations  and  state   agencies  as  well  as  all  press  releases,  supplemental  explanatory  documents,  public   comments,  memos  and  letters  from  other  organizations  and  agencies  about  the  proposed   law  (both  in  favor  and  opposed),  and  the  draft  legislation.     In  addition,  I  examined  other  public  documents.  I  was  able  to  garner  a  sense  of   political  policy  elites  through  analyzing  who  was  cited  and  how  often,  and  the  perspective   on  the  policy  they  offer  through  collecting  newspaper  features  and  editorials  on  PEFA.  The   Detroit  Free  Press  and  The  Lansing  State  Journal  were  particularly  helpful  with  this   document  collection.    In  addition,  I  also  used  legislative  hearing  transcripts  and   testimonies.  However,  one  of  the  most  beneficial  documents  was  the  PEFA  Report,  which   was  a  public  document  embargoed  by  the  governor’s  office.  It  was  released  to  me  with  the   permission  of  the  author  and  contains  the  comprehensive  plan  of  PEFA,  including  the  final   version  of  the  proposed  legislation.                                  56   Table  5  –  Specific  Function  of  Document  Analysis     1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Specific  Functions  of  Document  Analysis   Function   Rationale   Provide  context  within  which   Document  analysis  provides  background   research  participants  operate     information  as  well  as  historical  insight.   “Such  information  and  insight  can  help   researchers  understand  the  historical  roots   of  specific  issues  and  can  indicate  the   conditions  that  impinge  upon  the   phenomena  currently  under  investigation”   (Bowen,  2009,  p.  29-­‐30).     Information  contained  in  documents   Document  analysis  can  help  focus  specific   can  suggest  questions  that  need  to  be   items  of  attention  and  generate  interview   asked   questions.  This  can  allow  the  research  to   complement  other  research  activities.         Supplementary  research  data   As  Bowen  argued,  “Information  and  insight   derived  from  documents  can  be  valuable   additions  to  a  knowledge  base”  (2009,  p.  30)   Means  of  tracking  change  and   When  there  are  several  drafts  of  a   development     document,  in  this  case  the  proposed  PEFA   legislation,  the  researcher  can  compare   versions  for  changes.     A  way  to  verify  findings  or   As  Bowen  posited,  “Sociologists,  in   corroborate  evidence  from  other   particular,  typically  use  document  analysis   sources   to  verify  their  findings  …  if  contradictory  …   investigate  further.  When  there  is   convergence  of  information  …  readers  of  the   research  report  usually  have  greater   confidence  in  the  trustworthiness  of  the   findings”  (Bowen,  2009,  p.  30).   *Based  on  Bowen  (2009)     The  document  analysis  process  involved  three  main  activities.  The  first  was   skimming.  This  was  a  superficial  examination  of  the  documents,  looking  for  broad  themes   and  ways  to  categorize  the  documents.  The  second  step  was  in-­‐depth  reading  and  a   thorough  examination.  This  involved  pulling  out  and  coding  passages  that  related  to  policy   creation  and  the  policy  cycle,  issues  of  power  and  authority,  interest  group  activity,   emergence  of  new  actors  in  the  policy  formation  process,  equity  and  the  distribution  of   resources,  and  ambiguity.    These  codes  were  derived  from  the  theoretical  framework  and    57   how  those  concepts  connected  to  the  themes  that  emerged  from  the  literature  review.  The   third  step  was  interpretation  –  what  the  information  garnered  means  in  our  understanding   of  the  phenomena,  and  how  it  informed  the  next  steps  in  the  case  study.  However,  as  a   caveat,  Bowen  has  warned  us  to  “consider  the  original  purpose  of  the  document  –  the   reason  it  was  produced  –  and  the  target  audience”  (2009,  pg.  33),  so  that  was  also  taken   into  consideration.     The  major  themes  that  were  produced  from  the  document  analysis  were  then  used   to  construct  phase  II  of  the  research  design.  This  included  the  formation  of  questions  for   semi-­‐structured  interviews.       Phase  II:  Semi-­‐Structured  Interviews   The  second  phase  of  this  case  study  consisted  primarily  of  in-­‐depth,  semi-­‐structured   interviews  (Johnson,  2002).  The  interviews  were  conducted  in  person,  and  each  of  them   was  done  independently  of  the  others.  To  gain  a  well-­‐rounded  perspective,  I  interviewed  a   series  of  people  who  are  connected  to  the  formation  of  the  Michigan  Public  Education   Finance  Act  of  2013,  including  the  law’s  author,  state  board  members,  legislature  members,   members  of  the  Michigan  Department  of  Education,  communication  agents  (including   lobbyists  and  communication  firms),  and  special  interest  groups  (such  as  members  of  the   Education  Alliance  and  Michigan  Education  Association).  I  identified  the  initial   interviewees  through  a  leadership  development  program  called  Education  Policy   Fellowship  Program  (EPFP),  which  recruits  speakers  from  both  sides  of  current  issues  to   speak  with  educational  leaders.  This  created  the  space  for  formal  in-­‐person  introductions   and  networking.  In  the  2012-­‐2013  year  of  EPFP,  PEFA  was  a  major  point  of  discussion  on    58   the  policy  agenda,  and  several  participants  were  interested  in  talking  about  it.  Following   each  EPFP  discussant,  I  set  up  appointments  to  talk  with  them  individually.  Using  varying   points  of  view  helped  expose  the  power  structure  that  I  critiqued.  However,  not  all   participants  came  from  EPFP,  but  rather  those  connections  opened  the  door  to  many   others.     Other  participants  also  recommended  participants,  to  create  an  evolving  list  of   actors  involved  in  the  policymaking  process,  which  is  often  referred  to  as  a  snowballing   process  (Lofland  et  al.,  2005).  As  Glesne  stated,  the  “snowballing,”  or  “network  sampling,”   method  “obtains  knowledge  of  potential  cases  from  people  who  know  people  who  meet   research  interests”  (2011,  pg.  45).  In  other  words,  the  interviewees  “know  others  like   themselves”  that  they  can  refer  the  researcher  to  (Lofland  et  al.,  2005,  p.  25).  A  limitation  of   using  snowballing  is  inherent  in  the  method  because  it  relies  on  social  connectivity.  Lofland   et  al.  (2005)  stated  that  a  snowball  sample  “will  always  underrepresent  those  who  have   few  social  contacts  and  will  therefore  underrepresent  every  belief  and  experience  that  is   associated  with  having  few  social  contacts”  (p.  29).  However,  this  study  is  all  about  shaping   policy,  which  holds  that  social  connectedness  is  a  major  element  of  how  that  is  actually   done.  The  voiceless  are  not  involved  in  shaping  policy,  as  critical  theory  postulates.     Each  participant  is  discussed  in  detail  in  Table  6.  The  figure  includes  the  names  of   each  participant,  which  have  all  been  redacted  to  preserve  anonymity.  The  names   represented  in  the  figure  are  all  literary  pseudonyms  (expect  that  of  Richard  McLellan)  for   easy  reference  and  use  of  quotations  from  participants.  The  second  column  represents  a   brief  biography  of  each  participant.      59   Table  6:  Cast  of  Characters  –  Interview  Participants     Cast  of  Characters  –  Interview  Participants     Name   Description     Richard  McLellan     Graduated  from  Michigan  State  University  with  his  undergraduate   degree  in  1964  and  his  law  degree  from  the  University  of  Michigan  in   1967.  Began  his  career  as  an  administrative  assistant  to  Governor   William  Milliken.  Served  as  a  legal  and  policy  advisor  for  several   republican  governors  through  his  Lansing  law  firm  and  served  as   Governor  Engler’s  transition  team  director.  McLellan  has  been  active  in   public  education  and  choice  for  more  than  30  years,  including  serving   as  Governor  Snyder’s  volunteer  educational  advisor.  He  is  a  long  time   member  of  the  Republican  Party  and  supporter  of  technology  to   improve  education.    He  is  also  the  key  architect  and  leader  of  the  PEFA   project  and  co-­‐founder  of  the  Mackinac  Center  for  Public  Policy.     Dick  Diver*   President  of  the  State  Board  of  Education  at  the  time  of  PEFA.  At  the     time  of  this  writing,  he  was  in  his  second  eight-­‐year  term  on  the  board   and  maybe  the  state’s  highest  ranking  elected  Democrat.  His   background  is  in  public  administration  and  economics.       Eleanor   She  began  her  term  on  the  state  board  of  education  in  2012,  but  was   Dashwood*   active  in  the  discussion  of  PEFA  while  campaigning  before  assuming     office.  She  works  for  a  union  organization  representing  university   professors.  She  is  also  elected  as  a  Democrat  from  the  Detroit  area.   Caroline   Government  relations  director  for  Michigan’s  biggest,  wealthiest,  and   Compson*   most  influential  ISD.  She  is  also  a  former  employee  of  MDE  and  spends     much  of  her  time  connecting  with  state  legislators  on  policy,  in  person.     William  Gordon*   Long  time  Lansing  political  insider,  including  20  years  as  a  state     representative,  10  years  as  a  mayor  of  the  capital  city,  and  director  of   state  economic  development  under  the  Granholm  administration.  He  is   a  longtime  Democrat.     Stephen  Dedalus*   Partner  in  a  Republican  communications  firm  specializing  in  public     affairs,  political  campaigns,  ballot  initiatives,  and  fundraising.     Phillip  Marlowe*   Legislative  lobbyist  for  the  Michigan  Education  Association,  past     uniserv  director,  and  high  school  teacher.  No  political  affiliation  given.   Dorian  Gray*   She  is  the  longest  serving  member  of  the  State  Board  of  Education,     beginning  her  first  term  in  1992,  and  she  has  served  six  terms  as  the   president  of  the  board.  She  also  has  a  formal  education  in  economics   and  is  elected  as  a  Democrat  from  the  Detroit  area.     Mariah  Heep*   Owner  and  operator  of  a  communications  firm  hired  by  McLellan     through  the  Oxford  Foundation  to  write  the  PEFA  Report  and  help   manage  messaging.  She  is  a  former  employee  of  the  Michigan   Department  of  Education  and  Michigan  State  University,  and  a  longtime   consultant  for  various  organizations  that  support  choice  and  charter   schools.  She  is  a  self-­‐identified  Republican.     *  Literary  pseudonyms  have  been  used  to  maintain  the  confidentiality  of  participants.      60   As  Warren  argued,  interviews  are  based  on  the  idea  of  constructing  conversation,   which  is  why  I  engaged  study  participants  in  a  conversational  manner.  Each  interview   lasted  around  one  hour  or  more  (2002).  Richard  McLellan’s  interview  lasted  most  of  a  day,   and  he  was  very  gracious  with  his  time.  As  Lofland  et  al.  argued,  “Permitting  the   respondent  to  talk  about  what  the  respondent  wants  to  talk  about,  so  long  as  it  is  anywhere   near  the  topic  of  study,  will  always  produce  better  data  than  plodding  adherence  to  the   guide”  (2005,  p.  49)  This  approach  highlights  that  the  interviewees  are  not  just  “passive   conduits  for  retrieving  information  from  an  existing  vessel  of  answers,”  but  rather  are   “meaning  maker[s]”  (Warren,  2002,  p.  83).  In  addition,  these  conversations  and  in-­‐depth   interviews  often  take  “unexpected  turns  or  digressions  that  follow  the  informant’s  interests   or  knowledge”  (Johnson,  2002,  p.  111).  While  at  first  thought  this  can  seem  to  be   unproductive,  it  is  not.  It  tells  us  the  interests  of  the  interviewee  and  what  they  value  as   important  (in  this  case,  what  is  valued  in  policy  formation).  Johnson  recommended  that  the   interviewer  “go  with  the  flow,  be  playful,  and  be  open  to  an  experimental  attitude,”  but  also   be  “assertive  enough  to  return  the  interview  to  its  anticipated  course  when  necessary”   (2002,  p.  111).   Given  that  the  interviewees  were  political  elite,”  there  were  added  contextual   factors  (Odendahl  and  Shaw,  2002).  Dunbar  et  al.  argued,  as  did  C.  Wright  Mills,  that  “the   interview  process  and  the  interpretation  of  the  interview  material  must  take  into  account   how  social  and  historical  figures—especially  those  associated  with  race—mediate  both  the   meanings  of  questions  that  are  asked  and  how  those  questions  are  answered”  (2002,  p.   280).  Because  many  of  the  interviewees  have  something  to  lose  in  their  positions,  my   ability  to  discuss  these  questions  with  them  revolved  around  maintaining  their  anonymity    61   and  my  political  connections.  However,  because  McLellan  is  a  highly  public  figure   connected  with  this  law,  I  could  not  and  did  not  guarantee  his  anonymity.     I  also  realized  that  there  are  vast  histories  between  many  of  the  players,  and  that   their  views  may  be  politically  shaded  and  have  to  do  more  with  personalities  than  issues.   With  this  in  mind,  it  was  important  that  as  the  interviewer,  I  “be  deeply  familiar  with  the   lives  of  potential  respondents  in  order  to  cultivate  and  activate  fully  the  subjects  that   figuratively  stand  behind  them”  (2002,  p.  290).  This  seemed  to  imply  the  need  for  the   interviewers  to  be  considered  “‘insiders  in  order  to  conduct  productive,  insightful,   nuanced,  and  revealing  interviews”  (Dunbar  et  al.,  2002,  p.  290).  In  other  words,  I  had  to  be   politically  attuned  to  the  environment  and  willing  to  engage  in  multiple  dimensions.  I   needed  to  be  deeply  knowledgeable  about  their  lives  as  well  as  play  on  my  background  as   an  elected  official,  which  got  me  greater  access  to  the  policy  elites.         My  interview  guide,  which  attempts  to  answer  the  grand  research  question  of  “who   shapes  educational  policy  and  how,”  can  be  found  in  Table  7  and  represents  the  set  of   questions  that  guided  this  study.  Some  of  these  questions  were  directly  asked,  while  others   were  answered  in  the  natural  flow  of  the  discussion.  My  goal  was  that  the  conversation   would  unpack  the  policy  inception  process  that  supported  an  understanding  of  influence   and  relationships  at  the  state  level  through  the  theoretical  framework.                  62   Table  7:  Interview  Guide     Interview  Guide   What  we  want  to  know   The  questions  used  to  spark   conversation   1. Ask  each  member  for  an  overview   1  .  Tell  me  your  story.  How  did  you  get  here   with  respect  to  their  role  in  the   and  what  is  your  background?  Tell  me  about   organization  and  the  intentions  of  the   your  role  in  this  position.     organization.     a. How  long  have  you  worked  for     the  organization?     b. Why  do  you  work  for  the     organization?     c. What  is  your  role  in  the     organization?     d. How  did  you  come  to  be  part  of     the  organization  you  describe?     e. How  do  you  see  your  role?     f. What  is  the  intended  goal  of     your  work?             2.  Describe  your  role  and  the  role  of  your   2. How  they  view  the  role  of  their   organization  in  shaping  state  educational   organization  in  policy  making  and   policy?  What  other  organizations  do  you   connections  to  other  organizations.   work  with?  (If  they  do  not  feel  they  shape   What  is  the  role  of  your  organization   policy,  ask  them  what  it  is  that  their   in  shaping  policy?  How  do  you  do   organization  does  and  how  they  do  it.)   that?         3.  Who  did  you  see  as  involved  in  legislative   3. Additional  probing  questions   process  of  PEFA?  How  would  you  describe   a. Describe  the  role  of  the  state   their  role?  Can  you  describe  a  particular   legislature  in  education.   time  that  stands  out  in  your  mind?  What   b. Describe  the  role  of  the   about  _______  (prompt  accordingly  for  MDE,   governor  in  education   state  legislature,  and  governor’s  office  in   c. Describe  the  role  of  MDE  in   reference  to  individual  nuances  based   education.   information  from  the  literature  review).   d. Describe  the  role  of  other     organizations.       e. Describe  for  me  a  particular     time  when  you  and  your     organization  had  to  deal  with     MDE,  the  state  legislature,     McLellan,  or  the  governor’s     office  on  the  issue  of  PEFA.     What  was  the  outcome?        63   Table  7  (cont’d)     f. How  often  is/was  your  office   in  contact  with   MDE/governor/the  state   legislature/members  of  PEFA?   Was  there  a  contact  person     or  several  contact  people?     4. Views  on  the  Michigan  Public   Education  Finance  Act  of  2013,  the   process  of  policy  inception,  thoughts   on  the  governor’s  role  and  that  of   Richard  McLellan’s             Questions  for  McLellan  would  involve   views  on  others  involved  in  the   political  process         5. The  impact  of  this  proposed  law  on   equity.                             4.  What  do  you  think  of  the  Michigan  Public   Education  Finance  Act  of  2013?  How  do  you   think  the  proposed  changes  will  affect   education  in  the  State  of  Michigan?     Walk  me  through  how  this  proposed  law   unfolded.  What  do  you  think  of  the  process   that  has  been  created  to  draft  the  law?     How  do  you  know  Richard  McClellan?  Have   you  worked  with  him  before?  Tell  me  about   that?    How  did  you  work  with  him  on  this   bill?  What  do  you  think  of  the  Richard   McLellan?           5.  How  does  this  proposed  law  impact   equity  in  schools?  How  would  you  define   equity?     6. What  do  you  see  as  the  role  of  the     federal  and  state  government  in   6.    In  your  work,  in  terms  of  educational   connection  to  education  in  the  State  of   policy,  have  you  ever  worked  with  the   Michigan?   federal  and  state  government?  If  so,  with   whom  and  how?   7. How  have  other  agencies,  interests,     and  branches  of  government   7.  Can  you  describe  the  role  of  other   (including  the  governor’s  office  and   organizations  that  come  to  influence  or   local  levels  of  government)  come  to   impact  your  work?  Who  are  they?   affect  what  occurs  at  the  state  level?       8. How  would  you  define  policy?  What  is     its  role  in  your  work?     a. Is  it  something  you  create?   8.  What  does  policy  mean  to  you  and  your   b. How  does  it  relate  to  rules?   work?  Describe  your  experiences  in  policy   c. Do  you  feel  that  you  impact  it,   making.   or  it  impacts  you?    64     This  method  and  these  guiding  questions  provided  a  useful  approach  that  led  to   more  pointed  questions  and  more  in-­‐depth  and  nuanced  responses.  The  questions  varied   depending  on  the  interview  subject.  This  interview  method  allowed  me  to  place  each   participant  in  their  proper  context.  I  then  ask  about  the  proposed  policy,  including  what   they  thought  of  it,  how  they  perceived  its  development,  and  how  they  saw  the  policy   creation  process.       After  the  semi-­‐structured  interviews  were  conducted,  as  with  the  document   analysis,  data  analysis  had  to  be  performed.  Data  analysis  “involves  organizing  what  you   have  seen,  heard,  and  read  so  that  you  can  figure  out  what  you  have  learned  and  make   sense  of  what  you  have  experienced”  (Glesne,  2011,  p.  184).  To  do  this,  I  adopted   explanation  building,  one  of  five  analytical  techniques  described  by  Yin  (2013).  Specifically,   explanation  building  is  a  particular  type  of  pattern  matching  with  the  goal  of  “building  an   explanation  about  the  case.”  This  can  be  especially  useful  in  reflecting  “critical  insights  into   public  policy  process  or  social  science  theory”  and  can  lead  to  “recommendations  for  future   policy  actions”  that  have  been  derived  from  the  chain  of  evidence  (Yin,  2013,  p.  120).   With  that  in  mind,  the  data  was  sorted  in  a  few  different  ways.  To  begin,  I  grouped   interviews  by  organizational  affiliation  (e.g.,  the  state  legislature,  lobbying  groups,  etc.).   The  information  was  then  placed  in  chronological  order  to  represent  the  temporal  scheme   of  the  policy  development  (Yin,  2013).  I  also  did  an  item  analysis  by  grouping  each   response  by  the  question  categories  or  six  themes  that  emerged.  Since  each  subject  was   asked  the  same  general  questions,  their  answers  either  converge  or  diverge  in  perspective   and  present  patterns  of  understanding.  I  was  able  to  compare  responses  by  question  and    65   relationships  using  an  inductive  approach,  keeping  the  research  questions  in  mind,  and   exploring  the  data  using  emergent  themes.     Not  dissimilar  to  the  document  analysis,  I  also  coded  the  responses  from  the   interviews.  The  codes  included  policy  creation  and  the  policy  cycle,  issues  of  power  and   authority,  interest  group  activity,  emergence  of  new  actors  in  the  policy  formation  process,   equity  and  the  distribution  of  resources,  and  ambiguity,  which  represent  the  major  themes   from  the  literature  review  and  the  major  elements  of  the  theoretical  frameworks.     In  addition,  I  used  other  conversational  techniques  that  go  beyond  just  the  spoken   word  to  capture  context.  This  included  “Always  try[ing]  to  identify  sequences  of  related   talk,”  “[trying]  to  examine  how  speakers  take  on  certain  roles  or  identities  through  their   talk,”  and  “[looking]  for  particular  outcomes  in  the  talk  (e.g.,  a  request  for  clarification,  a   repair,  laughter)  and  working  backward  to  trace  the  trajectory  through  which  a  particular   outcome  was  produced”  (Silverman,  2000,  p.  831).  I  wanted  to  know  who  was  involved  in   the  various  processes  of  policy  inception,  but  also  who  was  left  out,  and  how  people  shaped   or  did  not  get  to  shape  the  policy.       Limitations     The  limitations  of  this  study  are  related  to  research  design.  Given  that  this  data  is   from  political  officials  who  require  access  for  audiences,  there  are  a  limited  number  of   participants  who  contribute  to  the  data  from  which  inferences  are  drawn.  Also,  the   selection  of  such  political  or  appointed  officials  also  involves  connectivity  between  and   with  other  officials,  based  on  history  and  working  relationships.  For  example,  some   interviewees  recommended  other  candidates  for  interviews,  which  means  they  are  a  part    66   of,  or  at  least  connected  to,  the  same  social  network.  This  is  both  an  advantage  for  access   and  a  demonstration  of  connectivity,  but  it  also  can  affect  how  these  interviewees  interact   with  each  other  while  competing  to  fulfill  their  respective  agendas  in  the  policy  world.     A  more  social-­‐psychological  limitation  is  related  to  participant  agenda  and  legacy   setting.  As  De  Andrade  argued,  “Social  actors  read  and  manipulate  these  signifiers  [complex   meanings  that  are  produced  in  social  interactions  –  behaviors,  relationships,  rituals,  etc]  in   the  course  of  interaction  as  they  attempt  to  categorize  themselves  and  others  in  a  kind  of   social  negotiation”  (2000,  p.  272).  In  this  study,  all  of  those  who  were  interviewed  had  a   certain  modicum  of  political  ambition,  which  means  their  answers  are  related  to  a   particular  worldview  and  a  particular  agenda  despite  the  fact  that  their  responses  are   confidential.  This  can  yield  some  bias.     The  interviews  can  also  suffer  from  limitations  because  interviewees  may  not  know,   or  may  be  unwilling  to  share,  certain  types  of  information,  especially  if  certain  information   is  usually  privileged  among  the  few.  There  may  also  be  lapses  in  memory  because  some  of   these  events  have  occurred  over  a  period  of  time,  approximately  one-­‐and-­‐a-­‐half  to  two   years  ago.  All  of  the  participants  have  a  political  stake  in  constructing  a  particular  narrative   of  what  happened  in  the  formation  of  this  policy.  This  leads  us  back  to  the  importance  of   triangulation.  I  used  “multiple  sources  of  evidence  in  the  developing  of  converging  lines  of   inquiry”  (Yin,  2003,  p.  98).  In  this  case,  I  looked  for  details  that  all  interviews  and   documents  had  in  relative  commonness.         However,  in  trying  to  establish  triangulation,  document  analysis  also  has  some   limitations.  One  that  both  Bowen  (2009)  and  Yin  (2013)  described  is  called  biased   selectivity.  As  Bowen  stated,  “In  an  organizational  context,  the  available  (selected)    67   documents  are  likely  to  be  aligned  with  corporate  policies  and  procedures  and  with  the   agenda  of  the  organization’s  principles”  (2009,  p.  32).  In  this  case,  many  of  the  documents   around  PEFA  were  produced  by  the  Oxford  Foundation  under  the  direction  of  McLellan.   This  means  that  these  documents  can  reflect  an  attempt  by  the  organization  to  control  the   narrative  of  events.  To  overcome  this,  I  used  documents  from  multiple  sources  to  construct   the  sequence  of  PEFA’s  policy  formation.  Related  to  the  idea  of  biased  selectivity  is  also  the   idea  of  imprecision  (Bowen,  2009).  These  documents  were  not  produced  for  the  explicit   purpose  of  being  used  for  research.  Their  construction  had  other  purposes.       What  Follows     Using  the  policy  cycle  coupled  with  critical  and  interest  group  theories,  and  the   methods  of  document  analysis  and  semi-­‐structured  interviews,  what  follows  is  an  in-­‐depth   look  at  who  shapes  policy  and  how  by  looking  at  the  specific  case  of  PEFA.  Chapters  Five   and  Six  examine  the  formation  of  PEFA.  Five  begins  with  the  analysis  of  where  the  ideas  for   PEFA  came  from,  formation  of  the  PEFA  team,  and  drafting  of  the  documents  and   legislation  surrounding  it.    Chapter  Six  looks  at  the  public  debate  and  formation  of  interest   groups  both  for  and  against  the  policy,  ending  with  its  introduction  into  the  legislature.   Chapter  Seven  looks  at  how  policy  dies  and  conclusions  that  can  be  draw  about  the  policy   cycle  in  the  wake  of  an  age  of  accountability  with  its  corresponding  new  policy  actors  that   have  come  into  the  policy  arena.                  68   Chapter  Five:  Entering  the  Lion’s  Den,  or  Let  There  Be  Policy       While  in  my  office  late  on  a  Friday  afternoon,  I  received  a  phone  call  from  Richard   McLellan,  inviting  me  to  his  office  to  discuss  the  Public  Education  Finance  Act  (PEFA).  He   said  that  he  was  willing  to  answer  all  my  questions,  and  he  too  was  fascinated  by  policy  and   always  had  been.  So,  that  following  week,  I  went  to  his  law  office  in  Lansing.  This  building,   appropriately  named  the  Capitol  View  Building,  is  located  adjacent  to  Michigan’s  state   capitol  building.  As  I  entered  the  building,  Fox  News  was  playing  in  the  lobby,  and  I   approached  the  bank  of  elevators.  McLellan  was  on  the  9th  floor;  I  took  the  elevator  to  the   top  of  the  building.     When  the  doors  opened,  I  had  expected  to  exit  into  a  hallway  and  make  my  way  to   the  appropriate  office  suite.  However,  this  was  not  the  case.  As  the  elevators  opened,  I  was   in  the  lobby  of  his  law  offices.  The  entire  floor  was  his.  The  offices  had  marble  floors  and   giant  windows  overlooking  the  city.  As  I  approached  the  secretary,  she  said,  “You  must  be   Mr.  Boggs.  Richard  has  been  expecting  you  –  I  will  let  him  know  you  have  arrived.”  After  a   brief  phone  call  with  McLellan,  the  secretary  showed  me  to  a  conference  room  with  a  large   table  and  plush  leather  chairs.  As  I  peered  outside  of  the  window,  it  became  apparent  that   his  suite  of  offices  looked  down  on  the  capital  from  above.    As  I  made  myself  comfortable,   McLellan  came  in  and  greeted  me  warmly;  he  introduced  me  to  his  factotum4,  and  we   began  the  interview.  It  was  like  being  in  the  modern  day  equivalent  of  the  Roman   Pantheon.                                                                                                                     4  This  is  the  term  McLellan  used  to  introduce  the  person  with  him,  which  stems  from  the   Latin  fac  totum,  meaning  to  “do  everything”  or  a  servant.  In  this  case,  the  young  man  was   an  undergrad  at  Michigan  State  University  who  would  be  attending  law  school  in  the  fall.      69     This  chapter  examines  the  creation  and  inception  of  the  ideas  of  PEFA.  By  examining   the  PEFA  documents  and  interview  data,  I  traced  where  the  ideas  for  PEFA  came  from,  and   I  tried  to  construct  whose  ideas  these  were  and  whose  voices  were  being  heard  in  the   making  of  this  policy.  To  this  end,  I  traced  the  policy  cycle  steps  that  actually  occurred  in   the  inception  of  PEFA,  looked  at  ideas  of  authority  –  a  concept  that  came  up  over  and  over   again  was  where  did  McLellan  get  the  power  to  do  this  –  and  grappled  with  notions  of  dark   money5  –  exactly  how  does  one  fund  such  a  venture?     Peering  Through  the  Looking  Glass  –  Where  Did  PEFA  Come  from?   In  trying  to  answer  the  question  of  where  PEFA  came  from,  I  am  reminded  of  the   words  of  the  King  in  Lewis  Carroll’s  Alice  in  Wonderland,  “Begin  at  the  beginning  and  go  on   till  you  come  to  the  end:  then  stop.”  However,  where  is  the  beginning?  Almost  everyone   that  I  interviewed,  and  most  media  sources,  pointed  to  the  Governor’s  April  27,  2011   Special  Messages  on  Education  as  the  triggering  event  (mechanism)  that  led  to  PEFA.  This   holds  with  Schultz’s  rational  theory  approach  and  policy  cycle,  that  there  is  a  triggering   event  that  causes  the  policy  cycle  to  engage.  Everything  then  stemmed  from  this  one   message,  which  essentially  outlined  the  course  of  action  that  needed  to  be  taken  to  address   the  educational  policy  problem  outlined  within.  Holding  to  this  rational  idea,  McLellan  and   others  continually  reference  it.  However,  this  was  not  the  beginning,  but  a  tool  to  launch  a   public  plan  that  was  already  discussed  and  underway.  It  was  the  perception  of  a  policy   trigger  –  not  the  response  to  a  real  need,  as  Kingdom  defines  a  policy  trigger  (1997).  The                                                                                                                   5  Dark  Money,  as  I  explain  later,  is  money  that  is  donated  to  non-­‐profit  organizations  and   then  donated  to  campaigns  or  used  to  finance  other  political  activities.  The  donors,  under   law,  are  not  required  to  be  disclosed  by  these  organizations;  therefore  their  money  is   hidden  or  dark.          70   real  start  of  PEFA  involved  private  entities  and  policy  elites  meeting  with  government   officials.     What  follows  is  a  look  first  at  the  governor’s  message  and  what  it  contained  with   regard  to  educational  policy.  I  then  explore  the  question  of  the  message’s  authorship.   Finally,  I  conclude  with  an  examination  of  where  the  governor’s  message  actually  started   and  how  it  was  designed  to  gain  traction  as  an  authentic,  rational  policy  trigger,  when  it   reality  it  was  the  product  of  policy  elites.       The  Governor’s  Message     On  April  27,  2011,  Governor  Rick  Snyder  released  a  special  message  on  education   reform  to  the  legislature  (Snyder,  2011).    The  message  was  thirteen  single-­‐spaced  pages   that  outlined  what  the  governor  hoped  would  be  the  new  direction  of  education  in  the  state   of  Michigan.  From  the  beginning  of  the  message,  the  governor  framed  this  in  terms  of  an   economic  imperative.  Specifically,  he  stated,  “One  of  Michigan’s  most  pressing   responsibilities  is  ensuring  that  students  are  prepared  to  enter  the  work  force  and  to  take   advantage  of  new  opportunities  as  our  economy  grows.  Michigan’s  future  is  absolutely   dependent  on  making  our  education  system  a  success  for  our  students,  our  teachers,  our   parents  and  our  economy”  (Snyder,  2011,  p.  1).  Holding  with  what  I  discussed  about  Mehta   (2013)  in  Chapter  One,  Snyder  aligned  the  purposes  of  education  with  that  of  economic   development,  and  by  doing  so  he  proposed  a  more  business-­‐oriented  and  capitalistic   approach  to  education.       Furthermore,  after  reading  the  Governor’s  Special  Message,  I  did  a  quick  qualitative   review  of  the  words  that  appeared  multiple  times.  Often  times  in  qualitative  methods,  one    71   systematic  way  to  gauge  the  importance  of  the  concepts  that  the  author  feels  are  important   is  to  see  how  many  times  they  appear  (Yin,  2003;  Miles  &  Huberman,  1994).  The  word   “economy”  appeared  eight  times  throughout  the  document,  and  of  those  occurrences  four   were  on  the  first  page.  Other  words  that  had  prevalence  in  constructing  the  governor’s   message,  ordered  by  number  of  use,  were  reform  (8),  choice  (7),  and  private  (6).  All  of   these  words  are  key  in  understanding  the  governor’s  planned  course  of  action.       After  setting  the  stage  that  education  serves  economic  development,  the  governor   continued  to  build  his  argument.  He  stated  that  to  accomplish  economic  growth,   “Michigan’s  education  system  must  be  reshaped  so  that  all  students  learn  at  high  levels  and   are  fully  prepared  to  enter  the  work  force  or  attend  college”  (Snyder,  2011,  p.  1).    He  then   turned  to  the  current  educational  system  and  commended  the  State  Board  of  Education  and   the  Michigan  Department  of  Education  for  their  work  establishing  rigorous  standards  and   beibg  innovative.  However,  he  concluded  that  this  has  not  been  enough.  He  stated,  “Results   are  promising  …  But  to  compete  on  a  world-­‐wide  scale,  our  education  system  must  evolve   from  one  that  served  us  well  in  the  past  to  one  that  embraces  the  challenge  and   opportunities  of  the  new  century  …  Michigan’s  education  system  is  not  giving  our   taxpayers,  our  teachers,  or  our  students  the  return  on  the  investment  we  deserve”  (Snyder,   2011,  p.  1).  Snyder  then  went  on  to  cite  statistics  on  Michigan’s  current  educational   performance,  in  particular  that  “238  Michigan  high  schools  have  zero  college-­‐ready   students  in  all  subjects  based  on  the  spring  ACT  test”  (Snyder,  2011,  p.  2).  Again,  we  can   hear  the  voice  of  business,  the  sector  from  which  the  governor  comes,  echoed  in  this   approach  to  education  reform.      72     After  the  governor  rhetorically  set  the  stage,  he  discussed  four  broad  themes  –  Early   Childhood  Development,  Performance-­‐Based  Systems  of  Schools,  an  “Any  Time,  Any  Place,   Any  Way,  Any  Pace”  Program,  and  Performance-­‐Based  Teaching.  The  first  theme  was  Early   Childhood  Development.  Snyder  took  the  position  that  “optimal  learning  and  quality   achievement  in  school  actually  begins  at  conception”  (Snyder,  2011,  p.  2).  From  here  he   explained  what  he  referred  to  as  the  “readiness  gap”  that  is  present  by  the  time  a  child   reaches  school  age  and  persists  throughout  their  academic  career.  He  concluded  two   things.  First,  that  “the  result  for  Michigan  …  [is]  a  lack  of  competitiveness  in  the  global   marketplace  and  a  significant  portion  of  the  population  without  hope  for  a  prosperous   future”  (Snyder,  2011,  p.  2).  Second,  “Michigan’s  approach  to  investing  in  school  readiness   and  early  elementary  success  is  not  values-­‐based  or  founded  on  sound  scientific  or   economic  evidence”  (Snyder,  2011,  p.  2).  It  is  important  to  note  that  he  did  not  mention   educational  research,  but  science  and  economics.  This  tells  me  that  he  does  not  put  much   value  in  educational  research.  Building  on  his,  he  argued  for  blending  government  and   private  venture  capital  –  a  concept  very  important  to  this  study.  He  argued,  “Michigan   government,  business  and  foundation  leaders  agreed  several  years  ago  on  the  need  for   early  childhood  investment  and  the  necessity  of  a  new  approach  in  order  to  close  the   readiness  gap  …  neither  government  alone,  nor  the  private  sector  acting  unilaterally,  is  able   to  change  the  trajectory  of  school  readiness  …  a  bridge  is  needed  to  connect  the  sectors”   (Snyder,  2011,  p.  3).  To  remedy  this,  he  planned  to  bring  coherence  to  the  84  separate   funding  systems  at  work  in  early  childhood  education  under  one  branch  –  the  Early   Childhood  Investment  Corporation,  and  to  use  this  theme  as  a  focus  for  investment  in   education,  including  investment  from  private  and  nonprofit  sectors.      73   The  second  theme  was  Performance  Based  Systems  of  Schools.  At  first  glance,  this   title  is  deceiving,  because  I  thought  the  governor  was  going  to  discuss  tying  student   performance  to  teacher  pay,  but  that  is  another  theme.  This  is  completely  different  –  it  is   about  the  performance  of  the  school  in  totality.  Snyder  argued  that  we  need  “innovation   and  educational  entrepreneurship  …  The  core  of  a  performance-­‐based  education  system   must  be  a  statewide  funding  model  based  upon  student  proficiency  and  academic  growth  …   dedicated  to  student  outcomes”  (Snyder,  2011,  p.  4).  However,  to  do  this  requires  changing   the  funding  model  of  education,  including  moving  away  from  “count  days.”  As  he  stated,   “The  state  sends  a  full  foundation  allowance  to  school  districts  based  entirely  on   attendance  figures  take  twice  a  year.  These  ‘count  days’  have  become  synonymous  with   pizza  parties  and  prize  offers  as  schools  are  compelled  to  get  high  attendance  counts  to   maximize  their  funding  …  instead  …  funding  should  also  be  based  upon  academic  growth,   and  not  just  whether  a  student  enrolls  and  sits  at  a  desk”  (Snyder,  2011,  p.  4).    To   accomplish  this  policy  change,  he  outlined  the  charge  that  PEFA  would  later  embody.  He   stated,  “I  propose  that  a  portion  of  state  school  aid  be  tied  to  the  academic  achievement  of  a   school  district  for  2013  and  beyond.  This  funding  model  will  increase  academic  growth  and   the  college  and  career  readiness  of  our  students  by  allocating  scarce  resources  to  districts   that  make  the  biggest  gains”  (Snyder,  2011,  p.  4).  The  governor  also  proposed  a  bonus  for   those  districts  that  do  this  well  in  math  and  reading.     In  addition,  to  promote  competition  in  a  market-­‐based  education  system,  the   governor  wanted  to  see  more  charter  schools.  He  felt  that  all  caps  and  limitations  should  be   removed  from  such  schools.  Specifically,  he  proposed  “that  any  caps  limiting  the  number  of   charter  schools  in  districts  with  at  least  one  academically  failing  school  be  removed.  This    74   will  allow  for  more  charters  in  areas  where  additional  education  options  are  needed  the   most”  (Snyder,  2011,  p.  5).  It  would  also  greatly  change  the  dynamics  of  that  district  by   changing  district  populations  because  students  could  go  to  other  schools  that  are  formed.     Following  this  idea,  the  governor  also  proposed  that  ISDs  should  be  able  to  bid  on  school   district  services,  and  that  school  districts  should  be  able  to  bid  on  providing  county  level   services  with  the  contract  going  to  the  most  cost  effective  and  efficient  goes  the  work.     The  governor,  then,  in  the  middle  of  this  section  asserted  his  plan  for  accountability.   Specifically,  he  argued  that  we  “need  a  system  that  holds  every  teacher  and  school   administrator  at  the  state,  intermediate  and  local  level  accountable  for  student  gains  in  the   classroom,  while  also  empowering  them  to  get  there  with  the  autonomy,  student  data,   instructional  tools  and  meaningful  support  they  require”  (Snyder,  2011,  p.  6).  To  that  end,   the  governor  proposed  a  solution,  which  is  the  predictable  rhetorical  style  of  the  speech   (writing  a  claim  and  then  a  justified  solution).  To  reach  this  goal,  the  governor  stated,  “The   time  has  come  to  stop  the  benign  acceptance  of  non-­‐performance  in  these  districts.  Soon,  I   will  be  applying  the  new  Emergency  Manager  legislation  for  those  districts  that  continue  to   fail  financially  and  academically  and  take  no  steps  to  eliminate  the  drain  on  community   financial  resources  and  student  academic  achievement.  This  will  include  the  announcement   of  a  new  Emergency  manager  for  Detroit  Public  Schools  shortly”  (Snyder,  2011,  p.  6).   Interestingly,  the  governor  always  stated  financial  issues  before  academic  issues  in  his   rhetorical  presentation.  This  theme  later  became  part  of  the  Emergency  Achievement   Authority  (EAA)  and  came  to  have  great  meaning  for  the  PEFA  legislation.       The  third  theme  is  an  “Any  Time,  Any  Place,  Any  Way,  Any  Pace”  Program,  and  the   governor  again  circled  back  around  to  the  idea  of  choice  in  education.  The  governor    75   referred  to  this  as  the  state’s  new  learning  model,  and  that  “funding  needs  to  follow  the   student”  (Snyder,  2011,  p.  7).  The  result  of  this  freedom  “will  facilitate  dual  enrollment,   blended  learning,  on-­‐line  education  and  early  college  attendance.  Education  opportunities   should  be  available  24  hours  a  day,  365  days  a  year  …  and  will  foster  more  fee  market  ideas   for  public  education”  (Snyder,  2011,  p.  7).    No  longer  would  a  district  be  allowed  to  opt-­‐out   of  school  of  choice  or  control  the  student  foundation  allowance.  He  argued,  “We  must   minimize  all  state  and  local  barriers  that  hinder  innovation  at  the  local  level,  including  seat   time  regulations,  length  of  school  year,  length  of  school  day  and  week,  and  the  traditional   configurations  of  classrooms  and  instruction”  (Snyder,  2011,  p.  7).    To  that  end,  Snyder   stated,  “Access  to  quality  education  is  no  longer  dependent  on  local  classrooms  and   textbooks  …  a  new  global  market  has  emerged  …  realizing  the  power  and  effectiveness  of   online  learning”  (Snyder,  2011,  p.  7).    To  help  leverage  online  learning,  the  governor   proposed  that  “every  child  in  Michigan  who  needs  or  wants  up  to  two  hours  of  daily  online   education  must  receive  it”  (Snyder,  2011,  p.  8),  and  that  the  online  provider  should  be   properly  compensated.     Finally,  he  discussed  Performance  Based  Teaching.  He  outlined  the  argument  that   we  expect  a  lot  out  of  our  teachers,  but  then  went  on  to  say  that  we  should.  The  governor   then  went  on  to  quote  Bill  Gates,  that  “Of  all  the  variables  under  a  school’s  control,  the   single  most  decisive  factor  in  student  achievement  is  excellent  teaching”  (Snyder,  2011,  p.   9).  To  accomplish  this,  he  outlined  several  steps  that  he  planned  to  take.  The  first  was  to   change  teacher  preparation  programs  at  universities  to  focus  more  on  how  to  teach   standards,  and  to  have  the  State  Board  of  Education  increase  certification  requirements.   Included  in  these  changes  were  assessments  of  teaching  performance,  in  order  that    76   “training  focuses  on  the  core  professional  skills  and  knowledge  …  so  that  no  one  is  allowed   to  ‘practice’  on  your  people  without  demonstrating  sufficient  proficiency  with  the  highly   skilled  work  needed  for  teaching”  (Snyder,  2011,  p.  10).   Adding  to  this,  Snyder  made  a  bridge  between  those  entering  into  the  field  and   those  already  there.  He  argued  that  teachers  do  not  need  a  continuing  education   requirement,  but  teacher  skill-­‐building.  Also,  time  in  the  profession  and  degree  attainment   should  not  determine  who  teaches  what,  where,  and  when,  nor  should  it  influence  teacher   pay.  Building  on  his  argument  of  why  we  should  change  teacher  policies,  he  indicated  how   they  should  be  changed,  and  finally,  how  to  do  it.  Specifically,  the  governor  wanted  to   change  the  tenure  law  to  include  “effective  teaching  ability,  instead  of  the  current  system   that  relies  only  on  number  of  years  teaching,”  annual  evaluations  with  “multiple  measures,   but  must  include  in  its  determination  of  effectiveness  at  least  40%  based  on  student   achievement,”  a  probationary  period  for  ineffective  teachers,  and  readjusting  the  tenure   appeals  process  so  that  ineffective  teachers  could  “be  dismissed  in  a  more  timely  and  cost-­‐ effective  way”  (Snyder,  2011,  p.  11).  He  concluded  by  stating  that  “effectiveness  in  teaching   should  trump  seniority  in  layoff  and  placement”  (Snyder,  2011,  p.  11).   The  governor  concluded  with  a  quote  from  H.G.  Wells,  saying  “Civilization  is  a  race   between  education  and  catastrophe”  (Snyder,  2011,  p.  12).  To  win  this  race,  we  need  to   “reward  performance  rather  than  attendance,  and  outcomes  rather  than  process  …  taking   hold  of  exciting  options  ranging  from  partnerships  to  innovative  technology”  (Snyder,   2011,  p.  13).  By  the  conclusion  of  his  own  mini-­‐version  of  A  Nation  at  Risk  (I  would  call  it  A   Michigan  at  Risk),  he  returned  to  his  main  points  of  performance  systems,  technology,  and    77   partnerships.  The  partnerships  referred  directly  to  his  view  on  involving  private  interests   in  government  in  a  blended  model,  which,  as  I  demonstrate,  is  where  PEFA  came  from.     Who  Wrote  the  Message?     Now  that  I  have  provided  an  overview  of  the  governor’s  message  that  supposedly   PEFA  is  responding  to,  it  is  important  to  consider  who  actually  wrote  it.  This  will  give  us   insights  into  the  various  policy  actors  who  were  involved.  While  the  message  came  from   the  governor,  most  high-­‐ranking  elected  officials  have  their  own  speechwriters,  and   Governor  Snyder  is  no  different.  This  message  was  a  coordinated  effort  of  many  different   people  and  levels  of  government.  However,  who  actually  came  up  with  content  of  the   message  is  a  matter  of  some  ambiguity.     Many  interviewees  speculated  McLellan  had  something  to  do  with  the  governor’s   message,  but  not  even  McLellan  was  part  of  writing  the  governor’s  Special  Message  on   Education.  Part  of  the  reason  is  because  he  was  not  in  favor  with  Snyder.  During  Snyder’s   bid  for  governor  in  2010,  McLellan  supported  Mike  Cox,  who  was  the  state’s  attorney   general.  As  McLellan  told  it,  Snyder  came  and  met  with  him  for  about  an  hour  before  he   even  announced  that  he  was  going  to  run  for  governor,  and  McLellan  “gave  him  an  early   report  of  what  we  called  our  next  governor  project  …  this  project  talked  about  what  the   next  governor  should  look  at,  policy  wise.  Whoever  wins.    And  so  I  thought  it’d  be  useful  to   Snyder.”  However,  McLellan  learned  that  “Snyder  had  already  made  up  his  mind  [about   policy  issues  to  explore]  …    he  doesn’t  listen  …  he  pretty  much  knows  what  he  wants  to  do.”     McLellan  continued,  “So  I  supported  Cox  and  said  something  on  Off  the  Record  that  Snyder   didn’t  like  and  so  he  wouldn’t  talk  to  me.”  McLellan  stated,  “And  I  never,  I  never  talked  to    78   him  except  once  at  a  fund  raiser  and  that  was  very  awkward.  So  in  April  of  2011,  the   governor  issued  his  education  message  which  I  had  nothing  to  do  with  …  I  read  the  Free   Press  story.”     I  continued  to  explore  this  question  of  who  crafted  the  message,  and  I  asked  all  of   the  interviewees  where  the  ideas  in  the  message  actually  came  from;  I  got  varying  and   interesting  responses.  Dorian  Gray,  the  long-­‐time  member  of  the  State  Board  of  Education,   was  deeply  troubled  by  the  whole  message.  She  continued,  “Well,  you  know,  we  were  told,   we  read  the  same  message  that  the  governor  presented  …  we  were  invited  when  the   governor  presented  his  education  message.  He  did  it  in  Detroit  and  we  were  not  involved  in   the  development.”  However,  she  did  feel  that  ALEC  (American  Legislative  Exchange   Council)  was  probably  involved,  but  could  not  provide  any  details  on  why  she  believed  this.   ALEC’s  membership  is  comprised  mostly  of  conservative  state  legislators,  non-­‐profits,   think-­‐tanks,  and  business  representatives.  They  work,  according  to  their  website,  to   “advance  the  fundamental  principles  of  free-­‐market  enterprise,  limited  government,  and   federalism  at  the  state  level,  through  a  nonpartisan  public-­‐private  partnership  of  America’s   state  legislatures,  members  of  the  private  sector,  and  the  general  public.”    Gray  continued,   “I  mean,  he  may  have  talked  to  Mike  Flanagan  [the  State  Superintendent  of  Public   Education],  but  he  certainly  didn’t  talk  to  the  board.  And  the  next  thing  we  knew,  we  were   invited  to  hear  his  education  message.  “  She  continued  by  saying  that  this  was  the  first  time   she  heard  about  “anytime,  anywhere,  any  place,  any  pase  line,  which  we  didn’t  pay  enough   attention  to,”  an  idea  that  she  felt  was  destructive  to  education  and  the  main  reason  PEFA   had  to  be  stopped.      79   However,  Dick  Diver,  the  President  of  the  State  Board  of  Education  at  the  time,  had  a   different  view.  He  began  to  answer  this  question  by  saying  that  under  the  constitution,  the   State  Board  can  make  recommendations  about  what  it  takes  to  finance  education,  and  they   try  to  do  so.  This  was  a  completely  different  answer  than  the  previous  board  member,  who   was  so  against  the  education  message,  which  illustrated  that  Diver  knew  more.  He   continued,  “When  Governor  Snyder  was  elected,  who  I  know,  and  Bill  Rustem  is  a  policy   guy,  I  think  I  introduced  the  governor  and  Bill  together  when  the  governor  first  thought  of   running,  he  wanted  an  education  special  message  which  kind  of  lays  out  our  hopes  for   education  change,  reform,  etc.”  Not  only  did  Diver  know  the  Republican  Governor  and  his   advisor,  this  top  ranking  Democrat  helped  draft  ideas  in  the  Governor’s  message.  He  argued   that  “we  as  a  board  made  recommendations  in  advance  of  the  governor’s  first  budget,  and   certainly  well  in  advance  of  the  recommendations  that  were  made  later  in  his  education   special  message.  In  fact,  I  worked  both  privately  and  shared  my  own  and  the  board’s   recommendations  with  Rustem  and  the  governor’s  office  and  many  of  those   recommendations  certainly  were  consistent  with  and  made  their  way  into  the  special   message  on  education.”  He  cited  the  ideas  of  tenure  reform,  and  particularly  early   childhood  education,  as  being  changes  that  both  he  and  the  board  wanted  to  see  happen.  In   particular,  he  stated,  “The  framework,  and  the  teacher  quality,  teacher  improvement   section  was  basically  lifted  from  the  recommendations  the  board  had  been  trying  to   advance  and  the  governor  reinforced,  at  least  rhetorically,  in  that  first  special  message.”     However,  when  we  discussed  Any  Time,  Any  Place,  Any  Way,  Any  Pace,  the   conversation  took  a  different  turn.  He  began  by  saying  that  “it’s  all  context  for  what   happened  since  …  The  any  time,  any  way,  any  place  articulation,  we  had  made    80   recommendations  and  we’d  been  promoting  enhanced  dual  enrollment  and,  you  know,   acceleration  to  post-­‐secondary,  early  college  credit  taking  always  and  ever  since  the  Cherry   Commission  way  back  when  I  was  the  policy  director  for  then  Governor  Granholm.  ”  He   continued,  “Our  sense  of  what  any  time,  any  way,  any  place  were  largely  around  how  do  we   help  create  flexibility  incentives  to  encourage  more  acceleration  of  both  at  risk  through   middle  colleges,  all  these  things,  average  students  and  high  fliers  benefit  by  early  college   credit  taking  in  all  forms.”  However,  when  it  went  to  the  governor,  Diver  felt  Any  Time,  Any   Way,  Any  Place,  Any  Pace  became  something  entirely  different  –  it  became  about  online   learning.    Diver  stated,  “I  probably,  I  didn’t  at  that  moment  appreciate  that  there  was  this   much  more  robust  agenda  that  the  backers  of  virtual  schools  and  online  only  education   were  making  to  basically  help  encourage  states  to  change  their  laws  to  facilitate  much  more   online-­‐only  education  and  virtual  learning.”  He  felt  that  this  change  from  what  the  Board  of   Education  recommended  occurred  because  “behind  some  of  the  Republican  leadership  was   lurking  this  desire  to  expand  Michigan’s  virtual  learning  nexus,  and  the  companies  that   could  do  that  pretty  profoundly  as  they  were  seeking  legislation  in  other  states.”  The  board   wanted  to  limit  online  enrollment,  but  “but  ultimately  that’s  been  a  big  piece  of  the   expanded  interest  of  the  creative  marketplace  for  schools.”     Despite  all  of  this,  Diver  argued  that  the  Board  of  Education  believed  “We  are  long   overdue  in  Michigan  for  a  re-­‐examination  of  how  we  finance  education  …  we  need  to  do  the   more  comprehensive  study  of  how  we  organize  our  schools,  how  are  we  delivering   education  given  the  changes  in  modalities  and  things  like  self-­‐pacing  and  use  of  blended   instruction  and  new,  new  models  of  delivery,  including  middle  colleges  and  early  colleges.”   This  indicates  that  Diver  had  a  lot  to  do  with  the  content  of  the  governor’s  message  and    81   agreed  with  it.  However,  “the  governor’s  office  then  announced  that  Richard  McLellan  was   going  to  lead  this  Oxford  Foundation  project  that  would  look  at  ways  to  implement  some  of   the  elements  of  the  governor’s  special  message.”  Once  this  was  announced,  despite  Diver’s   contributions,  he  was  no  longer  part  of  the  process  and  became  one  of  PEFA’s  (considered   to  be  the  operationalization  of  the  governor’s  message)  ardent  enemies.  It  makes  me   wonder,  did  he  not  like  the  interpretation  of  the  ideas  he  articulated,  or  did  he  just  feel   slighted  by  not  being  asked  to  lead  the  charge?     Caroline  Compson,  former  MDE  employee  and  now  government  relations  director,   was  also  deeply  concerned  about  the  origins  of  the  message,  even  though  Diver  pointed   that  some  of  the  content  came  from  MDE.  She  stated,  “Well,  I  was  at  the  department  when  it   all  first  started  so  it  was,  I  knew  about  it  from  sort  of  the  inside,  in  the  sense  that  …    we   heard  Snyder  has  some  people,  I  didn’t  know  who  at  the  time,  but  that  are  going  to  look  at   the  school  aid  act  …  it  was  actually  even  before  he  was  in  office.”  During  the  beginning  of   Snyder’s  term  in  early  2011,  State  Superintendent  Flanagan  met  with  him  and  “came  back   and  said  he’s  really  interested  in  this  idea  about  flexibility  and  more  proficiency  based  and   what  will  it  take  to  get  us  to  a  point  where  we  can  be  more  proficiency  based,  so  that  we   can  really  get  more  student  focused  …  how  do  we  make  it  a  more  student  centered  system.”   As  the  interest  in  changing  Michigan’s  education  system  unfolded,  Compson  thought   “he  was  going  to  bring  some  people  in  and  I,  you  know,  I  just  kind  of  assumed  it  would  be   his  staff  or  whatever.  I  wasn’t  familiar  enough  with  how  things  work  in  the  governor’s   office,  any  governor’s  office,  to  know  whether  they  hire  that  stuff  out.  I  mean,  so  I  just   assumed  it  was  always  in  house.”  However,  she  soon  learned  that  that  would  not  be  the   case.  Compson  said  she  knew  full  well  where  the  “any  time”  mantra  came  from,  because    82   she  helped  write  it.  In  particular,  she  stated,  “The  first  State  of  the  State  was  when  he  talked   about  any  time,  any  place,  any  way,  any  pace,  which  actually  was  a  line  that  we  came  up   with  when  we  were  helping  write  it  over  at  the  Department.  And  in  our  mind,  when  we   helped  write  this  speech,  the  education  piece  where  we  gave  input,  it  was  about  getting  to   the  point  where  kids  could  go  all  year,  we  could  have  different  schedulings.”  However,  that   is  not  what  it  became.  Compson  stated,  “It  was  never  this  idea  of  a  kid  would  pick  and   choose.  It  wasn’t  about  a  kid  being  able  to  say  I  want  to  select  this  class  from  this  school   and  this.  It  was  more  about  how  do  you  get  a  kid  so  that  the  school  isn’t  giving  them  sort  of   a  set,  preset  everything,  that  presumes  that  they’re  gonna  be  functioning  at  8  a.m.  when   some  kids  maybe  do  later.  Or,  and  even  more  than  that,  how  do  we  get  to  the  point  where   we  can  acknowledge  that  some  kids  might  take  two  years  to  finish  a  topic  and  some  might   take  six  months.  …  And  we  were  trying  to  be  creative,  how  can  we,  how  can  we  take  away   the  disincentive  for  helping  a  kid  get  done  early,  the  financial  disincentive,  and  also  balance   that  some  kids  are  gonna  take  longer?  That  was  in  our  mind,  the  any  time,  any  place,  any   way,  any  pace,  sort  of  getting  at  that  idea  of,  and  so  it  drives  me  crazy  to  no  end,  every  time   Richard  McLellan  says,  well,  what  the  governor  meant  by  that.”   Compson  summarized  that  they  did  not  write  the  whole  message,  but  sections  of  it   when  she  was  still  working  at  MDE.  She  stated  “Just  parts  of  it,  we  added  in  and  then,  of   course,  we  say  this  is  what  we’re  thinking  and  here’s  how  we  would  word  it  and  the   communications  people—Marty  Ackley  [head  of  Office  of  Public  and  Governmental  Affairs   at  MDE]  and  those  guys—you  know,  do  a  bunch  of  it  and  they  send  it  over  and  the   governor’s  people  take  it  and  go  well,  he  wouldn’t  say  it  this  way  because  of  how  he  speaks    83   …  getting  a  certain  tone  and  you  know,  some  people  would  never  say  thou  and  some  would   use  the  words,  would  be  flowery,  you  know.”   As  time  marched  on,  Compson  just  kind  of  forgot  about  the  work  she  did  on  the   governor’s  message,  and  there  was  not  any  movement  for  a  prolonged  period  of  time.  Then,   “a  draft  appeared.    A  very  thick  act.    And  so  we  started  going  through  it  and  I  remember   going  to  Mike  [Flanagan]  and  going,  this  is  shit.  This,  you’re  going  flip  out  when  you  hear  all   this  stuff  that’s  in  this.  I  mean,  this  is  crazy  stuff.”  In  particular,  she  stated  it  was  just  “like   vouchers  and  there’s  no  accountability  and,  and  so  a  kid  can  say  I  absolutely  want  to  take   this  course  and  the  school  can’t  say  no  but  the  school  will  be  penalized  if  the  child  does   poorly.”  However,  Flanagan  could  not  really  object  because  his  office  helped  write  these   concepts,  and  further,  “Flanagan  is  smart  enough  to  know  …  In  his  position  as  a  director  of   a  department  that  while  he’s  autonomous  under  the  state  board,  his  budget  is  still  under   the  governor  and  so…  if  I  piss  him  off  so  much,  they’re  going  to  come  in  and  say  you  have   three  staff  from  now  on  and  we’ve  moved  every  one  of  your  programs  over  here,  which  is   what  Engler  did  many  moons  ago.”     Considering  what  the  interviewees  articulated,  it  is  clear  that  the  creation  of  the   Governor’s  Special  Message  on  Education  was  a  very  complex  process  that  involved   multiple  actors.  McLellan  arguably  was  not  part  of  this  process,  but  many  of  those  who   came  to  really  oppose  the  PEFA  legislation  were  drafters  of  the  ideas  that  would  become   PEFA.  Included  are  Dick  Diver,  president  of  the  State  Board  of  Education,  who  worked  with   Flanagan  and  members  of  MDE’s  Office  of  Public  and  Governmental  Affairs  (including   Compson)  to  draft  these  ideas  before  sending  them  over  to  the  governor’s  office.  The   governor’s  office  did  adjust  the  language  within  the  message  to,  as  the  interviewee  argued,    84   match  the  governor’s  language.  However,  those  ideas  were  not  changed  enough  in  the   special  message  to  offend  those  who  helped  create  it.  Based  on  the  evidence,  many  of  the   ideas,  including  the  phrase  Any  Time,  Any  Place,  Any  Way,  Any  Pace,  were  lifted  from  the   work  of  MDE  and  were  included  directly  into  the  governor’s  message.  However,  once  these   ideas  were  turned  over  to  McLellan  and  began  the  process  of  operationalization,  the   participants  who  helped  create  the  ideas  abandoned  them,  and  some  of  them  aggressively   fought  to  defeat  them.         Where  PEFA  and  the  Governor’s  Message  Really  Started,  and  Why  It  Was  Proposed   Up  to  this  point,  I  have  explained  the  elements  of  the  governor’s  message  and  who   helped  to  create  the  content  and  intellectual  designs  of  the  message.  However,  why  was   this  message  required  anyways?  The  short  answer  is  that  it  was  designed  to  be  used  as  a   policy  trigger.  The  more  I  thought  about  the  message  and  the  number  of  times  it  kept  being   referenced  by  all  parties  involved  in  PEFA,  I  began  to  wonder  why.     Mariah  Heep,  who  worked  for  McLellan  doing  writing  and  communications,  was   able  to  shed  light  on  this.  When  I  asked  her  who  wrote  the  governor’s  message,  she  stated   “I  don’t  know  who  wrote  the  governor’s  message.  I  would  love  to  know  who  wrote  the   governor’s  message  because  …  it  was  supposed  to  be  this  big  thing.  It  was  supposed  to  be   his  agenda  …    it  was  supposed  to  be  the  centerpiece.”  In  other  words,  this  was  supposed  to   be  the  rational  policy  trigger  that  outlined  the  problem  and  then  propelled  actors  forward   to  act  (Schultz,  2005  and  Kingdon,  1997).  However,  that  is  not  how  Heep  felt  about  it.   Instead,  she  stated  “that  actually  was  the  thing  that  I  found  very  frustrating  about  working   on  the  PEFA  report  …  Richard  really  felt  like  his  job  was  to  operationalize  the  governor’s    85   message  in  many  respects.”  This  meant  that  the  message  was  the  center  of  everything.   Heep  continued,  “So  when  I  asked  about  putting  in  research  about  what  he  [McLellan]  was   doing  and  the  basis  for  what  he  was  doing,  he  was  using  the  governor’s  message  as  his   research  basis  and  that  was  what  I  found  really  alarming.”  Before  Heep’s  involvement,  no   educational  research  was  included  or  referenced  in  the  drafting  of  PEFA  or  the   accompanying  report.  In  point  of  fact,  the  first  version  of  the  report,  according  to  Heep,   “was  repetitive,  it  was  basically  the  governor’s  stuff  over  and  over  and  over  again  and  I   remember  writing  in  my  memo  to  Richard  that  the  governor  knows  what  he  said.  He   doesn’t  need  you,  like  repeating  it  back  to  him  and  Richard’s  like  no,  no,  no,  no,  no.”  Heep   concluded  that  the  governor’s  message  did  not  get  the  play  he  hoped  that  it  would.  Again,   there  is  this  idea  that  this  message  was  supposed  to  be  the  epicenter  of  this  policy  work   and  the  rational  guidance  and  trigger  for  how  the  school  reform  changes  were  all  going  to   unfold.       In  most  conversations,  McLellan  also  led  with  the  idea  of  the  Governor’s  special   message  on  education.  The  rational  and  legal  standing  for  this  message  is  best  stated  in  the   PEFA  Report.  The  report  stated,  “Art.  V,  §  17  of  the  Michigan  Constitution  provides  that  ‘the   governor  shall  communicate  by  message  to  the  legislature  at  the  beginning  of  each  session   and  may  at  other  times  present  to  the  legislature  information  as  to  the  affairs  of  the  state   and  recommend  measures  he  considers  necessary  or  desirable’”  (McLellan  et  al.,  2013,  p.   7).  This  is  essentially  a  public  tool  and  vehicle  for  the  governor  to  send  out  his  public   message  of  what  he  wants  to  see  happen  to  the  entire  state.  The  report  continues,  “This   report  is  based  on  the  Governor’s  2011  Educational  Message  to  the  Legislature  and  is    86   intended  to  make  recommendations  for  the  implementation  of  measures  the  Governor   ‘considers  necessary  or  desirable’  to  enhance  public  education”  (McLellan  et  al.,  2013,  p.  7).     However,  much  of  this  reminds  me  of  the  lines  of  Queen  Gertrude  from  Hamlet,  “The   lady  doth  protest  too  much,  methinks.”  There  is  always  this  focus  and  push  towards  this   message,  which  is  what  McLellan  and  the  governor  want,  but  that  is  not  the  real  trigger  to   this  policy.  Instead,  this  message  is  just  a  tool.  The  really  policy  trigger  (what  caused  the   policy  formation  to  begin)  actually  occurred  with  a  private  entrepreneur.  When  I  asked   McLellan  about  the  governor’s  message,  he  insisted  that  he  did  not  help  write  it,  which  I   believe  to  be  the  truth.  He  also  stated  that  the  governor’s  office  made  a  public   announcement  about  reforming  the  school  aid  act  being  his  project.  However,  given  what   he  had  said  about  not  being  in  Governor  Snyder’s  good  graces  because  McLellan  supported   a  different  Republican  for  governor,  I  pressed  further  to  inquire  where  it  all  began.   McLellan  then  stated  that  his  discussions  with  the  governor’s  office  about  this  project   began  before  the  announcement  of  the  governor’s  message  –  about  a  month  or  so  before   the  release  of  the  governor’s  message  in  April.     McLellan  began,  “It  looked  like  the  Detroit  schools  were  going  to  run  out  of  money,   sort  of  like  Buena  Vista  is.    And  so  a  number  of  people  had  put  together  a  proposal  during   the  transition  to  change  Detroit  from  a  school  system  to  a  system  of  schools  –  to   maximizing  choice.”  However,  just  the  plight  of  the  Detroit  Public  Schools  was  not  enough   to  spear  the  creation  of  PEFA.  McLellan  continued,  “Eli  Broad  [of  the  Broad  Foundation]   then  found  out  about  it  and  called  the  governor  and  came  in  and  said  I’ll  help  you.  Eli  said,   ‘we’re  going  to  need  a  lawyer  to  look  at  this  but  I  don’t  like  to  pay  lawyers.’”  To  remedy   this,  Dennis  Much  more,  the  governor’s  chief  of  staff,  called  upon  McLellan,  who  had  a  long    87   history  of  pro  bono6  legal  services  with  the  governor’s  office.  McLellan  stated  that   Muchmore  said  that  this  was  McLellan’s  “only  chance  to  get  back  with  the  governor.  And  …   that  was  my  first  involvement  with  Snyder  and  with  education  policy  under  Snyder.”     McLellan  went  to  the  meeting  in  Detroit  with  the  Broad  group.  He  continued,  “The   Eli  Broad  people  had  hired  a  group  called  the  Parthenon  Group  …  and  Broad  flew  in   himself,  the  former  US  Secretary  of  Education  under  Bush,  the  Secretary  of  Education  of  the   state  of  Louisiana,  the  superintendent  of  public  schools  from  New  Orleans,  a  woman  who   was  a  lawyer  in  the  Clinton  White  House  policy  team  on  education  and  various  other   minions.”  The  Parthenon  Group  sent  McLellan  a  draft  of  their  work,  and  he  commented   back  on  the  constitutionality  of  these  educational  ideas  in  the  Michigan  context,  which  was   well-­‐received.  McLellan  stated,  “So  we  get  to  the  governor’s  cabinet  office  and  I  go   introduce  myself  to  Mr.  Broad  and  I  sat  down  at  the  end  of  the  table  …  because  I  was  not  a   player  and  I  knew  the  governor  wasn’t  particularly  happy  to  have  me  there  but  he  let  me.”   However,  Broad  had  McLellan  sit  next  to  him  because  he  thought  his  comments  were   particularly  helpful,  and  many  of  these  comments  would  become  part  of  PEFA.  Then  in  a   turn  of  fate,  the  Parthenon  consultants  did  not  show  up  because  his  plane  was  late.  As   McLellan  told  it,  “So  Mr.  Broad  said,  well,  Richard,  why  don’t  you  just  take  us  through  your   notes  until  we  figure  out  whether  this  guy’s  going  to  make  it  or  not.”  In  the  end,  the  group   spent  two  hours  going  through  McLellan’s  notes  and  the  presentation  that  was  prepared,   but  without  the  consultant.  The  governor  then  arrived  and  had  a  private  lunch  with  Broad                                                                                                                   6  Interestingly  “pro  bono”  is  Latin  and  stems  from  “pro  bono  publico,”  which  means  “for  the   public  good”  or  in  the  case  of  its  common,  shorted  form  “for  the  good.”  Pro  bono  services   are  often  used  for  the  indigent,  but  here  are  used  so  that  public  money  is  not  spent  on   services  for  the  governor.  This  means  the  lawyer  is  not  a  member  of  government  and  does   not  need  to  adhere  to  standard  legal  requirements  of  governmental  employees.        88   before  they  both  returned  for  an  afternoon  meeting.  At  the  conclusion  of  the  meeting,  the   governor  came  over  to  McLellan  and  said,  “Could  you  do  this  with  executive  power  like  you   did  the  MEDC  [Michigan  Economic  Development  Corporation]  outside  of  legislative   action?”  This  was  actually  the  moment  and  trigger  that  created  PEFA.  The  message  that   followed  was  only  a  tool  to  be  used  as  the  rational  trigger.     However,  this  is  not  the  end  of  the  significance  of  the  meeting  with  Broad.  There  is  a   strong  connection  to  the  creation  of  the  Emergency  Achievement  Authority  (EAA).   McLellan  continued,  “I  was  originally  brought  in  at  the  end  of  April  to  work  on  legislation  to   deal  with  Detroit  …  the  message  wasn’t  entirely  separate  from  what  they  found  out,  which   was  Detroit  was  going  down  the  shitter.  And  Broad  people  wanted  something  drafted  and   passed  by  the  time  they  [legislators]  break  for  the  summer.”  McLellan  then  got  Broad  to   hire  Dilemma,  McLellan’s  law  firm  from  which  he  was  retired  but  with  which  he  still  had  an   office,  to  work  on  the  Detroit  project.  In  particular,  they  hired  Len  Wolf  and  Steve  Legal,   who  had  been  Governor  Granholm’s  legal  counsel.  This  means  that  when  the  Republicans   were  in  the  governor’s  office,  McLellan  represented  them,  but  when  the  Democrats  were  in   the  governor’s  office,  these  two  represented.  Regardless  of  the  party,  the  governor’s  legal   counsel  was  coming  from  the  same  law  firm.  McLellan  supported  this  as  a  “political  lawyer   unpaid.”     At  one  of  the  subsequent  meetings,  Bill  Rustem,  one  of  the  governor’s  policy   advisors,  said  to  McLellan,  “Would  you  take  a  look  at  the  rest  of  the  message  and  see  what   we  need  to  do?”  From  here,  McLellan  examined  the  governor’s  message,  highlighting  many   of  the  concepts  articulated  above,  and  created  a  separate  project  from  the  EAA  work.   McLellan  stated,  “Why  don’t  I  just  see  if  we  can  sort  of  articulate  them  in  a  single  bill  in  the    89   school  code.  If  he  wants  to  be  reinventing  public  education,  let’s  give  him  everything  he   wants.  That  came  out  to  be  House  Bill  5923.”  Thus  PEFA,  known  as  House  Bill  5923,  was   born  using  the  governor’s  message,  but  with  the  impetus  coming  from  the  meetings  of   private  philanthropic  officials  with  governmental  officials  to  change  educational  policy.   Once  the  idea  was  stated  to  change  Michigan  school  law,  there  still  had  to  be  a  set  of  tenets   and  also  a  process.       Policy  Note  and  Connections  on  Policy  Triggers     A  major  theme  from  this  section  is  that  policy  can  be  multifaceted  in  its  presentation   and  existence.  There  is  what  the  policy  was  designed  to  look  like  (for  the  public  and  main   policy  players)  and  then  there  is  how  it  was  really  designed.  In  this  case,  the  policy   inception  of  the  EAA  and  PEFA  really  began  when  Eli  Broad  flew  in  to  change  Detroit’s   educational  system,  meeting  both  with  Governor  Snyder  and  Richard  McLellan,  which  was   step  one.  The  EAA  and  PEFA,  while  separate,  are  connected  root  and  branch.  After  this   meeting,  step  two,  the  governor’s  special  message  on  education  was  created  as  both  the   policy  trigger  in  the  environment  and  as  a  rhetorical  road  map  of  the  plans  to  change   Michigan’s  public  education  system.  Conveniently,  such  messages  have  a  constitutional   mechanism  and  are  considered  legitimate  fair  for  the  governor’s  office.  It  was  designed  to   serve  under  the  guise  of  a  rational  policy  trigger  that  began  the  whole  process,  and  it  did  it   so  well  that  the  opposition  to  PEFA  continually  cited  it  as  the  impetus  for  the  governor  and   McLellan’s  actions.  It  is  not  that  the  other  policy  actors  did  not  speculate  that  there  was   more  to  the  story,  like  Diver  and  Compson,  but  there  was  no  evidence,  and  the  governor’s   message  was  a  tangible  document  that  everyone  could  point  to.  Step  three,  McLellan  was    90   given  the  charge  to  proceed  in  developing  PEFA  outside  of  governmental  oversight  until  it   was  to  go  to  the  legislature.       Public  Education  Finance  Act     This  section  moves  from  the  governor’s  message  to  its  operationalization.  To  begin,   I  frame  the  mechanism  that  McLellan  used  as  a  vehicle  to  construct  and  fund  the  creation  of   PEFA.  I  then  move  into  the  specifics  of  what  the  PEFA  legislation  included,  the  rational  for   this  direction,  and  the  policy  formation  process.  Finally,  I  end  with  a  discussion  of  the   connection  of  this  to  the  policy  cycle  and  process.       Dark  Money,  a  Private  Mechanism  to  Change  a  Public  Good     In  order  to  achieve  two  of  the  ideas  discussed  above,  namely  a  blending  of  public   and  private  partnerships,  and  designing  the  law  outside  of  legislative  action  (beyond   approving  the  law),  McLellan  ran  PEFA  through  the  nonprofit  Oxford  Foundation.   Outside  of  those  in  McLellan’s  inner  circle,  no  one  really  knew  what  the  Oxford   Foundation  was  –  it  was  cloaked  in  mystery.  The  president  of  the  state  board,  Diver,  said   that  “The  Oxford  Foundation  was  just  created  as  a  nonprofit  shell  under  which  some   money  could  flow  from  donors  to  pay  for  the  project  that’s  doing  this  education  legislative   scoping  work.”  Still  others,  like  Compson,  argued  that  the  Oxford  Foundation  was  a  hold   over  from  the  Engler  days  and  had  been  used  in  a  “number  of  different  projects,  when  they   need  to  hire  outside,  they  sort  of  hire  this  company,  this  Oxford  Foundation,  to  do  work.”     After  doing  some  research,  it  turns  out  that  the  Oxford  Foundation  is  a  nonprofit   organization  that  has  been  around  since  October  22,  1991,  and  has  a  specific  mission  to    91   “lesson  the  burdens  of  government”  (Oxford  Foundation).  Its  board  of  directors  is   compromised  of  two  judges  and  two  lawyers.  McLellan  is  the  board  secretary.  When  I   asked  McLellan  about  this  rather  vague  mission  statement,  he  replied  “It’s  a  very  tactical   IRS  term.”  Later,  under  formal  and  informal  authority,  I  discuss  the  importance  of  such   agencies  as  the  Oxford  Foundation  in  shaping  government  as  a  legal,  extra-­‐governmental   resource.     Originally,  this  organization  was  set  up  to  fund  the  restoration  of  the  governor’s   state  residence,  which  when  using  private  funds  does  lessen  the  burdens  of  government   because  the  taxpayers  do  not  have  to  pay  for  restoration.  However,  by  using  this  vague   term,  when  the  project  was  finished  the  organization  could  be  repurposed  and  has  been   several  times,  taking  on  projects  with  government  leadership,  American  Indians  tribes,  and   circuit  court  petitions.  It  also  served  as  a  fiscal  agent,  which  was  the  Oxford  Foundation’s   role  with  PEFA.  It  served  as  the  pass-­‐through  organization  from  which  McLellan  was  able   to  hire  staff.  However,  where  did  the  money  come  from?   This  brings  up  the  role  of  dark  money  in  PEFA.  Dark  money  is  funding  that  is   donated  to  organizations  like  the  Oxford  Foundation,  but  the  donors  are  undisclosed,  and   legally  this  is  allowed  because  of  the  organization’s  nonprofit  status.  Those  organizations   can  then  go  on  to  donate  to  campaigns  or  sponsor  projects  with  those  undisclosed  funds.   Only  recently  has  this  become  a  trend  in  education,  and  even  less  so  as  trend  in  shaping   state  level  educational  policy.     In  this  case,  it  will  never  be  known  who  funded  the  FEPA  project  through  the  Oxford   Foundation  to  the  tune  of  $200,000.  One  could  assume  that  Broad  may  have  contributed,   but  it  is  not  clear.  Diver  stated,  “I  know  who  the  donors  are  and  I  know  the  bias  of  their    92   work  is.    And  so,  that  would  be  important  public  information  that  would  give  more  clues  on   who  the  governor’s  folks  were  looking  to  and  who  was  paying  the  bill.”  However,  Diver  did   not  disclose  the  funders.  McLellan  stated,  “Rustem  [one  of  the  governor’s  policy  advisors]   came  up  with  some  money  that  we  ran  through  the  now  infamous  Oxford  Foundation.”         The  Process  of  Forming  the  Law     This  section  captures  the  major  themes  of  the  PEFA  legislation  and  the  confidential   report  that  accompanied  the  legislation  when  presented  to  the  governor.  As  I  explain  the   concepts  included  in  PEFA,  I  explain  the  processes  of  the  policy  formation  in  a   chronological  fashion.     When  deciding  where  to  begin,  McLellan  had  already  concluded  that  the  ideas  for   change  would  come  from  the  governor’s  special  education  message.  There  were  only  a   couple  of  ways  McLellan  believed  this  could  be  done.  There  could  be  a  piecemeal  approach.   Different  concepts  could  be  added  singularly  to  the  State  School  Aid  Act  of  1979  or  the   Revised  School  Code,  as  appropriate.  However,  this  would  require  individual  legislative   action  on  each  item.  Not  only  would  this  be  cumbersome,  but  it  would  also  be  difficult  and   flew  against  his  orders  to  do  as  much  of  it  as  possible  outside  of  legislative  action.  The  only   option  was  to  revise  the  Revised  School  Code  or  the  State  School  Aid  Act  of  1979.  Of  the   two,  McLellan  thought  that  the  State  School  Aid  Act  of  1979  dealt  with  the  ideas  that  the   governor  wanted  to  change  and  could  be  completely  replaced  by  a  new  school  finance  act.     In  particular,  he  argued,  “The  School  Aid  Act  of  1979  is  outdated  and  impedes  the   use  of  effective  teaching  and  learning  practices  …  [this]  would  replace  the  outmoded   ‘membership’  and  school  district-­‐centered  model  with  a  solid  structure  capable  of    93   performance-­‐based  structure”  (McLellan  et  al,  2013,  p.  1).  In  addition,  The  School  Aid  Act  of   1979  is  updated  every  year  to  reflect  the  new  funding  allotments  and  any  additional   operational  changes  to  school  law,  which  means  that  it  has  been  amended  at  least  34  times.   McLellan  argued  that  these  constant  amendments  and  tinkering  had  rendered  the  law   obsolete.  In  particular,  McLellan  stated,  “One  thing  I’ve  learned,  the  school  code  and  school   aid  acts  are  always  changing  the  minimal  amount  necessary  to  accomplish  whatever  group   wants  that  little  change.    So  if  you  read  it,  these  are  the  most  obscure  reasons  and   limitations  on  why  some  change  can  be  done.  If  you  went  back  and  did  the  legislative   history  of  that  change,  that  school  district  needed  something  …  So  you  have  no  coherent   strategy  in  the  school  code  or  school  aid  act  for  these  bigger  policy  issues.”       McLellan  summed  up  the  mission  of  PEFA  as  “to  develop  the  structure  that  can   allow  for  the  necessary  evolution  of  Michigan’s  K-­‐12  education  system  to  occur,  without   prescribing  what  those  changes  look  like”  (McLellan  et  al,  2013,  p.  6).  That  is  a  very  unclear   mission.  McLellan  wanted  to  change  the  structure  of  education,  but  put  in  an  undefined   flexible  model.  To  understand  what  this  mission  entails,  Table  8  displays  the  stated   purposes  of  the  law  and  the  goals  on  which  those  purposes  are  based.                    94   Table  8:  PEFA  Project  Goals  and  Purposes   PEFA  Project  Goals  and  Purposes   Purposes  Stated  in  the  Proposed   Goals  Stated  in  the  PEFA  Report   Legislation   “Create  a  public  education  funding   “Redirect  Michigan’s  education  financing   system  that’s  primary  objective  is  to   system  from  a  static  approach  to  education   create  career  ready  citizens;   delivery  toward  a  new  model  that     accommodates  individual  learning  styles;     “Provide  seamless  transition  for  the  pupil   “Create  a  framework  for  new  ‘Any  Time,   between  early  childhood,  elementary,   Any  Place,  Any  Way,  Any  Pace’  public  school   secondary,  and  post  secondary  education;   learning  models;       “Provide  a  public  education  funding   “Move  toward  performance-­‐based  funding   system  that  promotes  individual  learning   rather  than  seat  time  requirements;   styles;     “Enables  parents  and  pupils  to  employ   “Michigan’s  state  foundation  allowance   education  programming  options  that   should  not  be  exclusively  tied  to  the  school   place  the  pupil  on  a  path  for  their  future   district  a  child  attends.  Instead,  funding  to   success;   follow  the  student;     “Provide  greater  access  to  self-­‐paced   “Eliminate  barriers  to  true  choice  in   program  enabling  a  pupil  below  grade   education,  give  parents  and  students  the   level  to  have  additional  time  and  help  to   flexibility  to  employ  educational   gain  competency,  while  a  high  achieving   programming  that  ensures  their  future   pupil  may  accelerate  academically;   success”  (McLellan  et  al,  2013,  p.  8).         Provide  a  pupil  growth  and  assessment     tool  to  allow  for  performance  funding  and   measure  educator  effectiveness.”  (PEFA,   2013,  p.  12)     To  do  this,  McLellan  adopted  a  guiding  framework,  not  all  that  different  from  what   social  scientists  use  in  their  studies.  He  used  the  idea  of  “disruptive  innovation,”  based  on   the  work  of  Clayton  Christensen  in  his  book  Disrupting  Class:  How  Disruptive  Innovation   Will  Change  the  Way  the  World  Learns  (2010).    The  essence  of  this  framework  is  a  pattern   of  market-­‐driven  changes  that  open  resources  to  consumers  and  nonconsumers  in  new    95   ways,  with  a  focus  on  technologies.  These  goals  and  purposes  materialize  in  the  law  to   change  the  items  summarized  in  Table  9.   Table  9:  PEFA  Statutory  Outline   PEFA  Statutory  Outline   Core  Components  of  the  proposed  PEFA   • “…  acts  as  a  framework  for  changes  in  the  state  education  data  system  to  underlie   implementation  of  a  performance-­‐based  funding  system   • “…  allows  for  the  unbundling  of  a  suite  of  school-­‐curated  education  services  for   those  students  and  parents  who  want  and  can  benefit  from  an  individualized   education  plan.   o “Unbundling  will  primarily  apply  in  secondary  school,  not  elementary   schools.   o Courses  will  include  only  those  provided  by  public  schools  and  which  are   part  of  the  state’s  curriculum  requirements  or  permitted  by  law.   • “…  proposes  a  new  concept  –  that  of  an  ‘enrollment  district’  –  to  ensure  key   functions  in  the  new  system  are  performed.   • “  …  offers  a  strategy  for  implementing  the  Governor’s  ‘Any  Time,  Any  Place,  Any   Way,  Any  Place’  education  model.   • “The  use  of  technology  in  education  and  performance  assessment  is  expanded.   • “Expanded  pre-­‐K  programs  are  accommodated”  (McLellan  et  al,  2013,  p.  iii).       Summarized:  1).  Performance  data;  2).  Unbundling  educational  services;  3).  Any  Time,   Any  Place,  Any  Way,  Any  Place;  4).  Use  of  technology  in  education;  5).  Pre-­‐K  funding.     Summary  of  Changes  in  the  Proposed  PEFA  v.    State  School  Aid  Act  of  1979   • “Create  ‘Early  Graduation  Scholarships”  for  students  able  to  accelerate  successful   completion  of  high  school.   • “‘Membership’  in  districts  of  his  or  her  future  education  opportunities   • “Change  from  concept  of  ‘in  regular  attendance’  to  ‘receiving  instruction,’  meaning   that  the  archaic  ‘seat  time’  requirement  will  be  removed  to  further  allow  for  more   innovative  methods  of  teaching  and  learning.   • “Change  Michigan’s  student  counting  system  to  ‘average  daily  membership’  rather   than  using  the  existing  2-­‐membership  count  day  model.  This  will  ensure  resources   are  deployed  to  the  places  where  student  learning  occurs.   • “Create  a  new  “performance  count  day’  as  part  of  the  move  to  performance-­‐based   funding.   • “Create  an  ‘enrollment  district’  concept  to  implement  unbundling.   • “Improve  Michigan’s  education  data  system  to:  consolidate  reports,  create  a   master  reporting  calendar,  truly  leverage  improved  teaching  and  learning,  and   make  data  available  to  parents.   • “Encourage  districts  consolidation  by  allowing  a  consolidated  district  to  receive   the  highest  of  foundation  allowances  among  merging  districts.   • “Create  incentives  for  year-­‐round  schools,  as  a  means  of  addressing  summer   learning  loss”  (McLellan  et  al,  2013,  p.  iv).      96     Of  these  proposed  changes,  there  are  a  few  that  deserve  more  explanation.  The  first   of  these  is  the  concept  of  “unbundling.”  This  is  a  term  that  McLellan  came  up  with  to   describe  the  process  and  one  not  found  in  the  governor’s  message,  but  something  he   created  to  accomplish  the  tenets  of  choice  presented  in  the  message.  Essentially,   unbundling  allows  a  student  to  take  multiple  courses  with  multiple  public  education   providers,  and  each  provider  gets  the  percentage  amount  of  the  foundation  allowance   congruent  with  the  time  the  student  spends  with  them.  However,  there  would  be  a  public   institution  that  maintains  records  of  the  student  mastery  and  proficiency,  as  well  as  credits   awards.  McLellan  likened  the  process  to  bundling  and  unbundling  your  cable  and  phone   packages,  and  he  said  that  the  term  was  often  used  in  the  corporate  and  legal  world.     In  the  PEFA  report,  McLellan  added  academic  research  to  liken  this  process  to  that   of  Hess  and  Meeks’  work.  However,  keep  in  mind  that  none  of  the  academic  material  was   added  until  the  communications  specialist  was  hired  to  write  the  report.  The  connection  to   their  work  was  by  mere  chance.  Hess  and  Meeks  argued:   Nearly  everyone  has  had  experiences  with  teachers  who  were  terrific  mentors  but   terrible  lecturers,  or  who  might  have  been  entertaining  in  front  of  a  classroom  but   provided  mediocre  written  feedback.  An  unbundled  teaching  model  seeks  to  most   effectively  leverage  each  individual’s  particular  skills,  while  relaxing  the  century-­‐old   assumption  that  every  teacher  should  be  a  lifelong,  do-­‐everything  employee.   (McLellan  et  al.,  2013,  p.  20;  Hess  &  Meeks,  2013)     While  McLellan  created  the  state  unbundling  concept,  it  is  clear  that  others  (Hess  and   Meeks,  in  particular)  were  thinking  about  these  ideas  and  were  entering  into  the   educational  arena.  McLellan  took  this  to  the  next  level  by  applying  it  to  the  entire  state  and   then  made  the  research  fit  the  concept.  What  makes  this  so  interesting  is  that  he  was  able   to  put  this  concept  into  the  law  not  by  adding  words  or  defining  unbundling  in  the   legislation,  but  by  starting  with  the  State  School  Aid  Act  of  1979  and  taking  out  phrases  and    97   words  that  put  geographic  boundaries  on  educational  areas.  Several  interviewees  argued   that  it  was  not  practical  for  students  to  be  enrolled  in  multiple  districts,  to  say  nothing   about  the  transportation  issues.  They  concluded  that  this  was  largely  about  increasing   online  learning,  which  McLellan  stated  was  one  of  his  goals.  This  model  would  increase  the   amount  of  money  that  online  institutions  would  receive  because  they  would  no  longer  get  a   stipend  amount,  but  part  of  the  per  pupil  foundation  allowance.       Directly  related  to  the  idea  of  unbundling  is  Any  Time,  Any  Place,  Any  Way,  Any   Pace.  Using  the  same  strategy  of  deleting  boundary  language  (e.g.  “within  the  same   intermediate  district”)  and  altering  definitions,  McLellan’s  proposed  law  dramatically   altered  the  enrollment  system  and  removed  geographic  boundaries.  In  essence,  the   unbundling  is  the  operationalization  of  Any  Time,  Any  Place,  Any  Way,  Any  Pace.  As   McLellan  stated,  “A  pupil  may  enroll  in  any  district  in  the  state.”  This  fulfills  the  any  place.   To  accomplish  any  pace,  grade  levels  for  courses  are  turned  into  content  levels,  which   allows  students  to  move  through  at  their  own  rate.  To  meeting  any  time  and  any  way  (as   wells  the  other  two  items),  McLellan  argues  for  increases  in  technology  and  online  learning.       The  final  proposed  change  that  I  discuss,  and  one  of  the  changes  that  seemed  less   dramatic,  is  the  change  in  attendance  requirements  for  funding.  Currently,  Michigan  uses  a   two-­‐count-­‐day  system,  which  several  states  do.  However,  the  governor,  as  evidenced  by  his   special  message,  and  McLellan  felt  that  districts  and  schools  were  gaming  the  system  for   those  two  days  with  awards,  prizes,  and  more.  To  remedy  this,  McLellan  proposed  going  to   “average  daily  membership.”  Based  on  the  current  practices,  this  is  becoming  the  favored   trend,  as  displayed  in  Table  8.        98     Table  8:  Per  Pupil  Funding  by  State     Per  Pupil  Funding  by  State   County  Method   Number  of  States   States   Single  Count  Day   12   Colorado,  Delaware,  Connecticut,   Indiana,  Iowa,  Kansas,  Maryland,   Massachusetts,  Nevada,  New  Jersey,   South  Dakota,  and  West  Virginia   Multiple  Count  Day   9   Arizona,  Georgia,  Hawaii,  Louisiana,   Maine,  Michigan,  Montana,  Washington,   and  Wisconsin   Average  Daily   7   California,  Idaho,  Kentucky,  Mississippi,   Attendance*   Missouri,  New  York,  and  Texas   Average  Daily   15   Arkansas,  Minnesota,  Nebraska,  New   Membership*   Hampshire,  North  Carolina,  North   Dakota,  Oklahoma,  Oregon,   Pennsylvania,  Rhode  Island,  South   Carolina,  Tennessee,  Utah,  Vermont,   and  Virginia   Single  Count  Period**   4   Alabama,  Alaska,  New  Mexico,  and   Wyoming   Multiple  Count  Period**   3   Florida,  Illinois,  and  Ohio   *  attendance  includes  only  those  present  and  membership  includes  those  registered   whether  present  or  not   **  period  is  a  state  defined  window  of  time  over  multiple  days   Average  Daily  Attendance  (2011)   Policy  Note  and  Connections  to  Policy  Formation     In  the  above  section,  McLellan  used  a  private  foundation  to  funnel  dark  money  in   the  development  of  a  public  education  project.  This  allowed  for  a  blending  of  private  and   public  organization,  gave  him  a  position  from  which  he  worked  with  stakeholders  through   the  educational  community,  and  freedom  and  authority  to  do  as  he  pleased  without   governmental  oversight.  Using  this  organization,  he  then  set  out  to  write  the  formal   legislation  that  revised  the  School  Aid  Act  of  1979  with  PEFA,  and  this  would  dramatically   change  the  course  of  education  in  the  state  of  Michigan.        99   The  Authority  to  Act  (Knowing  the  Rules  of  the  Game)     From  the  onset  of  exploring  PEFA,  there  was  a  great  deal  of  ambiguity  and   complexity  around  the  authority  of  McLellan  to  act  in  creating  this  proposed  law.  Again,  he   was  not  a  governmental  official  in  term  or  in  title,  but  rather  considered  himself  a   volunteer  of  the  governor’s.  However,  for  a  private  citizen,  he  had  vast  access  to  various   levels  of  the  government,  and  many  membership  organizations  (as  we  will  see  later  in  the   discussion  of  the  public  perspective)  treated  him  as  a  legitimate  threat.  Those  two  elements   alone  seemed  to  imply  a  formal  authority,  but  identifying  one  was  substantially  complex.   Many  participants  of  this  study  argued  that  he  really  did  not  have  a  formal  role,  but  rather   an  informal  authority  to  act,  while  others,  McLellan  included,  argued  that  he  had  formal   powers.       To  begin,  I  look  at  the  informal  network,  which  many  people  argued  was  what  he   operated  under.  For  some  people  this  was  enough,  but  for  others  it  caused  great   resentment.  I  then  explore  the  legal  way  that  McLellan  was  able  to  shape  educational  policy   through  mechanisms  already  in  place,  in  order  to  involve  outside  policy  elites  in  the  formal   governmental  process.       Informal  Authority  View     To  begin,  I  must  first  define  what  informal  authority  and  formal  authority  are.  Most   explicitly,  formal  authority  is  that  which  is  given  to  someone  in  an  organization  because  of   the  person’s  position  in  the  hierarchy.  For  example,  the  dean  of  a  college  has  formal   authority  over  the  college  and  those  in  it  because  they  were  hired  for  that  position.   Informal  authority  is  something  that  is  earned  through  social  exchanges  and  not     100   necessarily  connected  to  the  formal  position  one  has.  This  would  include  networking  and   relationships  of  trust,  influence,  knowledge,  and  expertise.       Many  of  the  interviewees  saw  McLellan  as  having  this  informal  authority  to  shape   educational  policy.  He  did  not  have  a  formal  position  within  the  governmental  structure,  at   least  not  one  that  was  commonly  recognized,  even  by  those  in  government  (see  formal   authority  in  the  next  section).  Figure  4  shows  how  most  participants  saw  McLellan’s   authority  to  act.     Figure  4:  Views  on  McLellan’s  Informal  Authority  to  Act       The  president  of  the  State  Board  of  Education,  Dick  Diver,  argued,  “The  issue  was,   did  the  governor  authorize  McLellan  to  do  all  of  this  and  is  this  his  package  of  legislation?”   However,  this  is  a  complex  question,  and  one  that  even  those  who  work  in  government   were  not  able  to  sort  out  clearly.  Diver  felt  that  there  were  two  ways  that  the  authority  of   PEFA  could  have  unfolded,  but  he  was  unsure  which  one  it  really  was.    The  first,  he  argued,       101   Was  just  very,  very  explicitly,  Governor  Snyder,  Rich  Baird,  his  consigliore,  you   know,  and  the  de  facto  education  advisors,  Bill  Rustem  and  Craig  Tetter,  basically   saying  here’s  the  plan,  Richard,  go  forth  and  we  want  to  end  up  with  this  very  robust   set  of  new  school  creations  and  voucher  like  funding  mechanisms  and  that’s  what,   you  know,  we  want  to  get  and  we  probably  need  to  hide  our  hand  a  bit  and  try  to  get   it  through  in  lame  duck  when,  before  people  know  what  it  is.    Go  forth  and  do  that.       This  implies  that  McLellan  had  a  charge,  but  the  governor  and  advisors  were  not  openly   supporting  the  process,  which  means  that  McLellan  had  to  operate  informally  through  his   contacts.     Diver  argued  that  there  was  possibly  another  scenario.  The  “second  scenario  was   that  McLellan  just  took  whatever  license  he  was  given  and  went  and  the  governor’s  office   would  have  liked  to  have  maintained  some  deniability  which  is  politically  perhaps  helpful.   You  know,  we  commissioned  Richard  and  the  company  to  go  forth.  They’re  working   independently,  meaning  we’re  not  telling  them  exactly  what  to  cook  up  …  we  can  then  pick   and  choose  from  it  and  we  do  not  have  to  accept  any  ideas  that  are  too  radical  or  too,  you   know,  politically  not  what  we  want  to  do.”  This  would  cause  McLellan  to  have  to  operate  at   arm’s  length  so  that  the  governor’s  office  would  be  able  to  have  some  deniability.  By  the   time  PEFA  had  come  to  a  close,  the  governor’s  office  did  contact  Diver  and  said,  “Our  man   went  rogue,  McLellan,  and  you  had  to  go  ballistic  and  still,  let’s  push  the  reset  button  and,   cuz  I  was  saying  how  do  we,  how  do  we  get  back  to  actually  advancing  some  ideas  that  are   worth  advancing  and  you  can’t  advance  them  when  you’ve  got  the  sort  of  right  wing  school   destruction  machinery  publicly  representing  us.”  This  says  several  different  things  about   McLellan’s  authority,  while  at  the  same  time  pushing  him  away.  The  governor’s  office  did   consider  McLellan  to  be  their  “man,”  which  implies  he  was  operating  under  their  authority,   but  at  the  same  time,  when  everything  fell  apart,  they  distanced  themselves  from  him  and     102   the  views  that  he  promoted.  Although  this  was  the  approach,  it  does  not  explain  how  he   was  able  to  set  up  meetings  with  various  educational  and  governmental  officials.       Others  had  different  views  on  the  idea  of  his  authority.  Another  state  board   member,  Eleanor  Dashwood,  was  really  confused  at  how  it  was  even  an  option  for  someone   outside  of  government  to  be  so  involved  with  government.  While  that  is  a  very  strict  view,   it  is  not  a  very  practical  one.  After  all,  people  and  various  interest  groups  are  always   lobbying  for  law  changes,  but  lobbying  for  laws  and  creating  them  as  McLellan  did  are  on   different  levels.  What  makes  PEFA  so  different  was  how  much  access  to  various  levels  of   government  McLellan  had  and  how  much  time  people  and  organizations  devoted  to   engaging  in  the  process  that  he  created.  Another  state  board  member,  Dorian  Gray,  who  at   the  time  of  this  writing  was  the  longest  serving  member,  and  William  Gordon,  former  state   representative  and  mayor,  simply  said  that  McLellan  could  do  it  because  he  was  asked  to.   They  felt  that  if  an  executive  officer  like  the  governor  asked  someone  to  undertake  a   project  like  PEFA,  then  there  was  probably  some  political  support  and  will  be  even  if  there   was  not  any  formal  authority.  However,  Gordon  had  been  around  long  enough  to  suggest   that  formal  authority  in  government  can  occur  in  many  different  facets,  compared  to  how  it   would  normally  appear  in  a  closed,  private  organization.     Caroline  Compson,  government  relations  director  for  Michigan’s  biggest,  wealthiest,   and  most  influential  ISD,  said  that  there  had  to  be  an  informal  contract  of  understanding.   After  all,  her  boss,  the  ISD  superintendent,  was  very  concerned  with  McLellan  and  his   legislation  and  thought  it  could  pass.    Compson  stated,  “Well,  the  governor  had  contracted   with  him  for  some  work  and  so  there  was  that  authority.  And  I  think  that  often,  especially   with  term  limits,  lobbying  groups  or  associations  or  even  corporations  at  times  will  help     103   develop  legislation.”  Compson  went  on  to  say  that  this  generally  had  not  been  the  case  in   Michigan’s  education  policy,  until  private  actors  like  McLellan  got  involved.  Despite  this   private  involvement,  this  legislation  still  “has  to  go  through  the  hearing  process  and  the   voting.”  Compson  argued  that  there  was  something  different,  however,  about  this   legislation.  “You  and  I  can  sit  here  and  come  up  with  a  bill  that  says  whatever  we  want,   hand  it  to  a  legislator  and  it  may  or  may  not  gain  traction,  but  because  the  governor  had   contracted  with  McLellan  and  said  well,  he’s  gonna  be  working  on  this  for  me,  it  was  that,   that  was  enough  to  give  him  the  authority  where  people  were  interested  in  meeting  with   him.  But  beyond  that,  yeah,  it’s  not  like  he  had  any  legal  authority.”  Compson  concluded   that  the  governor  just  saying  McLellan  had  authority  was  enough  to  accept  that  he  had   informal  rights  to  create  the  PEFA  legislation  and  work  within  and  with  various   governmental  entities.  Compson  continued,  “In  some  ways,  I  really  do  think  it  was  one  of   those  things  where  Snyder  got  elected  and  McLellan  went  back  to  his  Engler  files  that  he   had  somewhere  and  went,  let’s  see,  where  did  we  leave  off?  Let’s  see  now.  Open  this  binder   and  oh,  that’s  right.  We  were  gonna  try  to  figure  out  a  way  because  vouchers  failed.  All   right,  how  are  we  gonna  do  this?”  However,  as  we  will  see  later,  Compson  as  well  as   McLellan  did  not  put  Snyder  in  the  same  league  as  Engler.     Phillip  Marlowe  did  not  feel  that  it  was  as  much  about  the  governor  giving  his   blessing  to  McLellan  as  it  was  about  McLellan’s  vast  private  network  of  contacts  in  and   around  government  that  brought  PEFA  to  the  policy  agenda.  Marlowe  stated  that  McLellan   “has  built  a  private  network  of  contacts,  generally  people  who  agree  with  him  in  whole  or   in  part  on  what  ought  to  happen.    And  he’s  very  good  at  maintaining  and  kind  of  steering   where  that  goes.  He’s  a  very  influential  person,  in  part  through  money  but  in  large  part     104   through  his  personal  interaction  and  commitment.  And  he’s  apparently  got  enough  money   that  he  doesn’t  have  to  worry  about  earning  a  living  …  he’s  been  around  for  a  long  time.”   Marlowe  went  on  to  comment  that  McLellan  was  a  master  of  influence  through  private   networks  to  get  things  done,  including  moving  PEFA  along.     Mariah  Heep,  who  actually  worked  for  McLellan  and  had  gotten  to  watch  him  work,   also  felt  that  his  authority  came  from  his  private  network.  Heep  argued,  “He  has  a  lot  of   access.  He,  he  talks  to  a  lot  of  people.  You  know,  I  can’t  think  of  anyone  I  know  that  when   Richard  calls  them,  they  don’t  pick  up  the  phone.  So  I’d  say  his  access  is  pretty  deep.   Richard  calls  everybody  anywhere.”  Heep  went  on  to  specifically  clarify  that  McLellan  “uses   a  very  powerful  informal  network.”  However,  she  did  believe  that  McLellan  had  some   formal  authority,  but  could  not  speak  to  the  details.  She  stated,  “The  Governor  announced   that  he  was  asking  Richard  to  do  this  work  and  so  I  think  that  there  is  a  formal  role  there,   too  …  but  I  don’t  know  the  extent  of  his  formal  stuff  but  I  do  know  that  there  is  some  ability   for  him  to  act  on  a  formal  basis,  whether  he  does  it  or  not,  I  don’t  know.    He  seems  to   operate  in  a  much  more  informal,  …  ad  hoc  basis.”  Even  one  of  McLellan’s  own  contracted   employees  was  unclear  about  the  authority  he  had  to  operate  in  creating  PEFA,  which   suggests  there  was  a  great  deal  of  ambiguity  around  the  role  of  private  actors  in  the   education  policy  arena.  Perhaps  this  is  because  they  had  not  played  as  big  of  a  role  as  in   other  legislative  issues  until  more  recently.     Formal  Authority  View   Based  on  the  interviews,  including  those  of  people  who  were  contracted  to  work  on   the  PEFA  project,  most  believed  that  Richard  McLellan  acted  on  informal  authority  to  begin     105   drafting  the  legislation  and  holding  meetings  with  various  educational  and  governmental   groups.  This  perception  set  the  tone  for  many  people  and  was  capitalized  on  by  the   opposition  to  PEFA,  which  claimed  that  McLellan  was  acting  as  volunteer  and  had  no  real   authority.     However,  this  was  not  really  the  case.  McLellan  had  all  the  vested  authority  of  the   executive  branch  to  do  what  he  did.  The  governor,  as  McLellan  argued,  has  powers  that  not   even  he  is  fully  aware  of,  “Because  you  must  know  the  rules  of  the  game.”  As  I  probed  him   further,  McLellan’s  eyes  lit  up,  and  he  began  to  discuss  executive  authority  –  the  formal   power  by  which  the  governor  can  assign  others  to  work  on  his  behalf.       To  begin,  McLellan  pulled  out  his  copy  of  the  Michigan  Constitution  of  1963  and   turned  to  Article  5,  Section  1,  entitled  the  “Executive  Branch.”  McLellan  began,  “The   executive  power  is  vested  in  the  governor  …  Now,  that  word  executive  power  is  a  very  big   word.  And  there’s  cases  and  cases  and  thousands  of  cases  on  what  it  means.  All  executive   administrative  offices  shall  be,  shall  be,  shall  be  allocated  by  law.”  This  means  that  there  are   very  specific  elements  to  what  makes  up  executive  power.       McLellan  continued,  “Let’s  see.    The  governor,  the  legislature  does  allow   commissions  or  agencies  for  less  than  two  years,  temporary  agencies  or  commissions  for   special  purposes  with  a  life  of  no  more  than  two  years  may  be  established  by  law.    Those   are  rarely  created.  But  the  governor  can  make  changes  in  the  executive  branch  of  state   government,  so  he  can  create  all  kinds  of  boards  and  commissions,  and  they  have  over  the   years.  So  there’s  a  special  1943  act  creating  governor’s  commissions.  There’s  a  statutory…   In  addition  to  this  constitutional  provision,  there’s  a  statutory  one.”     In  particular,  Governor  Snyder  was  using  two  constitutional  provisions  of  his     106   executive  authority  that  he  vested  in  Richard  McLellan.  Whether  the  governor  knew  the   specifics  of  this  formal  authority  or  not  is  debatable,  but  his  agent  McLellan  did  and   understood  full  well  the  measure  of  that  authority  to  act.  McLellan  stated,     The  governor  shall  communicate  by  message  to  the  legislature  at  the  beginning  of   each  session  and  may  at  other  times  present  to  the  legislature  information  as  to  the   affairs  of  state  and  recommend  measures  he  considers  necessary  or  desirable.  The   governor  in  asking  me  to  help  draft  PEFA  was  exercising  his  constitutional  authority   to  communicate  by  message  to  the  legislature.  He  has  a  very  specific  duty,  the   governor  shall…  that  was  Article  5,  section  17.  Then  he  has  Article  5,  section  18.  The   governor  shall  submit  to  the  legislature  at  a  time  fixed  by  law  a  budget  for  the   ensuing  fiscal  period,  setting  forth  in  detail  for  all  operating  funds,  could  be  the   school  aid  fund,  expenditures  and  expected,  estimated  revenue.     While  those  two  provisions  (Article  5,  Section  17,  Messages  and  Recommendations  to   legislature;  and  Article  5,  Section  18,  Budget,  General  and  Deficiency  Appropriation  Bills)   explain  why  the  governor  had  the  power  to  act  in  the  policy  arena  to  formulate  PEFA,  it  still   did  not  explain  McLellan’s  involvement.       As  the  discussion  continued  to  unfold,  McLellan  raised  the  question  himself  by   stating,  “But  the  more  important  question  that  they’re  raising  is  well,  how  can  Richard   McLellan  be  asked  to  do  this?”  The  answer  is  rather  simple  in  that  the  governor  can  then   appoint  his  own  designees  or  advisors  without  any  approval,  and  McLellan  was  selected  to   be  one  of  these.  His  work  with  Bay  Mills  and  educational  choice  (as  previously  discussed  in   Chapter  One),  coupled  with  his  vast  understanding  of  the  powers  of  the  governor  and  the   legislature,  made  him  the  ideal  candidate  to  navigate  the  process  of  putting  together  PEFA.   McLellan  stated,  “The  point  is,  the  governor  selects  his  own  advisers.  If  he  had  called  in  five   educational  lobbyists  and  said  would  you  guys  do  this  for  me,  they  would’ve  been  more   than  happy  to  show  up.”  It  was  not  your  standard  fare  of  educational  advisors.  There  were   some  in  the  beginning  of  the  governor’s  term,  but  they  were  not  called  upon  to  do  this     107   project.  McLellan  said,  “You  had  his  original  transition  team  task  force  that  put  out  a  report,   you  had  Eli  Broad  who  brought  in  consultants.  Had  an  office  over  in  the  governor’s  office   for  about  three  months.  They,  they  had  their  own  office.  The  Parthenon  Group.  Paid  for  by   Eli  Broad.”  However,  “For  the  purposes  of  advising  the  governor  on  how  to  do  this,  then   they  brought  me  in.  Technically,  I  was  a  lawyer  providing,  the  way  I  looked  at  it,  …  was   providing  pro  bono  legal  services  to  the  governor  and  Eli  Broad  to  address  these  education   issues.  Exactly  the  same  thing  I  had  done  for  Governor  Engler  for  12  years  …  [including]  …   having  somebody  assigned  to  do  a  task  for  the  governor  and  getting  private  funds  to  pay   for  it.”   In  addition,  McLellan  shared  with  me  another  perspective  on  outside  resources  that   can  be  used  by  the  government.  He  argued  that  this  was  nothing  new,  but  most   governmental  officials  and  members  of  the  public  do  not  know  anything  about  the  process,   nor  do  they  know  what  their  powers  actually  are.  He  stated  that  knowing  the  rules  of  the   game  gave  him  an  edge  and  maneuverability  that  most  did  not  have,  and  it  was  these   technical  and  not  commonly  known  rules  and  laws  that  allowed  him  to  fund  and  create   PEFA.  In  a  white  paper  given  to  me  and  written  by  McLellan,  he  argued  that  “Historically  in   Michigan,  governors,  state  officials  and  legislative  leaders  have  benefited  from  public   interest  efforts  by  private  sector  interests  to  assist  government.  (These  efforts  are  separate   from  the  appropriate  and  essential  lobbying  activities  by  private  interests,  whether   corporations,  nonprofits,  unions  and  others  to  affect  public  policy.)”  (McLellan,  2012).  In   Table  11  below,  McLellan  outlined  several  of  the  legally  acceptable  ways  outside  resources   may  be  used  in  service  to  the  government  –  entities  and  practices  that  McLellan  referred  to   as  government  instrumentalities.       108   Table  11:  List  of  Public  Service  Contributions  by  Private  Interests   List  of  Public  Service  Contributions  by  Private  Interests  –  adapted  from  “The  Role  of   Private  Resources  in  Top  Level  Government  Management”  (McLellan,  2012)   Outside  Resource   Description   Application  in  PEFA   “Loaned  executive"     “On  several  occasions,  businesses  have     detailed  executives  or  technical  people  to   assist  policymakers  in  managing  important   public  issues”   Salary  supplements   “Salary  supplements  have  been  used  in  at     to  permit  hiring  of   least  two  cases:  (a)  salary  enhancement  to   highly  qualified   permit  a  governor  to  recruit  a  highly   people   qualified  individual,  and  (b)  salary   supplements  for  executive  staff  that  carry   out  both  public  and  political  roles.  MCL   §15.402  recognizes  this  dual  role:  An   employee  of  the  state  classified  civil  service   may:...  (d)  Engage  in  other  political  activities   on  behalf  of  a  candidate  or  issue  in   connection  with  partisan  or  nonpartisan   elections.”   Pro  bono  legal   “Historically,  Governors  of  both  parties  have   This  is  what  most  of   services  by  lawyers   called  on  private  sector  lawyer  to  enhance   Richard  McLellan’s   and  law  firms   the  capacity  of  their  limited  legal  staffs  in   work  with  the   the  Executive  Office  of  the  Governor.  These   governor’s  office  has   pro  bono  matters  differ  from  situations   involved  over  the   where  outside  lawyers  are  retained  by  the   years,  including  PEFA.   state  as  special  assistant  attorneys  general.”   Pro  bono  service   “Whether  through  formal  appointment  to  a   Much  of  the  work  of   contributions  by   task  force,  study  commission,  work  groups,   PEFA  started  out  this   other  professionals   etc.,  or  through  direct  advice  to  the   way  before  the  Oxford   including   governor  or  his  or  her  staff,  private  sector   Foundation  became   accountants,   individuals  contribute  to  the  policy  making   involved.     communications   role  of  the  governor  and  other  state   professionals,   officials.”   management   consultants,  labor   experts,  etc.   Philanthropic   “Major  state  foundations  have  made   This  is  the  exact   donations  and   significant  grants  to  elected  state  officials  to   description  of  the   grants  falling   help  develop  and  promote  policy   Oxford  Foundation   within  the  broad   proposals.”   and  the  wording  of   category  of   “lessening  the   "lessening  the   burdens  of   burdens  of   government”  can  be   government."   found  on  their  website     109   Table  11  (cont’d)   National   foundations   “Such  as  the  Gates  Foundation  funded  The   National  Governors  Association  Center  for   Best  Practices  (NGA  Center)  and  the  Council   of  Chief  State  School  Officers  (CCSSO)   Common  Core  State  Standards  Initiative,  a   process  being  led  by  governors  and  chief   state  school  officers  in  51  states,  territories,   and  the  District  of  Columbia.  “     "Public-­‐private   “The  role  of  private  sector  interests  actually   partnerships"   managing  public  services  is  reflected  in  the     term  public-­‐private  partnership,  defined  … as:  A  public–private  partnership  (PPP)  is  a   government  service  or  private  business   venture  which  is  funded  and  operated   through  a  partnership  of  government  and   one  or  more  private  sector  companies  …”   Private  funding  of   “E.g.,  the  Library  of  Michigan's  Rare  Book     state  assets   Room,  the  Frank  J.  Kelley  Law  Library in  the   Department  of  Attorney  General,  and  the   Michigan  Chemistry  Council  gift  of   construction  a  hazardous  chemicals   building  to  the  Michigan  State  Police.  “   Public  interest   “The  Michigan  Association  of  Broadcasters     advertising   web  site provides:  MAB  PROGRAMS:  Each   donated  by  the   year,  the  MAB  assists  the  state  ...  by   media   endorsing  campaigns  and  encouraging   member  stations  to  promoting  these   campaigns.  In  general,  the  MAB  helps   facilitate  statewide  attention  to  the  issue.   MAB  works  with  state  officials  to  identify   the  most  pressing  social  problems.”   Attendance  at  a   “The  expenses  of  which  are  paid  in  whole  or   conference,  training   in  part  by  a  private  source,  if  the  attendance   session,  or  other   is  primarily  for  the  benefit  of  the  state.”   meeting   Extensive  private   These  efforts  are  “to  assist  state   volunteer  efforts   government  leaders  in  addressing  major     policy  issues,  e.g.,  the  Secchia  Commission     110   and  legal  documents.   This  is  a  technical   term  and  broad   category  of  the   Internal  Revenues   Service.               To  a  certain  degree,   PEFA  falls  under  this   as  well,  especially   Table  11  (cont’d)   and  the  McPherson  Charter  School   Commission.”   Private  funding  for   revisions  to  the   constitutionally   required  governor’s   residence   “Under  Michigan’s  constitution,  the  state  is   required  to  provide  an  ‘executive  residence   suitably  furnished’  for  the  governor  and  his   family.  Because  of  fiscal,  political  and  public   perception  concerns,  many  of  the   maintenance  and  improvement  expenses  of   the  governors’  residences  have  been  borne   by  private  funds,  usually  through  a   §501(c)(3)  organization  formed  for  the   purpose.”     because  of  the   taskforce  designation   that  is  sometimes   used  to  describe  the   work.   This  is  very  important   to  PEFA.  However,  it   would  seem  contrary   to  think  so.  As   otherwise  noted,  the   Oxford  Foundation,   while  setup  to  “less   the  burden  of   government”  was   originally  created  for   this,  until  it  was   repurposed.         Private  funding  for   “E.g.,  2013  meeting  of  the  Council  of  Great   state-­‐hosted  events   Lakes  Governors  and  the  Premiers  of   Ontario  and  Québec  at  Mackinac  Island,  the   National  Governors  Association  Meeting  in   Michigan,  G8  Meeting  of  Energy  Ministers,   and  the  U.S.  Midwest-­‐Japan  Association   meeting.  For  each  of  these  meetings,   substantial  private  funds  were  raised  for   expenses.”   Legal  Note:  The  legal  rules  for  such  activities  have  been  establish  for  some  time.   Specifically,  since  at  least  1901,  Michigan  law  has  provided  for  a  mechanism  to  allow   private  gifts  to  the  state.  The  two  statues  below  outline  the  nuances  of  such  including   reporting  to  the  state  legislature  such  gifts  and  that  such  items  can  only  benefit  the  state,   not  individuals.       MCL  §21.161.  Grants  and  gifts  to  state;  acceptance  by  governor,  report  to  legislature.   • “Whenever  any  grant...donation,  gift  or  assignment  of  money...  shall  be  made  to  this   state,  the  governor  is  hereby  directed  to  receive  and  accept  the  same...  and  all...   property  or  thing  of  value...shall  be  reported  by  the  governor  to  the  legislature....”   MCL  §15.342.  Public  officer  or  employee;  prohibited  conduct.   • “A  public  officer  or  employee  shall  not  solicit  or  accept  a  gift  or  loan  of  money,   goods,  services,  or  other  thing  of  value  for  the  benefit  of  a  person  or  organization,   other  than  the  state,  which  tends  to  influence  the  manner  in  which  the  public  officer   or  employee  or  another  public  officer  or  employee  performs  official  duties.”       111   What  can  be  concluded  from  this  confusion  about  informal  and  formal  authority  is   that  “There’s  a  whole  structure  of  private  sector  involvement  in  public  policy  making,”  and   there  has  been  for  some  time.  Most  people  are  very  unaware  of  this.  It  becomes  increasing   visible  as  these  new  actors  become  involved  in  the  educational  sector  that  they  were  never   part  of  before,  or  at  least  not  studied  before.  Much  of  this  has  been  clouded  over  by  what   McLellan  called  the  new  model  of  news  reporting.  He  argued,  “Notwithstanding  the   reporters,  …  haven’t  been  around,  most  of  them.  They  come  to  town  and  their  job  is,  is  to   get  stories  in  the  paper  that  get  hits.  The  whole  model  of  the  press  now  is  you  have  to  have   two  or  three  stories,  they  have  to  be  as  controversial  as  possible  so  they  can  show  that   people  are  reading  it  and  are  commenting  on  it.  So  you  have  this  whole  new  model.”  What   this  means  is  that  the  nuances  of  how  things  occur  gets  left  out  for  the  general  public  –  the   actual,  but  complex  workings  of  government.  This  makes  McLellan’s  work  even  more   important  because  people  do  not  realize  the  powers  of  certain  branches  of  the  government   and  what  powers  they  actually  have  to  get  things  done.  What  is  clear  is  that  legally,   McLellan  had  all  the  formal  authority  that  was  necessary  to  act  in  an  official  capacity  on  the   governor’s  behalf.       Policy  Note  and  Connections  on  Authority     This  issue  of  authority  connects  directly  to  another  idea  that  also  surfaced  in  the   review  of  the  literature,  ambiguity.  David  Cohen  argued  that  “Characteristically,  when  the   federal  government  assumes  a  new  function,  it  takes  only  part  of  it,  leaving  substantial   discretion  and  authority  in  state  hands”  (1982,  p.  478).  However,  we  must  then  ask  the   question:  What  happens  when  the  state  only  assumes  part  of  a  new  function?  To  whom  is     112   that  substantial  discretion  and  authority  left  that  the  state  does  not  take?  Remember,  as   McDermott  argued,  “States  stand  in  the  middle  of  this  intergovernmental  network,  both   geographically  and  functionally”  (2010,  p.  756).  They  are  the  pivotal  piece  in  shaping   educational  policy.       Anagnostopoulos  et  al.  (2013)  argued  that  “antibureaucratic  sentiment,  an  emphasis   on  market-­‐oriented  solutions,  and  political  disputes  between  governors,  state   superintendents,  and  state  schools  boards  combined  with  unprecedented  state  budget   shortfalls  resulted  in  significant  SEA  [State  Education  Agencies]  staff  reductions  while  at   the  same  time  laws  like  No  Child  Left  Behind  have  reinforced  rather  than  limited  the   expansion  of  state  power”  (p.  218).  With  the  state  not  having  the  capacity  or  desire  to  take   on  a  certain  aspect  of  educational  policy,  the  doors  are  opened  to  new  actors.  This  creates   ambiguity  as  new  actors  enter  on  to  the  stage  in  this  era  of  accountability  and  changing   power  dynamics.  Policy  entrepreneurs  like  McLellan  are  able  to  assume  these  new  roles.     As  Henig  pointed  out,  “Policy  entrepreneurs,  analogously,  detect  an  unmet  social   need,  unrepresented  constituency,  or  untried  policy  and  carry  it  onto  the  policy  agenda,   reaping  political  support  and  influence  as  the  primary  reward”  (2013,  p.  37).  It  is  difficult   to  argue  that  PEFA  was  an  unmet  social  need,  but  it  was  set  up  to  look  like  there  was  an   unmet  need,  and  then  it  was  able  to  be  brought  to  the  state  education  policy  agenda   through  private  hands  with  a  strong  market  based  solution.     As  McLellan  told  me  and  I  could  not  agree  more,  entrepreneurs  must  know  the  rules   of  government,  rules  that  McLellan  was  well  aquatinted  with  and  others  were  not.  He   argued  that  he  was  able  to  do  all  that  he  did  because  he  knew  how  government  functions   and  knew  the  powers  of  the  governor  better  than  the  governor  did.  Already  embedded  in     113   the  laws  of  the  State  of  Michigan  are  ways  to  involve  private  interests  in  governmental   function.  It  is  just  that  most  officials  are  not  fully  aware  of  their  powers,  nor  do  they  use   them.  The  laws  and  rules  are  rather  nonspecific,  which  means  that  as  times  change,  so  do   the  actors  and  the  roles  they  are  allowed  to  play.  McLellan  has  been  involved  policymaking   for  many  years,  but  the  changing  policy  arena  has  made  it  more  socially  acceptable  for   outside  actors  to  be  involved  and  highly  visible  like  never  before.       Policy  Formation  Thus  Far  and  What  Follows     Thus  far,  I  have  discussed  several  key  policy  moves  that  went  into  the  formation  of   PEFA.  In  summation,  there  was  a  successful  effort  by  the  governor  and  McLellan  to  use  the   governor’s  special  message  both  as  a  rational  policy  trigger  and  as  a  policy  tool  of  how  to   change  education.  This  document  was  not  the  trigger,  but  the  trigger  actually  stemmed   from  the  private  interests  of  Eli  Broad.  Broad  met  with  Governor  Snyder  and  McLellan,  and   at  least  two  resulting  projects  were  set  underway  –  the  EAA  and  PEFA.  Once  they  decided   to  change  the  direction  of  Michigan’s  education  system,  Snyder  had  the  special  message   constructed  as  a  road  map,  but  the  key  ideas  aiming  at  increased  choice  and  achievement   were  designed  by  MDE  and  some  key  policy  actors,  who  would  later  go  on  vehemently  to   oppose  the  operationalization  of  their  ideas  in  PEFA.       Once  the  ideas  were  in  place,  there  needed  to  be  a  mechanism  for  McLellan  to   operate  under  that  was  not  under  government  control  and  subject  to  such  legalities  as  the   Freedom  of  Information  Act.  This  is  where  the  Oxford  Foundation  comes  in  and  the  use  of   dark  money  to  fund  the  project.  Once  the  staff  was  hired  and  the  project  was  underway,   McLellan  summarized  the  key  elements  of  the  governor’s  message  into  legislation,  all  while     114   working  with  members  of  the  state  government  to  form  the  legislation  like  he  was  a  high-­‐ ranking  official  of  the  state.  This  newfound  authority  was  the  subject  of  much  debate  and   policy  anxiety  for  many  policy  actors,  which  led  me  to  the  concluding  section  of  this   chapter  about  formal  and  informal  authority  for  non-­‐governmental  policy  entrepreneurs  to   be  able  to  act.     Chapter  Five  picks  up  where  four  left  off.  As  four  examined  the  internal  inception  of   such  a  process,  Chapter  Five  looks  at  the  public  exhibition  and  debate  of  PEFA.  I  examined   who  was  involved  in  the  process,  how  various  interest  groups  came  to  align  themselves,   and  the  outcomes  of  this  on  the  policy  cycle.                                                                 115   Chapter  Six:  The  State’s  Version  of  Star  Wars       As  I  have  demonstrated  in  the  previous  chapter,  PEFA  underwent  many  inception   and  formation  processes  that  were  both  governmental  and  extra-­‐governmental  in  nature.   However,  the  issues  of  power  and  authority  in  writing  the  legislation  are  only  one  aspect  of   the  shaping  of  this  policy.  It  was  not  just  enough  for  it  to  be  written;  it  also  had  to  undergo   public  debate  and  action,  as  described  in  Schultz’s  policy  cycle  (2005).  This  occurred  in  two   major  ways.  The  first  was  the  effort  of  McLellan  and  the  Oxford  Foundation,  and  second,   this  gave  rise  to  the  series  of  alliances  among  various  interest  groups  who  set  out  to  defeat   PEFA.       The  Empire  Strikes  Back   A  major  theme  of  McLellan’s  PEFA  campaign  was  the  idea  of  transparency.  He  set   out  with  the  stated  intention  of  having  different  groups  interact  with  his  work.  However,   this  was  what  also  sparked  the  opposition  to  PEFA.  Not  only  was  McLellan  presenting  what   he  planned  to  do  to  education  in  front  of  many  different  stakeholders,  he  was  not  overly   interested  in  their  suggested  changes.  This  caused  several  groups  to  feel  disenchanted  with   the  process,  especially  after  he  invited  them  to  meet.  As  McLellan  admitted,  the  idea  of   being  transparent  about  such  activities  and  involving  actors  outside  of  the  legislature  and   of  the  governor’s  office  was  a  foreign  concept  to  him.     One  of  the  elements  of  transparency  that  he  created  was  a  website  that  housed  all  of   the  official  documents  about  PEFA,  all  of  the  letters  that  they  received  for  and  against  it,   and  a  frequently  asked  questions  section.  This  desire  for  transparency  was  included  at  the     116   governor’s  behest,  and  it  was  something  that  he  has  pushed  through  local  governments,   including  school  districts.  In  point  of  fact,  the  website  claimed  that  “Because  public   education  and  school  financing  is  such  an  important  subject  to  many  organizations  and  the   general  public,  the  Michigan  Public  Education  Finance  Project  will  be  conducted  with   maximum  transparency,  including:  All  legislative  drafts,  reports  and  recommendations  will   be  public  and  accessible  on-­‐line.  Regular  consultations  will  be  held  with  education  interest   groups.  The  Superintendent  and  professional  staff  of  the  Michigan  Department  of   Education  will  be  asked  to  be  actively  involved,  employing  their  expertise.  Key  education   and  appropriations  staffs  in  the  legislature  will  be  asked  to  participate  on  a  bipartisan   basis.”     Building  on  this,  McLellan  staged  a  large  meeting  with  what  he  called  the  education   shareholders  to  discuss  PEFA.  As  President  Diver  recalled,  “Once  McLellan  and  the  Oxford   Foundation  got  going,  and  they  announced  in  the  fall,  and  it  became  pretty  clear  almost   immediately  that  their  kind  of  mandate  …  was  basically  contemplating  and  working  to   develop  a  much  more  expansive  way  to  offer  new  school  choices  and  new  school  vendors  in   the  marketplace.”  As  the  meetings  went  on,  Diver  stated,  “They  never  were  interested  in   looking  at  how  we  actually  raise  any  more  money  …  It  was  always  how  do  we  create  a  new   marketplace  of  education.”     MEA  lobbyist  Marlowe  remembered  it  slightly  differently,  but  the  interpretation   was  not  that  different.  He  stated  that  “In  June  of  2011,  it  kind  of  became  public  when  the   Oxford  Foundation  invited  some  60  organizations  to  send  a  representative  to  a  meeting  in   mid-­‐July  but  that  became  public  knowledge  and  was  a  public  meeting  and  there  were   several  hundred  people  who  actually  showed  up.”  McLellan  had  invited  what  Diver,     117   Marlowe,  and  McLellan  called  the  “whole  school  community,”  which  included  special   interest  groups,  school  unions,  school  management  organizations,  charter  school   organizations,  lobbyists,  and  elected  officials.     Several  interviewees  have  described  this  meeting,  but  Marlowe  captured  it  best:     My  recollection  is  Dick  McLellan  wasn’t  even  up  front.  It  was  a  couple  folks  from  the   governor’s  office  and  Peter  Ruddell  [McLellan’s  assistant  in  the  drafting  process]   and  they  explained  the  process  and  what  was  going  on.    And  how  anyone  who  was   interested  could  give  input  and  where  they  could  go  online  to  get  information  on   what  was  happening,  what  the  draft  was,  what  other  organizations  were  feeding  in   as  their  input.  There  was  no  firm  plan  at  that  point  in  time,  other  than  a  timeline  and   the  general  goals  of  what  they  wanted  to  do.  They  did  refer  folks  to  the  governor’s   education  speech  as  the  framework  of  where  they  were  going.  They  invited  people   to  meet  with  them  if  they  wanted,  to  submit  written  input  if  they  wanted.    Both  of   which  we  did,  among  others,  you  know.    Oh,  I  think  generally  we’re  not  in  favor  of  it   but  we  had  some  specific  suggestions.     This  paints  an  interesting  view  of  the  transparency  process  McLellan  had  created.  It  was   transparent  in  the  assertion  that  “here  is  the  proposed  law  and  changes  and  this  is  what  we   are  going  to  do.”     Marlowe  thought  that  “It  was  to  be  a  working  group  but  in  fact  what  it  was  one   hearing  and  they  announced  what  they  were  doing.    They  had  this  program  they  were   working  on  and  there  never  were  any  working  group  meetings.”  After  the  meeting,  Diver   stated,  “We  as  a  board  formally  put  together  both  our  recommendations,  our  ideas,  then  a   committee  of  the  board  met  several  times  with  McLellan  and  it  became  clear  in  those   discussions  that  the  only  thing  they  were  interested  in  was  having  the  state  board  be   supportive  of  some  of  their  ideas.  They  had  zero  interest  in  actually  entertaining  some  of   ours.”  This  left  many  in  the  room  feeling  disenfranchised  and  that  these  changes  were   being  done  to  them  and  not  in  collaboration  with  them.  This  caused  serious  resentment   that  manifested  itself  in  strong,  organized  opposition.  However,  McLellan  argued,  “We  met     118   with  all  these  groups  and  not  one  of  them  was  willing  to  participate  in  a  serious  discussion   …  they  had  made  a  policy  decision  not  to  participate.”       The  Return  of  the  Jedi  (the  Alliance)   Through  the  interview  process,  a  certain  color,  or  maybe  lack  of  color,  was   associated  with  McLellan’s  name.  Several  interviewees  referred  to  him  as  dark,  including   “the  Dark  Prince,”  “Dark  Lord,”  “Darth  Vader  of  the  Legislature,”  and  “the  dark  force.”  When   I  asked  McLellan  about  this,  he  laughed  and  reveled  in  his  nom  de  guerre.7  He  laughed,  “So   dark  seems  to  be  my  color  …  I  think  I’m  a  bright  and  cheery  guy.”  However,  while  I  can  see   the  virtue  of  this  dark  perception  in  the  political  arena,  it  can  also  be  used  as  a  distraction   to  erode  trust,  and  this  is  what  the  Alliance  did  with  McLellan  and  PEFA.     The  Alliance  is  what  I  call  the  team  of  organized  opposition  to  PEFA.  However,  this   was  more  than  just  a  series  of  interest  groups  that  opposed  one  piece  of  legislation.  A  series   of  interest  groups  combined  their  efforts  into  a  super  interest  group  that  was  organized   and  had  a  de  facto  leader.  Going  back  to  the  literature  on  interest  groups  discussed  in   Chapter  Three,  Opfer  et  al.  (2008)  stated  that  there  are  two  persistent  themes  in  the   literature  on  what  interest  groups  do:  (1)  organized  interests  seek  to  influence  policy,  and   (2)  certain  contexts  can  diminish  or  preclude  organized  interests’  ability  to  employ   lobbying  tactics  to  secure  the  enactment  of  favorable  policies  or  prevent  unfavorable   legislation  or  regulation  (Baumgartner  &  Leech,  1998;  Lowery,  2007).  We  see  both  of  these   unfold  here.  The  interest  groups  around  education  sought  to  influence  the  outcome  of  PEFA   by  preventing  the  passage  of  what  they  saw  as  unfavorable  legislation.                                                                                                                     7  French  for  “war  name.”     119   These  groups  were  comprised  of  special  interest  groups,  such  as  unions,  teacher  and   administrator  organizations,  elected  school  boards  and  their  membership  association,  as   well  as  the  elected  state  board  of  education.  These  also  included  intermediate  school   districts  (ISDs)  and  their  membership  groups.  All  of  these  groups  fall  under  Salisbury’s   exchange  theory,  except  for  the  elected  officials.  Recalling  from  Chapter  Three,  exchange   theory  holds  that  beyond  personal  gain,  there  may  be  political  elements  that  pull  members   together.  These  groups  all  have  members  who  have  received  collective  benefits  as  a  result   of  their  membership,  and  those  benefits  can  be  political  as  well.  However,  as  they  banded   together,  they  became  something  else  –  a  super  interest  group  that  is  somewhere  between   Truman’s  order  and  disturbance  theory  and  McFarland’s  countervailing  power  theory.  This   is  the  uniqueness  of  the  PEFA.  So  many  different  groups  came  together  to  oppose  it,   forming  one  collective  voice.  It  aligned  with  the  countervailing  power  theory  in  that  this   super  interest  group  was  formed  to  react  to  what  they  saw  as  the  dominant  voice  of  a  well-­‐ organized  interest  groups  (McLellan  and  the  governor).  However,  it  quickly  became  the   largest  voice  formed  on  common  political  views,  which  aligns  with  agenda  setting  of  order   and  disturbance  theory,  because  the  members  joined  together  over  similar  interests  and   had  similar  goals  –  in  this  case,  maintaining  the  current  education  system.       How  did  this  super  interest  group  come  to  be?  It  is  not  easy  to  get  these  various   agencies  all  on  the  same  page  to  rage  against  one  policy.  Often  there  is  division  between  the   groups,  especially  on  issues  of  unionization  and  evaluation.  As  long  time  State  School  Board   member  Grey  argued,  “The  education  community  doesn’t  always  work  together.  They’re   usually  out  there  lobbying  for  their  own  self-­‐interest.”  However,  these  groups  disliked   PEFA  so  vehemently,  they  united  in  their  opposition  because  each  felt  it  was  in  their  best     120   interests.  McLellan  inadvertently  brought  these  various  education  actors  together  in  an   effort  of  transparency,  and  then  one  person  became  the  lead  organizer  and  took  charge  to   defeat  PEFA  by  raising  public  concern,  outing  PEFA’s  connection  to  the  EAA,  alluding  to   conspiracy  and  secret  governmental  meetings,  and  discrediting  PEFA’s  claims  to  improve   education.     Transparency     I  asked  McLellan  what  he  thought  happened,  and  he  said  that  the  whole  political   nightmare  that  became  the  PEFA  legislation  began  with  him  having  tried  to  serve   transparency.  He  argued,  “This  transparency  was  clearly  used  to  …  kill  the  baby  before  it’s   born,  it  was  a  smart,  it  was  a  smart  strategy  on  their  part  …  it  was  their  policy  strategy.”   The  political  problems  of  PEFA  were  “in  part  because  of  the  organized  campaign  by  the   school  lobby  against  House  Bill  5923  [PEFA].  But  they  wisely  bundled  everything  together   and  called  it  vouchers  and  blah,  blah,  blah.”  While  McLellan  felt  he  was  being  transparent  in   his  action,  it  was  clear  the  school  lobby  wanted  input  in  addition  to  McLellan  explaining   what  was  going  to  happen.       However,  it  is  clear  in  the  interviews  that  neither  McLellan’s  team  nor  the  organized   opposition  felt  like  the  other  was  listening  to  their  concerns.  He  continued  that  “We  met   with  all  these  groups  and  not  one  of  them  was  willing  to  participate  in  a  serious  discussion   …  they  had  made  a  policy  decision  not  to  participate.”  McLellan  felt  that  this  was  also  part   of  the  school  lobbies’  strategy  to  defeat  PEFA.  He  argued  that  “from  an  issue  management   point  of  view  …  you  can’t,  once  you  learn  that  the  other  side  is  not  going  to  participate  and   we  learned  that  very  early,  get  something  done.”  It  was  their  resistance  to  change  that     121   made  things  so  unpleasant.  I  then  asked  McLellan  how  this  whole  super  interest  against   PEFA  was  organized.  He  thought  for  a  moment  and  then  said  that  it  was  all  because  of  the   work  of  one  person.  He  argued  that  “The  princess  of  evil  …  Addie  Bundren.8  And  I  don’t   know  that  but  until  she  proves  that  she  isn’t  behind  it  all,  I’m  giving  her  credit  for   everything.”  While  it  would  seem  that  this  might  be  an  off  the  cuff  response,  it  was  clear   that  McLellan  had  thought  about  this  for  a  long  time.  He  got  out  a  white  paper  that  he  had   written  called  the  Education  Battle  Plan.  In  this  plan,  he  presented  me  a  chart,  based  on  the   one  in  Table  12,  where  he  names  Addie  Bundren,  ISD  superintendent  of  the  most  affluent   county  in  Michigan,  at  the  top  of  the  list  of  organized  opposition.                                                                                                                                             8  Addie  Bundren  is  a  literary  pseudonym  for  the  ISD  superintendent  of  the  most  affluent   county  in  Michigan.  The  character  Addie  Bundren  is  the  mother  in  William  Faulkner’s  novel   As  I  Lay  Dying.     122   Table  12:  Traditionalist     Traditionalists:     Led  by  Addie  Bundren  with  Unified  Strategy     Fellow  Travellers:   Commanders  Army:   Worker  Army:   -­‐ PTA   -­‐ 500+  district  superintendents   -­‐ AFT   -­‐ Front  groups   -­‐ Elected  school  board  members   -­‐ MEA   -­‐ News  media   -­‐ Democratic  State  Board  of  Education   -­‐ UAW   -­‐ School  vendors   Members   -­‐ AFL-­‐CIO   -­‐ Democratic  Party   -­‐ Education  interest  groups   -­‐ AFSCME   -­‐ Ed  Trust  Midwest   -­‐ Michigan  Association  of  School   -­‐ National  liberal   Administrators   organizations   -­‐ Michigan  Education  Association   -­‐ Parents  in  “good”   -­‐ Macomb  ISD   schools   -­‐ Michigan  Association  of  School  Boards   -­‐ Democrat   -­‐ Michigan  League  for  Human  Services     legislators   -­‐ AFT-­‐Michigan     -­‐ Michigan  Association  of  Secondary   Principals   -­‐ Michigan  Elementary  and  Middle   School  Principals   -­‐ Michigan  School  Business  Officials   -­‐ Michigan  Pupil  Transportation   Association   -­‐ Michigan  Association  of  Intermediate   School  Administrators   -­‐ Michigan  Small  and  Rural  Schools   “[As  of  December  2011  …  there  were  339,919   paid  employees  working  in  Michigan’s  public   schools.  There  are  553  school  districts,  57   intermediate  school  districts,  and  thousands   of  school  buildings.  Moreover,  there  are  many   private  vendors,  consultants,  textbook   suppliers,  associations  and  others  with  strong   vested  interests  in  the  operation  and  funding   of  public  schools]”     Neutrals:   Targets  of  the  Battle:   -­‐ Superintendent  Flanagan   -­‐ Republican  Legislative  leaders   -­‐ Business  Community   -­‐ Education  committee  chairs   -­‐ Detroit  Chamber  of  Commerce   -­‐ School  aid  subcommittee  chairs   -­‐ Michigan  Chamber   -­‐ Legislative  staffs   -­‐ Local  governments   -­‐ Fiscal  agencies   -­‐ Community  colleges  and  state   -­‐ Individual  legislators   universities     -­‐ General  public       123       The  chart  is  very  specific,  and  it  lists  people  in  various  categories.  The  first  is  the   traditionalists,  who  are  those  who  wish  more  or  less  maintain  the  status  quo.  That  does  not   mean  not  changing  elements  or  practices,  but  the  overall  structure  would  remain  the  same,   although  with  more  money.  Commanders  are  the  leadership,  especially  those  in  charge  of   school  government  instrumentalities.  Workers  are  members  of  the  school  force  who  are   not  leadership,  and  fellow  travelers  are  those  groups  that  tend  to  align  themselves  with  the   traditionalists  because  of  overlapping  interests.     While  McLellan’s  representation  is  probably  a  biased  representation  of  the  key   players,  it  does  capture  many  of  them  and  how  they  were  viewed  by  the  McLellan   supporters.  However,  was  McLellan  just  speculating  or  was  Bundren  really  part  of  this?   This  representation  is  not  totally  inaccurate,  at  least  as  far  as  interest  groups  are   concerned.  Based  on  my  research,  President  Diver  and  Bundren  were  two  of  the  biggest   opponents  to  PEFA.  As  it  turns  out,  several  interviewees  discussed  their  role  in  defeating   PEFA,  and  almost  all  of  them  discussed  Bundren.     Coalition  Building  –  Forming  a  Super  Interest  Group   After  the  initial  large  group  meeting  McLellan  called,  Compson,  government   relations  director,  tried  to  set  up  a  meeting  with  McLellan  and  the  Oxford  foundation  to   discuss  their  concerns  with  PEFA.  However,  she  felt  there  was  opposition  to  this.  She   stated,  “They  kind  of  blew  off  us  cuz  we’re  Yoknapatawpha  Schools9  and,  you  know,  we   tend  to  be  loud  and  organized  against  a  lot  of  their  ideas  and  so  they  tend  not  to  want  to                                                                                                                   9  Yoknapatawpha  Schools  is  a  literary  pseudonym  for  Michigan’s  most  affluent  county  ISD.   In  literature,  Yoknapatawpha  County,  pronounced  “Yok’na  pa  TAW  pha,”  is  the  imaginary   county  where  almost  all  of  William  Faulkner’s  novels  are  set.         124   meet  with  us.  I  probably  wouldn’t  meet  with  me  either  if  I  were  them.”  Compson  and  her   ISD  superintendent,  Bundren,  went  into  this  policy  debate  wanting  to  discuss  PEFA  from   what  they  perceived  as  a  position  of  power.  They  represented  the  largest  and  most  affluent   county  in  the  State  of  Michigan,  and  they  were  used  to  being  able  to  influence  policy.   McLellan  did  not  really  care  who  they  were,  and  he  was  not  particularly  interested  in  their   point  of  view  for  a  couple  of  reasons.  First,  he  saw  this  as  a  power  play  to  change  the  policy,   and  he  was  no  novice  at  influencing  policy  either;  and  second,  the  transparency  and  public   meetings  were  not  work  groups  because  most  of  the  legislation  had  already  been  designed   by  this  point.     Despite  this,  McLellan  finally  held  a  joint  meeting  with  seven  or  eight  groups,  and   Yoknapatawpha  did  not  get  the  private  audience  for  which  they  had  hoped.  As  a  matter  of   fact,  they  did  not  feel  unique.  As  Compson  put  it,  “They  sort  of  clumped  about  seven  or   eight  of  us  all  in  a  room  to  meet  with  McLellan.”  Furthermore,  Compson  expressed  that   Yoknapatawpha  was  worried  about  control.  She  stated,  “Our  districts  are  not  going  to  have   any  control  over  this  but  they’re  going  to  be  penalized  for  it.”  She  was  referring  to  the   change  in  the  funding  stream,  and  that  an  unbundled  system  would  be  a  game  changer  for   those  who  go  to  the  schools  in  the  affluent  Yoknapatawpha  County  and  the  amount  of   money  they  may  receive.       Dissatisfied  with  the  outcome  of  the  meeting,  Bundren  began  forming  an  education   collation  against  PEFA,  using  the  various  actors  that  McLellan  had  invited  to  the  major   public  hearing,  and  also  the  large  group  meeting  that  Yoknapatawpha  had  attended.   According  to  Compson,  Yoknapatawpha  was  not  happy  with  the  major  components  of  the     125   bill.  Specifically,  she  stated,  “Some  of  it  was  the  finance  piece,  some  of  it  was  the  EAA  and   there  was  the  overlap  between  them,  some  of  it  was  how  we  were  going  to  fund  schools.”     Once  all  the  interest  groups  were  assembled  and  unified  behind  her,  Bundren  had  a   series  of  town  hall  meetings.  As  Compson  put  it,  Bundren  “was  pretty  direct  about  what  she   thought  of  the  unbundling  stuff  and  its  links  to  ALEC,  …  in  short,  it  was  this  whole  idea  of  a   back  door  to  $13  billion  in  public  education  money  that  they’re  trying  to  figure  out  how  to   funnel  to  the  private  school,  you  know,  the  private,  not  schools  necessarily.  It’s  not  that   kind  of  a  voucher.  It’s  more  the  private  industry  behind,  they’re  running  these  courses.”   Much  to  McLellan’s  dismay,  the  opposition  connected  unbundling  to  vouchers  and  private   schools  when  in  reality  it  would  have  been  more  like  private  industry  running  online   courses.  Nonetheless,  it  clouded  what  PEFA  was  and  was  not.  After  all,  under  the  1970   “Parochiaid”  amendment  to  the  Michigan  constitution,  public  funds,  direct  or  indirect,  are   not  allowed  for  private  schools,  religious  or  otherwise.  In  essence,  it  became  politically   viable  for  the  opposition  to  confuse  the  issue  and  then  include  what  it  was  really  about:   cyber  schools  and  private  industry.       According  to  Compson,  Bundren  stated  that  “It  seems  pretty  un-­‐American  to  have   these  non-­‐accountable,  non-­‐elected  courses  that  are  now  going  to  be  able  to  just  get  this   funding  without  any  real  oversight,  any  reporting  requirements,  any  whatever.”  McLellan   took  this  to  be  a  direct  attack  on  him  and  what  he  stood  for,  and  in  defending  PEFA  he  went   on  the  radio.  Eventually,  it  became  an  argument  of  whether  Bundren  was  really  calling   McLellan  un-­‐American,  which  he  felt  she  was,  and  she  was  definitely  trying  to  connect  the   dots  while  also  trying  to  appeal  to  the  prochoice  Tea  Party  members  to  side  with  her  and   the  education  lobby.  In  retaliation  for  being  called  un-­‐American,  McLellan  called  Bundren     126   “the  hyper-­‐ventilating  superintendent  from  Yoknapatawpha  County.”  In  addition,  Bundren   pointed  everyone  to  a  website  that  was  against  PEFA,  but  conveniently  was  not  run  by   Yoknapatawpha  County;  it  was  called  A  Million  Voices  that  served  the  Tri-­‐County  area  and   opposed  PEFA.  Finally,  the  legislature  went  on  winter  break  for  the  month  of  December  of   2012,  and  much  of  the  PEFA  rhetoric  died  down.       McLellan  and  Bundren  also  argued  about  equity,  which  received  a  great  deal  of   attention.  For  McLellan,  it  was  rather  negative  attention.  Some  people  define  equity  as   everyone  gets  equal  amounts.  Others  define  it  as  everyone  gets  what  they  need,  and  some   need  more  than  others  to  succeed.  However,  Richard  McLellan  argued  that  there  is  no  such   thing  as  equity  –  a  statement  that  Bundren  capitalized  on  in  her  speeches  in  which  she   claimed  that  McLellan  was  trying  to  blow  up  the  education  system.  At  first,  this  statement   struck  me  as  odd,  because  in  education  we  often  talk  about  issues  of  equity.  However,   McLellan  then  went  on  to  explain  his  point,  particularly  that  the  educational  community   cannot  agree  on  a  common  definition,  but  instead  problematizes  it  instead  of  specifically   defining  it.  McLellan  argued,  “Again,  there’s  two  or  three  words  in  our  culture  that  are  just   void  of  meaning.  Best  practices,  reform,  and  equity  would  be  three.  They  don’t  mean   anything.  They  mean  whatever  you  choose  to  mean  in  a  particular  argument.  It  always   means  you  get  more  money.  Always.”  While  McLellan  is  making  a  complicated  argument  on   the  lack  of  commonly  defined  language  in  education,  his  point  was  boiled  down  simply  to   mean  that  he  did  not  believe  in,  nor  wanted,  equity,  and  he  would  undo  any  equity  already   in  education  through  PEFA.       However,  Bundren  did  not  do  all  of  this  alone.  The  State  Board  of  Education  helped   her  form  this  super  interest  group  of  the  educational  community.  Dorian  Gray,  longtime     127   board  member,  recalled,  “She  helped  organize  a  campaign  against  it  and  we  got  the   associations  who  were  also  against  it  …  the  school  board  or  the  school  board  association  or   school  administrators,  the  PTA,  a  lot  of  those  organizations.”  As  new  State  School  Board   member  Dashwood  put  it,  “The  board  went  from  Marquette  to  Grand  Rapids  to  Okemos,  all   over  the  state,  we  held  a  number  of  forums  to  try  to  increase  awareness.”  Grey  continued   that  there  were  also  very  active  intermediate  school  district  superintendents  who  worked   to  oppose  PEFA.  However,  Gray  specifically  credited  most  of  the  work  to  Bundren,  having   stated  that  “Addie  Bundren  of  the  Yoknapatawpha  Schools  was  really  effective  in  getting  it   on  the  email,  on  the  internet  and  setting  up  a  response  mechanism  and  getting  people  to   get  in  touch  with  their  legislators.”  As  Compson  recalled,  “Bundren  got  the  Yoknapatawpha   County  legislators  pretty  freaked  out  in  the  fall  when  they  were  getting  emails  to  the  tune   of  thousands  from  constituents  saying  what  is  this  we’re  hearing  about  selective   enrollment  and  special  new  forms  of  schools  and  unbundling  funding.”     This  added  a  new  dimension  to  what  Compson  had  argued.  Not  only  was  Bundren   out  on  the  circuit  talking  about  PEFA  and  promoting  its  demise,  she  was  also  encouraging   people  to  send  specific  messages  to  their  elected  representatives  in  Lansing.  McLellan  was   busy  fighting  Bundren,  and  he  assumed  because  this  was  the  governor’s  idea,  and  he   supported  it,  at  least  from  a  distance,  and  that  it  had  already  been  introduced  into  the   legislature  that  the  Republicans  were  on  his  side  to  pass  it  during  the  lame  duck  session  in   2012.       Interestingly,  when  McLellan  did  all  this  organizing  and  used  the  Oxford  Foundation   to  promote  his  ideas  to  influence  the  legislature,  he  was  the  dark  villain.  However,  when   the  school  lobby  organized  in  a  similar  manner,  they  were  saluted  for  working  together.  As     128   Gray  puts  it,  “So  it  was  a  very  good  example  of  when  the  school  community  gets,  the  public   school  community  gets  together  and  works  in  harmony,  they  can  influence  the  legislature.”   To  some  degree,  it  hardly  seems  fair.       Connecting  One  Controversy  to  Another  –  the  EAA     As  I  described  in  Chapter  Four,  there  was  a  connection  between  the  PEFA  and  the   EAA,  but  it  was  not  an  explicit  connection.  Both  concepts  came  out  of  a  meeting  with  Eli   Broad,  Governor  Snyder,  and  McLellan.  Furthermore,  McLellan  was  involved  in  drafting   both,  but  he  only  championed  PEFA  publicly.  The  connection  between  McLellan  and  the   EAA  was  not  public  knowledge,  at  least  not  in  the  beginning.  This  connection  became  a   major  focus  of  the  opposition,  which  also  generally  opposed  the  EAA.       The  connect  between  the  EAA  bill  and  the  PEFA  bill  became  clear  when  they  were   introduced  together  with  a  few  other  bills  during  the  2012  lame  duck  session  by   Representative  Lisa  Lyons.  Furthermore,  according  to  Compson,  some  of  McLellan’s  white   papers  surfaced  that  discussed  the  connections  between  the  two.  This  begs  the  question  of   what  the  connection  actually  was  between  the  two  bills.     As  longtime  board  member  Gray  described  it,  the  EAA  was  created  outside  of  the   Michigan  Department  of  Education.  It  was  established  by  a  local  government  act  between   Eastern  Michigan  University  and  the  Detroit  Public  Schools,  under  the  control  of  the   governor’s  appointed  emergency  manager  Roy  Roberts.  She,  along  with  several  others,   credits  McLellan  with  this.  School  districts  are  government  instrumentalities  just  like  cities   and  townships,  so  the  same  laws  and  terms  apply  to  them.  McLellan  used  a  revenue  sharing   function  of  the  law  meant  for  cities  and  townships  to  connect  to  Eastern  and  the  Detroit     129   Public  Schools.  However,  this  only  gave  them  limited  authority.  The  EAA  bill  would  have   formalized  and  set  their  state-­‐level  powers.       Diver  argued  that  the  connection  to  PEFA  came  in  the  unbundling  and  choice   options  PEFA  would  have  triggered.  The  EAA  bill  was  rather  narrowly  tailored  in  order  to   get  it  passed,  but  if  it  passed  with  PEFA,  the  EAA  would  have  more  expansive  power.   Specifically,  “House  Bill  5923  [PEFA],  [of  which]  McLellan  was  the  architect,  added  to  what   should’ve  been  a  very  needed  and  narrow  Education  Achievement  Authority  bill  that  would   be  codifying  the  EAA  to  turn  around  the  most  persistently  under-­‐performing  schools.”  If   both  the  EAA  and  PEFA  had  passed,  then  there  would  have  been  “Unlimited  authorizing   ability  for  the  EAA,  anywhere  in  the  state,  nothing  to  do  with  the  schools  they  were  trying   to  turn  around.”  This  was  because  within  the  PEFA  legislation  was  a  cause  for  the   expansion  of  the  EAA  as  one  element  of  choice.       What  is  important  to  note  is  that  there  was  support  within  the  super  interest  group   for  the  creation  of  the  EAA.  PEFA  was  opposed  by  all  members  of  the  education  lobby,  but   some  of  those  members  were  in  favor  of  the  EAA  as  a  school  turnaround  mechanism.  This   caused  some  imbalances  within  the  super  interest  group.  However,  if  Bundren  could   directly  connect  both  and  show  that  one  would  empower  the  other,  then  both  bills  could  be   killed.  Because  the  EAA  would  be  operating  outside  of  the  State  Board,  Diver  also  felt  he   had  to  “get  out  there  and  start  calling  this  stuff  out  as  being  basically  an  unregulated   marketplace,  unfettered,  new  school  creation  that  is  going  to  be  a  nuclear  bomb  on  public   education.”  It  also  did  not  hurt  for  Diver  to  become  more  engaged  in  the  subject.  Several,   including  McLellan,  speculated  that  Diver  was  planning  to  use  his  position  as  the  highest     130   ranking  Democrat  in  the  state  and  this  issue  to  become  more  well-­‐known  and  to  make  a  bid   for  governor  in  2014.  However,  at  the  time  of  this  writing,  he  has  yet  to  announce.       This  connection  got  a  great  deal  of  play  in  the  public  sector,  but  there  was  one   additional  element  that  stalled  the  PEFA  process.  As  Heep,  writer  and  communications   expert  for  McLellan,  stated,  the  EAA  bill  was  really  the  main  priority  of  the  governor,  so  the   education  lobby  held  it  hostage  against  PEFA.  Because  the  super  interest  group  was  united   about  opposing  PEFA,  but  divided  about  the  EAA,  it  became  clear  that  they  would  not  win   both  battles.  They  may  be  able  to  prolong  the  statewide  formalization  of  the  EAA,  but  it  was   going  to  happen.  Thus,  the  EAA  became  a  bargaining  chip.  Heep  stated,  “Essentially  what   happened  is  that  the  education  lobby  that  is  so  strongly  opposed  …  they  told  the  governor’s   office  that  if  you,  if  you  release  the  PEFA  report,  we  will  kill  the  EAA  outright  and  the   governor  really  wants  the  EAA.”  McLellan  and  Heep  argued  to  the  governor’s  staff  that  it   would  not  matter  what  happened  with  PEFA,  the  education  lobby  would  still  try  to  kill  the   EAA.  However,  the  governor  felt  that  the  EAA  was  more  important.  As  McLellan  stated,   “And  so  we  then  were  told  just  hold  off  until  we  get  the  EAA  bill  through.  Well,  they  still   don’t  have  the  EAA  bill.”         When  the  lame  duck  session  had  come  to  a  close,  over  200  bills  were  passed.   However,  none  of  the  education  bills,  including  that  version  of  the  EAA  bill,  ultimately  were   passed.  As  Drive  argued,  “Republican  legislators  did  not  want  to  take  a  vote  that  was   rightfully  perceived  as  being  potentially  like  dismantling  public  education  because  they   would  be  called  out  for  what  it  was.”           131   Skunk  Works     Perhaps  one  of  the  most  politically  damning  targets  that  the  opposition  seized  upon   was  the  emergence  of  a  secret  school  reform  work  group  run  by  McLellan  called  Skunk   Works.  The  term  “Skunk  Works”  was  immediately  exploited  as  a  negative  and  secretive   plot  by  McLellan,  but  the  term  and  its  use  was  anything  but.  Skunk  Works  is  any  small   group  of  people  who  work  on  a  project  in  an  unconventional  way,  and  it  was  first  used  by   Lockheed  Martin  during  World  War  II  to  create  top-­‐secret  fighter  jets.  McLellan,  knowing   history,  thought  this  was  a  great  term  to  apply  to  this  group  of  educational  reforms,  but  it   only  inspired  doubts  about  his  transparency.     At  some  point  there  was  a  break  in  the  ranks  of  the  members  of  Skunk  Works,  and  a   teacher  in  Yoknapatawpha  County  got  hold  of  the  Skunk  Works  documents  and  gave  them   to  Bundren,  who  then  leaked  them  to  the  press.  However,  this  project  was  not  a   governmental  project,  which  means  it  did  not  fall  under  the  Open  Meetings  Act  or  the  rules   of  the  Freedom  of  Information  Act.  The  problem  was  that  a  few  of  the  members  were   governmental  employees,  and  at  least  one  was  using  his  state  email  address,  which  was   subject  to  the  Freedom  of  Information  Act.  The  press  learned  of  this  and  received  many  of   the  Skunk  Works  files.   When  I  asked  the  interviewees  about  Skunk  Works,  Compson  stated,  “He’s   [McLellan]  old  school  …  old  school  politics  and…  somebody  in  the  press  said,  you  know,  so   you  were  having  these  secret  meetings  and  you  weren’t  having  open  hearings  and  he  said   it’s  Skunk  Works,  that’s  the  way  it’s  supposed  to  be.”  Compson  argued  that  this  was  an   issue  they  could  exploit,  especially  when  people  like  McLellan  are    “working  for  a  governor   who’s  talking  about  transparency.”  Marlowe,  the  MEA  lobbyist,  stated,  “I  can  understand,  it     132   was  meant  to  be  just  strictly  internal  but  …  it  kind  of  epitomizes  everything  that  causes   people  to  be  so  skeptical  of  these  private  meetings.”  He  continued,  “From  my  point  of  view,   I  mean,  it’s  wonderful.  Guys  like  me,  when  we’re  on  the  other  side,  think,  well,  okay,  thank   you.”    Essentially,  the  discovery  of  Skunk  Works  fueled  criticisms  that  McLellan  was  trying   to  deceive  the  public.     Included  in  the  documents  uncovered  in  my  research  was  a  Skunk  Works  brief   written  by  McLellan,  without  any  names  or  mention  of  people  involved  in  this  work  group.   However,  there  was  a  mission  statement  for  the  group.  The  paperwork  stated  that  Skunk   Works  was:   A  small  group  of  technology  leaders  in  Michigan  [who]  have  accepted  the  volunteer   challenge  to  design  a  wholly  new  public  education  experience  that  bundles  the  most   advanced  technology  tools  for  learning  to  apply,  in  the  public  education  space,   concepts  that  are  being  applied  throughout  society  –  using  technology  to  both   reduce  unit  costs  and  increase  quality  and  performance  at  the  same  time.  By   deliberately  avoiding  control  by  traditional  education  interests,  the  volunteer  team   has  the  ability  to  use  developing  ideas  in  brain  science,  learning  theory,   gamification,  online  learning,  flipped  classrooms,  new  devices  and  programs,  and   other  concepts  to  design  and  implement  a  unique  lower  cost,  higher  performance,   legally  compliant,  exciting  and  challenging  Michigan  public  education  experience,   both  within  and  without  “traditional  Schools.”  (McLellan,  2013)     The  40  pages  of  documents  outline  plans  for  changing  the  schooling  process  that  were  in   line  with  PEFA,  including  the  governor’s  education  message  and  including  the  disruptive   innovation  framework  as  a  guide.  Furthermore,  the  documents  contained  a  detailed  legal   analysis  of  areas  of  possible  flexibility  within  Michigan  school  law  for  private/extra-­‐ governmental  interests  to  become  involved  in  public  education.  Some  of  those  areas   included  service  contracts  between  schools  and  intermediate  school  districts,  teacher   certification  and  alternative  routes  for  those  outside  of  education  to  become  teachers,   school  improvement  plans  and  accountability  systems,  and  approved  course  credits.  In     133   addition  to  these  ideas  of  using  technology  to  improve  education  and  finding  ways  to   provide  choice  and  flexibility  within  the  system,  McLellan  wanted  to  make  sure  that   whatever  their  product,  it  was  a  “value  school.”  This  is  essentially  a  school  that  would  use   technology  and  other  innovative  ideas  to  reduce  the  per-­‐pupil  cost  of  educating  a  student.         Given  the  above  description  and  the  vast  overlap  in  the  PEFA  documents,  it  was  not   difficult  to  infer  that  there  was  a  connection  between  PEFA  and  this  secret  organization.   Given  those  conditions,  it  was  then  even  easier  to  imply  that  PEFA  was  part  of  a  larger   conspiracy.  Compson  argued  that  a  big  part  of  the  negative  response  to  PEFA  and  Skunk   Works  was  because  “legislators  don’t  like  controversy  and,  you  know,  the  idea  that  there   were  backroom  meetings.  Plus,  I  think  it  ticked  them  off  that  there  were  backroom   meetings  that  they  weren’t  a  part  of.”     However,  I  argue  that  Skunk  Works  was  really  a  byproduct  of  taking  the  work   McLellan  was  trying  to  do  to  a  new  level.  It  was  not  the  inspiration  or  part  of  PEFA.  PEFA   was  firmly  a  result  of  the  requests  of  Eli  Broad  and  Governor  Snyder.  Skunk  Works  came   after  PEFA  was  written.  Specifically,  McLellan  stated,  “During  the  process  of  working  on  the   PEFA  project,  I’m  a  political  guy,  policy  guy.  I  said,  you  know,  this  stuff  is  really  boring.  If   the  governor  wants  to  actually  do  anything  about  it,  he’s  going  to  have  to  have  what  I  call   some  shiny  pennies.    He’s  gonna  have  to  show  that  some  of  this  stuff  has  some  real  juice   behind  it  that’ll  help  kids.”     The  governor  finally  did  ask  McLellan  to  shut  the  Skunk  Works  project  down,  but  it   was  too  late.  It  had  already  been  used  as  a  weapon  to  erode  trust  and  credibility  between   the  PEFA  project  and  the  legislature,  which  was  feeling  pressure  from  a  public  that  felt   deceived.  As  former  Lansing  Mayor  and  long-­‐time  state  representative  Gordon  argued,     134   “Secrecy,  gives  the  opposition  a  weapon.  I  don’t  care  what  you’re  doing  and  how  you’re   doing  it.  If  I  can  hammer  you  with  secrecy,  I  can  undermine  your  credibility  and  your   legitimacy  and  that’s  what,  that’s  the  trap  McLellan  fell  into.”  As  Compson  argued,   “Somebody’s  gonna  have  to  sit  you  down  and  say  times  have  changed.  Or  not  let  McLellan   be  the  front  spokesperson  to  the  press  or  what  not.    And  maybe  that’s  what  he’s  learned.”   As  Compson  continued,  there  is  a  difference  between  communications  and  messaging  and   actually  working  on  bills,  politics,  and  policy;  “even  the  strategy  is  different  than  being  in   front  of  a  microphone  and  understanding  how  to  say  something  in  a  way  that  you’re  not   going  to  offend  the  public,  or  raise  red  flags  to  the  reporters.”  This  is  an  interesting  point   that  Compson  raised.  McLellan  has  been  part  of  the  political  machinery  for  more  than  40   years.  However,  he  was  usually  behind  the  scenes.  The  change  in  funding  and  the  change  in   what  is  acceptable  to  happen  in  educational  reform  have  changed  what  actors  are  allowed   to  do  publicly.     The  final  result  of  this  becoming  public  was  not  overly  detrimental  to  McLellan,  but   it  was  to  PEFA  and  its  support.  As  Marlowe  illuminated,  “It’s  indicative  of  how  quickly  the   governor  distanced  himself;  he  instinctively  knew  to  distance  himself  from  the  Skunk   Works  project  which  basically  kills  the  one  advocate  they  have.”  It  is  hard  to  be  the   governor’s  volunteer  when  he  does  not  want  anything  to  do  with  you,  and  it  makes  passing   a  bill  nearly  impossible.       Policy  and  Interest  Group  Connections,  and  What  Follows   When  I  asked  McLellan  if  he  had  to  do  it  all  over  again,  would  he  do  anything   differently,  McLellan  stated,  “I  would  not  be  as  transparent  but  I  don’t  think  it  was  a  wrong     135   decision  at  the  time.  We  did  not  realize  that  they  would  be  as  hostile  from  the  day  one.  And   they  might  not  have  been  if  they’d  picked  somebody  other  than  me  because  of  the  history.”   In  essence,  he  was  not  saying  that  he  would  have  changed  what  he  wanted  or  even   compromised,  but  rather  he  would  have  done  it  the  old  fashioned  way,  with  just  the   legislators,  and  quietly.       In  this  chapter,  I  have  demonstrated  how  multiple  interest  groups  with  various   backgrounds  came  to  form  a  super  interest  group  to  defeat  PEFA.  Specifically,  the   education  lobby  felt  disenfranchised  by  McLellan’s  form  of  transparency,  which  was  more   of  an  explanation  of  what  he  and  the  Oxford  Foundation  were  going  to  do.  The  Education   lobby  wanted  to  be  part  of  shaping  this  policy,  not  just  be  told  about  it.  This  triggered  a   merging  of  interests,  but  it  is  not  that  they  just  aligned  themselves  together.  The  various   educational  groups  also  had  a  de  facto  leader  who  organized  the  resistance  and  did  so  in  a   way  not  dissimilar  to  how  McLellan  organized  PEFA.  Using  dark  money  of  their  own,  the   education  lobby  attacked  PEFA.  Specifically,  they  targeted  McLellan’s  reputation  as  a  dark   presence,  the  elements  of  law  they  found  unfavorable  such  as  unbundling,  PEFA’s   connection  to  the  EAA,  and  then  the  exposed  Skunk  Works.  However,  their  targeting  was   designed  to  vilify  McLellan  and  make  clear  that  PEFA  was  even  more  convoluted.  McLellan   did  not  help  in  that  he  was  unclear,  and  several  good,  but  complex,  arguments  were   summed  up  as  sound  bites  that  were  unfavorable  to  him.  Using  these  elements,  Bundren   set  up  many  speaking  engagements  for  a  variety  of  policy  actors,  including  the  state  board,   a  non-­‐Yoknapatawpha-­‐funded  website,  and  a  way  for  concerned  citizens  to  reach  the   legislature.  In  particular,  her  goal  was  not  to  explain  PEFA  and  why  it  was  damaging  to   education,  but  to  convolute  it  and  cause  chaos  from  multiple  voices  contacting  legislators.     136   This  would  alienate  them  from  PEFA,  and  Skunk  Works  would  distance  the  governor  from   McLellan  and  the  project  the  governor  wanted.       The  final  chapter  examines  the  grand  culmination  of  the  interplay  between  policy   entrepreneurs  and  interest  groups,  and  the  resulting  outcomes  of  educational  policy.   Specifically,  the  chapter  discusses  how  policy  dies,  its  resurrection,  why  it  failed,  and  what   the  policy  cycle  looked  like  for  PEFA  to  answer  the  question  of  who  shapes  educational   policy  and  how.                                                                     137   Chapter  Seven:  How  Policy  Dies  –  A  Public  Execution       This  final  chapter  looks  at  how  policy  dies,  and  specifically  what  happened  to  PEFA.   In  an  interesting  turn  of  fate,  I  also  discuss  how  policy  can  be  resurrected  in  a  new  form   and  enacted  to  serve  its  original  intent.  Again,  I  demonstrate  how  knowing  the  rules  of   government  trumps  having  the  support  of  the  people.  I  then  discuss  why  PEFA  failed,  and  I   cite  three  specific  elements  that  PEFA  would  have  needed  to  overcome  to  enact  the  entire   policy  measure  in  its  original  form.  Finally,  I  discuss  what  this  all  means  for  who  shape   policy  at  the  state  level,  by  coming  back  to  the  theoretical  frameworks  discussed  in  Chapter   Three,  specifically  policy  cycles,  issues  of  power,  and  interest  group  theory.  I  then  make   final  conclusions  about  how  policy  is  really  formed  at  the  state  level  in  the  age  of   accountability.         A  Public  Execution     As  the  2013  Michigan  Legislature  convened,  still  holding  a  supermajority  of   Republicans,  it  was  becoming  clear  to  several  people,  including  McLellan,  that  his  bill   would  not  be  passed.  A  memo  issued  on  March  4,  2013,  by  McL:ellan  explained  this  in  more   detail.  McLellan  wrote  to  Representative  Lyons  (who  had  introduced  the  bill  to  the  floor)   that  “because  of  the  continuing  effort  by  State  School  Board  President  Dick  Diver  and   others  to  flog  former  HB  5923  from  the  last  legislative  session,  I  thought  I  would  confirm   that,  as  you  know,  the  bill  is  dead,  and  that  there  is  no  reason  to  have  it  reintroduced  in  the   new  Legislature.”  Because  PEFA  was  not  passed  before  the  Legislature  went  on  Christmas     138   break,  HB  5923  died  and  would  have  to  be  introduced  again  in  the  new  legislative  session   in  2013.  However,  that  was  not  to  be.     In  his  three-­‐page  memo,  McLellan  cited  two  people  in  particular  for  the  downfall  of   PEFA.  He  again  mentioned  the  President  of  the  State  Board  Diver,  stating  that  he  “is  a   master  at  over-­‐the-­‐top  rhetoric  and  launched  his  campaign  (for  Governor?)  with  such   charges  as:  ‘If  [PEFA  is]  implemented,  it  could  erode  or  destroy  completely  our  current   public  schools  and  education  system’”  (McLellan,  2013,  p.  3).  While  McLellan  accused  Diver   of  doing  this  because  he  wanted  to  be  governor,  a  fact  that  McLellan  was  correct  about,  I   think  his  resistance  actually  started  because  after  being  asked  to  be  part  of  writing  the   governor’s  special  message  on  education,  he  was  cut  out.  As  Diver  said  when  PEFA  was   over,     I  just  discussed  with  the  governor’s  office,  your  man  [McLellan]  went  rogue,  okay.   He  went  too  far.  It’s  hurt  you,  it’s  hurt  our  effort  to  get  any  good  needed  big  changes.   We  can  unbundle  funding.  We  need  to  have  performance  funding.  We  need  to  have   individualized  instruction  be  supported  financially.  We  need  to  accelerate  people  at   their  own  pace  and  we  have  to  figure  out  how  to  go  back  and  recreate  some   affirmative,  positive  ideas  for  how  we  do  that  that  aren’t  part  of  a  plot  to  basically,   you  know,  create  a  parallel  universe  of  market  based  education.    So  we  as  a  board  on   Tuesday  are  gonna  propose  a  new,  let’s  help  lead  that  discussion.       Diver  believed  in  the  concepts  of  PEFA,  he  just  did  not  like  being  left  out,  and  now  he  had   constructed  plans  to  lead  a  new  charge  and  keep  his  issue  at  the  forefront  of  the  policy   agenda.  All  the  press  Diver  received,  the  networking,  and  the  rise  in  his  popularity  was  an   unintended  side  effect,  but  one  that  nonetheless  he  embraced  to  serve  his  own  personal   and  political  ambitions.         McLellan  then  took  a  final  jab  at  Bundren,  superintendent  of  the  most  affluent  ISD  in   Michigan.  This  time,  however,  he  did  not  mention  her  by  name,  and  he  did  this  to  insult  her   ego;  instead,  McLellan  mentioned  her  in  parentheticals.  He  stated,  “(He  was  outdone  by  the     139   Yoknapatawpha  Superintendent  who  hyperventilated  that  the  efforts  were  ‘Un-­‐ American’).”  McLellan,  while  not  bothered  by  being  called  dark  and  evil,  was  bothered  by   being  called  un-­‐American,  and  he  was  not  going  to  let  it  go  without  one  final  retaliation.     However,  what  most  people  failed  to  notice  when  reading  McLellan’s  final  memo   was  the  outline  of  his  plan  for  education  moving  forward.  Buried  in  the  third  page  of  the   memo  was  a  line  that  addressed  one  of  the  shortcomings  of  PEFA,  and  what  he  planned  to   do  about  it.  Specially,  McLellan  wrote,  “In  this  atmosphere,  I  would  advise  that  changes  in   HB  5923  to  address  improving  school  performance  and  education  options  be  undertaken   on  a  piecemeal  basis  so  that  each  concept  can  be  individually  addressed”  (McLellan,  2013,   p.  3).     One  of  the  arguments  that  McLellan  posited  all  throughout  the  PEFA  process  was   that  the  State  School  Aid  Act  of  1979  was  arcane,  out  of  date,  disjointed  from  being   amended  (piecemealed,  to  use  his  term)  every  year,  and  not  flexible  enough  to  address  the   current  educational  needs  of  students,  and  that  is  why  it  needed  to  be  completely   rewritten.  However,  if  McLellan  was  suggesting  a  piecemeal  approach  for  moving  forward,   replacing  the  arcane  law  with  a  new  coherent  structure  was  not  really  the  game  all  along,   but  a  byproduct  of  the  work  that  PEFA  would  have  done.  This  means  that  it  was  really   about  advancing  a  particular  education  agenda  under  the  guise  of  cleaning  up  the  messes  of   past  reforms  and  thus  making  the  law  ready  to  serve  the  “twenty-­‐first  century”  needs  of   education.     Finally,  McLellan  also  suggested  what  his  next  move  would  be.  The  memo  clearly   articulated  that  he  was  done  with  transparency,  and  it  was  time  to  return  to  the  old  ways  of   doing  business.  This  meant  that  piecemealed  parts  of  the  PEFA  legislation  would  find  their     140   way  into  other  school  laws  until  the  essential  elements  of  PEFA  were  all  in  place,  without   anyone  really  paying  attention  to  the  whole  school  law  governance  system.       Resurrection  and  Life  after  Death     And  that  is  exactly  what  happened.  McLellan  was  interested  in  keeping  the  idea  of   unbundling  (allows  a  student  to  take  multiple  courses  with  multiple  public  education   providers).  As  President  Diver  argued,  “That  bill  is  dead  …  but  bits  and  pieces  were  brought   back  into  the  budget  ...  trying  to  make  school  districts  liberate  students  for  up  to  two  online   courses  and  let  the  money  flow.  So  you  know,  it’s  not  a  complete  fizzle  or  out  of  the  dark   forces  of  Richard  McLellan.”  However,  the  governor  evidently  also  did  not  give  up  on   unbundling  either.    As  Heep  pointed  out,  at  the  time  of  her  interview,  which  was  in  early   April  of  2013,  “PEFA  was  in  the  hands  of  the  governor  who  was  favorably  impressed  with  a   lot  of  it.  He  was  not  consulted  during  the  writing  process  really.    Richard  interacted  with   some  staff  level  people  but  nobody  saw  the  report  because  they  wanted  to  make  sure  the   governor  could  say  that  he  hadn’t  seen  it  and  that  nobody  on  his  staff  had  seen  it.”       How  was  PEFA  resurrected?  In  May  of  2013,  HB  4228,  also  called  Public  Act  60  of   2013,  was  introduced  and  passed,  with  an  effective  date  of  June  13,  2013.  HB  4228  was  the   annual  amendment  to  the  State  School  Aid  Act  of  1979,  and  it  included  the  per-­‐pupil   funding  allotments  for  the  2013-­‐2014  school  year.  Buried  in  the  text  on  page  17  of  the  79   pages  of  legal  changes  was  Section  21f  (Public  Act  60  of  2013),  which  outlined  the  new   rules  for  online  learning  and  parental  choice  in  the  process.  These  were  what  most   interviewees  argued  was  the  main  purpose  of  unbundling  funding  all  along  –  to  promote   online  education  and  fund  it  to  a  high  degree.  Specifically,  Section  21f,  subsection  2  of  the     141   law  states,  “With  the  consent  of  the  pupil’s  parents  or  legal  guardian,  a  district  shall  enroll   an  eligible  pupil  in  up  to  2  online  courses  as  requested  by  the  pupil  …  it  is  the  intent  of  the   legislature  to  consider  increasing  the  limit  on  the  number  of  online  courses  that  a  pupil   may  enroll  in  beginning  in  2014-­‐2015  for  pupils  who  have  demonstrated  previous  success   with  online  courses”  (Public  Act  60  of  2013,  p.  17).         What  was  new  about  this  law  was  that  it  was  now  student/parent  choice,  and   districts  could  not  prevent  a  student  from  taking  up  to  two  courses  in  place  of  what  the   school  offered.  In  addition,  the  legislation  was  clear  that  this  cap  of  two  classes  would   increase  for  students  who  were  successful  in  these  courses.  However,  the  law  did  not   define  successful.  Furthermore,  the  prices  that  online  education  providers  were  allowed  to   chargehad  increased.  Instead  of  a  school  paying  a  fee  for  online  services,  the  online   providers  were  now  allowed  “not  …  an  amount  that  exceeds  1/12  of  the  district’s   allowance”  (Public  Act  60  of  2013,  p.  18).  The  legislative  bill  analysis  conducted  by  the   Senate  Fiscal  Agency  included  a  discussion  of  Section  21f  on  page  three  after  the  discussion   of  funding,  which  is  what  most  members  of  the  education  lobby  were  interested  in.  The   report  stated,     Conference  changed  pupil  definitions  and  included  a  new  section  (21f)  regarding   online  learning.  Students  enrolling  in  a  district  offering  online  learning  under  Sec.   21f  need  not  obtain  permission  from  the  resident  district  first.  Students  in  grades  5   to  12  could  enroll  in  up  to  two  online  courses;  legislative  intent  to  study  increasing   the  cap  for  pupils  that  demonstrate  success  in  online  courses.  Districts  would  be   required  to  pay  for  online  courses  80%  upon  enrollment  and  20%  upon  completion.   Conference  included  restrictions  on  how  much  districts  pay  for  an  online  course,   capped  at  1/12  of  foundation  allowance  per  semester  or  1/18  per  trimester.   (Summers,  2013,  p.  3)     The  online  interests  did  not  get  an  equal  portion  corresponding  to  the  number  of  classes  in   a  day,  but  1/12  of  the  amount  allotted  per  student,  which  is  still  a  large  amount  considering     142   that  the  school  would  still  house  the  students  and  may  provide  staff  supervision  and   computer  access  during  the  time  allotted  for  online  courses.  In  essence,  McLellan  achieved   the  largest  part  of  PEFA  through  the  annual  school  aid  amendment  that  he  argued  was   what  made  the  law  dysfunctional  to  begin  with.       Many  speculated  that  this  is  just  the  tip  of  the  iceberg.  As  Compson,  government   relations  director,  argued,  “PEFA  hasn’t  stalled  out  completely  or  failed,  because  you  have   21F  which  is,  you  know,  is  the  nose  under  the  tent  …  We’ll  see  where  it  goes  from  there.”   Compson  continued,  “So  it  ended  up  being  much  narrower,  …  but  essentially,  a  kid  can  take   two  courses  from  anybody  and  the  school  can  only  say  no  if  the  child  doesn’t  meet  the   prerequisites,  …  there’s  like  four  reasons  and  the  last  one  is  that  it  doesn’t  meet  rigor.”     From  March,  when  the  final  PEFA  memo  was  released,  until  the  amendment  to  the   school  aide  act  in  June  of  2013,  PEFA  had  seemed  to  die.  I  inquired  how  this  was  able  to  get   passed.  Compson  had  the  more  direct  answer;  she  argued  that  it  was  the  school  lobbyists’   fault  for  not  paying  attention.  Specifically,  she  stated  “that  the  school  lobby  folks,  like   myself,  get  really  caught  up  over  dollar  amounts  and  really  suck  at  lobbying  over  language   in  the  budget  about  how  you  spend  money.”  However,  there  was  not  specific  funding   assigned  to  21f.  It  was  just  legal  language  with  “no  line  specifically  attached  to  it,  so   everybody  kind  of  blew  it  off.”  While  the  school  lobby  was  arguing  “about  $100,000,   meanwhile,  I  just  lost  $600,000  because  my  kids  are  all  going  to  take  two  classes  online  …   So  out  of  any  term,  you  could  have  1/3  of  your  money  at  a  school  leaving.”  From  the  onset,   it  looked  like  what  McLellan  lost  in  the  public  he  won  in  the  school  aid  act  annual   amendment.       143   Was  McLellan  really  behind  PEFA’s  piecemealed  resurrection?  Compson,  like  the   rest  of  the  interviewees,  argued  that  there  were  two  people  –  the  governor  and  McLellan.   Specifically,  she  argued,  “It  started  right  from  the  governor  …  that  was  clear  he  was  trying   to  figure  out  a  way  to  do  unbundling  …  and  in  the  end,  this  was  what  his  staff  came  to  him   and  said  21f  is  what  we  can  do,  given  all  the  Skunk  Works  and  everything  else  that   happened.”  It  was  subtle  enough  that  the  school  lobby  was  arguing  over  the  funding   without  reading  the  legal  language,  or  without  getting  any  of  the  legislators  or  public   excited  because  of  PEFA,  but  was  direct  enough  to  accomplish  the  beginning  of  PEFA’s   unbundling  tenet.     As  for  McLellan,  there  was  no  direct  connection  between  him  and  21f.  Compson  and   the  interviewees  thought  that  he  was  involved,  but  they  could  not  find  his  fingerprints  on   the  legislation.    Compson  stated  that  McLellan  mentioned  21f  on  the  radio  after  it  was   passed,  and  that  it  was  a  successful  narrowed  version  of  unbundling,  but  he  did  not  provide   specifics.  When  I  asked  McLellan  about  21f,  he  stated,  “Yeah  there  were  a  couple  things   there  [school  conference  bill]  on  online  learning.    I’ve  been  going  to  try  to  find  that  out.   Ruddell  told  me,  there  was  a  couple  of  PEFA  ideas.  What  were  they,  do  you  know?”  This  led   me  to  believe  that  while  his  ideas  were  incorporated  into  the  law,  it  was  not  him,  but   someone  else,  who  did  put  it  in  the  legislation.     So,  if  not  McLellan,  then  who?  McLellan  alluded  that  getting  21f  in  the  school  aid   conference  bill  was  probably  more  of  a  bureaucratic  maneuver  that  was  under  the  radar.   Specifically,  McLellan  stated,  “Robbie  Jameson  [budget  director  for  the  state]  is  the  key   player  on  the  school  aid  act.  She  has  been  through  three  and  four  governors.  If  the  governor   and  Robbie  don’t  agree,  it  doesn’t  get  done  …  [and]  …  She’s  also  real  close  to  Jamey     144   Fitzpatrick  at  the  Virtual  University.”  Michigan  Virtual  University  is  also  one  of  the  leading   providers  of  online  education  in  Michigan.  As  one  of  the  main  school  budget   administrators,  McLellan  felt  that  Jameson  probably  wrote  it  into  the  legislation  at  the   request  of  the  governor’s  office.  After  all,  Jameson’s  budget  office  is  under  the  authority  of   the  executive  branch  of  government  and  would  ultimately  report  to  the  governor.  Based  on   this  evidence,  McLellan  may  have  known  about  21f,  but  was  not  directly  responsible  for  it,   most  likely  because  the  governor  had  already  distanced  himself  from  McLellan.  However,   he  did  mastermind  the  steps  and  process  of  how  to  get  unbundling  into  law,  and  someone   else  did  it.       Policy  Connections     It  would  appear  that  even  when  a  policy  dies,  at  least  legislatively,  there  are  other   ways  to  resurrect  elements  of  said  policy  into  law.  Specifically,  PEFA  was  killed  by  public   pressure  on  the  legislature,  to  the  point  that  even  in  the  2012  lame  duck  session,  or  the   new  2013  legislative  session  still  with  a  Republican  majority,  PEFA  could  not  be  passed.  In   addition,  it  hindered  the  passage  of  the  formal  EAA  bill  –  at  least  the  one  that  was  posed  at   that  time.       McLellan  even  outlined  what  he  recommended  the  governor  and  legislature  do  to   get  the  spirit  of  PEFA  passed,  which  was  to  piecemeal  it  into  the  law.  It  would  defeat  his   argument  of  why  the  state  needed  a  new  school  aid  act,  but  it  would  accomplish  the  policy   goal  at  the  same  time.  In  this  case,  it  would  seem  that  the  main  policy  goal  was  to   accomplish  unbundling  and  open  up  the  Michigan  public  school  system  to  online  market   competition  that  would  receive  a  portion  of  the  foundation  allowance.       145     In  the  end,  unbundling  was  accomplished  in  a  subtle,  but  practical  way.  Using  the   same  annual  school  aid  amendment  mechanism  that  McLellan  outlined  as  ineffective,   someone  in  the  governor’s  office  and  in  the  budget  office  followed  McLellan’s  policy   recommendation  and  incorporated  the  important  PEFA  elements  into  the  budget  bill.  While   the  school  lobby  was  fighting  over  the  money,  they  did  not  read  the  legal  language,  and  the   bill  became  law  with  little  controversy  or  resistance.  In  essence,  McLellan  outlined  the  path,   and  others  followed  it  to  bring  PEFA’s  core  element  of  unbundling  into  public  education.         Wax  Wings  and  Other  Things  that  Melt:  The  Down  Fall  of  PEFA   Having  considered  the  events  that  transpired  in  the  policy  cycle,  the  issues  and   struggles  of  power,  and  the  formation  of  interest  groups,  there  are  several  theories  that   have  been  posited  about  why  PEFA  died.  The  fall  of  PEFA  was  not  due  to  any  one  issue,  but   rather  due  to  a  threefold  combination  of  issues,  and  these  were  issues  that  did  not  appear   on  the  rational  policy  cycle  presented  in  Chapter  Three.  Specifically,  the  three  downfalls  of   PEFA  were  the  lack  of  direct  governor  involvement,  the  fundamental  tactical  error  in   legislative  strategy,  and  the  lack  of  creating  the  proper  atmosphere  conditions.     The  Governor  and  his  Champion  –  not  Dante  and  Virgil,  but  Hell  Nonetheless   Why  was  the  governor  in  particular  important  to  this  case?  The  age  of  accountability   has  brought  in  new  policy  actors,  in  particular  policy  entrepreneurs  from  outside   government.  As  discussed  in  Chapter  Five,  that  is  from  where  McLellan’s  formal  authority   was  derived.  While  McLellan  represented  private  interests  and  dark  money,  he  did  not   have  a  governmental  presence  unless  invited  to  do  so.  It  was  only  by  assigned  authority   that  he  could  act  in  a  formal  way.  As  several  noted,  McLellan  was  carrying  out  PEFA,  but  the     146   governor  was  not  aware  of  all  the  details.  It  allowed  the  governor  to  distance  himself  from   the  issue  and  from  McLellan  –  a  kind  of  politically  plausible  deniability.  However,  this   plausible  deniability  was  not  without  costs.  Without  direct  support  from  where  his  power   came,  McLellan  lost  ground  and  authority.  The  governor  wanted  to  remain  out  of  the  light   until  he  saw  how  the  PEFA  issue  sorted  itself  out.       As  McLellan  argued,  for  PEFA  to  pass,  it  required  the  governor’s  direct  support.   Specially,  he  stated,  “A  project  like  this  should  have  more  active  involvement  of  the   governor  or  the  governor’s  people.”  In  the  beginning,  it  was  noted  by  McLellan  and  the   other  participants  that  some  of  the  governor’s  people  went  to  some  of  the  meetings,   including  the  large  public  one  where  the  education  lobby  came.  However,  as  the   controversy  began,  they  started  to  disappear.  McLellan  argued  that  this  was  because  of  the   response  the  PEFA  bill  got.  Specifically,  he  stated,  “You  fight  with  them  [the  opposition  –  in   general]  and  then  have  a  very  interesting  conversation  because  most  times,  the  governor’s   going  to  do  it,  so  I  guess  we  better  be  at  the  table.  However,  this  time  they  decided  not  to  be   at  the  table.  This  transparency  was  clearly  used  to  …  Kill  the  baby  before  it’s  born  …  that   was  their  political  strategy.”  In  essence,  the  opposition  used  transparency  to  build  a  public   issue  of  PEFA  and  then  used  it  to  create  political  pressure  that  caused  the  governor  to   distance  himself  from  McLellan.  Had  they  been  at  the  table  with  McLellan,  they  would  have   negotiated  PEFA,  and  the  governor  would  have  gotten  large  parts  of  what  he  wanted,  but   the  educational  lobby  did  not  want  any  of  it.       However,  why  did  the  governor  cave  to  the  pressure  of  the  education  lobby  and   distance  himself  from  McLellan?  To  begin  with,  McLellan  was  not  on  the  inside  with  the   governor,  and  so  when  McLellan  became  a  liability,  it  was  easy  for  the  governor  to  distance     147   himself.  The  governor  was  also  able  to  say  that  he  did  not  have  direct  knowledge  of  PEFA   because  he  was  not  directly  involved  in  drafting  it,  despite  asking  McLellan  to  do  it.     The  most  important  reason  PEFA  died  involved  the  way  the  governor  conducted   matters  of  legislative  affairs.  McLellan  argued,  “we  then  were  told  just  hold  off  until  we  get   the  EAA  bill  through.  Well,  they  still  don’t  have  the  EAA  bill.    So  the  way  this  governor   operates,  he  operates  on  a  serial,  one  thing  at  a  time.  Completely  different  than  Governor   Engler,  who  loved  to  have  six  different  balls  in  the  air.  This  isn’t  the  way  they  do  it.  They  do   it  one  thing  at  a  time  so  nothing’s  going  to  ever  happen  until  the  EAA  is  resolved.”   Complementing  McLellan’s  argument,  Compson  agreed,  stating,  “Engler  was  a  lot  better  at   getting  stuff  through  though.  I  mean,  whether  you  like  him  or  don’t  like  him  or  agreed  with   him  or  not,  I  can’t  imagine  a  legislature  leaving  with  Medicaid  undone  when  he  was  in   office.  I  mean,  he  would  have  split  their  heads  open.”  Both  sides  saw  the  governor  as   someone  who  was  not  well  versed  in  getting  legislation  through,  nor  forceful.     McLellan’s  argument  about  approaching  issues  in  a  serial  fashion  may  be  the  most   costly  of  all  the  governor’s  policy  choices.  When  McLellan  said  serial,  he  did  not  mean  that   it  was  the  only  issue,  but  it  might  be  the  only  issue  under  a  particular  topic,  such  as   education,  at  one  time.  For  example,  PEFA  was  put  on  hold  because  the  governor  wanted   the  EAA  more,  and  he  would  not  advance  them  both  at  the  same  time,  especially  after  the   organized  opposition  threatened  to  try  to  stop  the  EAA  too,  which  happened  in  that   legislative  session  anyway.  Approaching  educational  policy  one  issue  at  a  time  allows  all  of   the  opposition  to  organize  and  express  their  views  on  each  item.  If  there  were  several   issues  to  contend  with  and  a  shorter  period  of  time,  the  educational  lobby  could  not  have   addressed  them  all  so  publicly,  nor  opposed  them  with  such  a  succinct  message,  because     148   there  would  have  been  too  many  policy  messages  occurring  simultaneously.  The  other  side   of  this  is  that  the  governor  and  the  education  lobby  would  have  had  more  items  to   negotiate  over  and  would  have  had  to  take  uncompromising  positions.  All  in  all,  this   approach  was  damaging  to  the  passing  of  educational  policy.       A  Serious  Tactical  Error     However,  it  was  not  just  the  distance  of  the  governor  that  was  a  political  problem,  it   was  also  a  lack  of  interaction  with  the  state  legislature.  As  MEA  lobbyist  Marlowe  argued,   the  governor  had  consistently  excluded  everyone  from  the  public  education  community   from  any  discussions  he  had  regarding  where  education  policy  should  go  “…  And  he  had   relied  on  predominantly  private  business  people  with  little  or  no  actual  hands  on   experience  in  education  as  his  advisors.”  Therefore,  they  had  to  go  to  the  legislature  to   circumvent  the  governor.           This  idea  of  going  to  the  legislature  is  a  concept  McLellan  was  familiar  with.  By  his   own  admission  and  the  interviews  of  many,  he  was  a  master  at  influencing  legislative   members,  enough  to  be  called  the  “Darth  Vader  of  the  legislature,”  but  that  was  not  what  he   did.  Instead,  McLellan  “was  giving  everyone  [public]  an  opportunity  to  have  their  input   over  a  period  of  basically  five,  six  months  really.”  As  others  have  argued,  the  legislation  was   not  changed  based  on  this  input,  and  what  this  did  was  provide  “critics  of  what  was   happening  a  lot  of  time  to  work  to  defeat  it.”     This  was,  as  Marlowe  termed  it,  a  serious  tactical  error.  Specifically,  he  stated,  “They   made  a  serious  tactical  error,  if  I  were  in  the  governor’s  and  in  Dick  McLellan’s  shoes,  I   would  have,  long  before  that  July  [large  public]  meeting,  sat  down  with  the  house  and  the     149   senate  appropriations  chairs  and  the  house  and  senate  K-­‐12  subcommittee  chairs,  at  a   minimum.  They’re  all  Republicans  …  I  mean,  the  Republicans  controlled  everything.”  He   continued,  “Quite  frankly,  I  would’ve  met  with  all  the  Republicans  on  all  those  committees   to  fill  them  in  on  what  we’re  doing,  what  our  thinking  is,  get  their  ideas  which  probably   wouldn’t  have  been  drastically  different  than  what  the  governor  and  McLellan  were  talking   about.    But  they  didn’t  do  it.”  Even  though  Republicans  controlled  everything,  McLellan  did   not  take  advantage  of  this.  Essentially,  McLellan  and  the  governor’s  office  left  the   legislature  completely  out  of  the  communication  channels  about  a  controversial  bill  that   they  would  be  asked  to  pass.     It  is  unclear  if  McLellan  just  thought  the  legislature  would  follow  the  governor’s   wishes,  or  if  the  governor  had  promised  to  take  care  of  it,  or  if  McLellan  was  not  really  in   charge  of  making  the  decision  to  interact  with  the  legislators.  Marlowe  continued,  “When   you  proceed  that  way,  it’s  at  your  peril  and  really  with  somebody  like  Dick  McLellan,  it   really  surprised  me.    Yeah,  it’s  not  that  he’s  a  novice.  I  mean,  you  know,  Rick  Snyder  is  a   novice.”  Given  this,  Marlowe  concluded  that  “I  don’t  know  who  made  the  decision  on  how   to  operate  that  way  but  I  just  think  it  was  a  bad  decision  …  It  may  be  that  it’s  being  made  by   the  governor  on  how  to  operate  and,  you  know,  he  is.  No,  he’s  not  a  politician.”  Whatever   the  case  was,  the  decision  caused  PEFA  to  falter  with  the  legislature.     As  presented  in  Chapter  Six,  McLellan  was  in  a  very  public  battle  over  PEFA  with   Bundren,  which  allowed  others  in  the  education  lobby  (those  in  cooperation  with  Bundren)   to  do  what  he  could  not  –  interact  with  the  legislature  –  launching  a  second  front.  As   Marlowe  recalled,     We  were  quite  active  over  the  late  summer  and  into  the  fall,  both  here  in  Lansing   and  out  in  the  field  –  we  went  to  meet  several  of  them  in  their  home  districts,  when     150   the  legislature  was  not  in  session,  and  talk  about  what  we  understood  the  process   was,  where  we  think  it  ought  to  be  going,  what  we  think  the  pitfalls  are  with  it.  We   started  meeting  with  key,  what  we  viewed  to  be  key  legislators,  particularly   Republicans  who  were  on  the  appropriations  committees  because  they  were  talking   about  a  finance  bill.    And  what  surprised  us  …  was  that  none  of  them  had  been   invited  in  and  none  of  them  had  been  lobbied  by  McLellan  …  no  one  had  met  with   them  to  talk  about  what  the  goals  were  or  how  it  was  going  and  get  their   suggestions.     This  reinforces  the  tactical  error  Marlowe  described,  specifically  the  error  that  the   governor  and  McLellan  made  by  not  working  with  the  legislature  to  shape  the  PEFA  policy   while  others  worked  through  the  legislature  to  kill  PEFA.  As  mentioned  in  Chapter  One,   while  the  governor  can  direct  the  educational  policy  agenda,  the  legislature  must  introduce   and  enact  the  actual  law,  which  makes  them  critical  in  the  policy  formation  process.   Marlowe  concluded  most  correctly,  “You  can’t  move  something  through  a  legislative   process  when,  when  you  leave  the  key  legislators  out  of  the  loop.”       Atmospherics   As  Stephen  Dedalus,  long  time  republican  communication  firm  specialist,   illuminated,  policy  is  all  about  issue  management  and  the  creation  of  the  proper   atmospheric  conditions  for  a  policy,  law,  or  a  candidate  to  come  to  fruition,  get  enacted,  or   elected,  respectively.  However,  PEFA’s  communications  team  did  not  do  this  –  they  solely   worked  on  the  issue  with  limited  exposure  to  decision-­‐makers  and  a  limited  staff  to   promote  PEFA,  in  contrast  to  an  army  of  organized  opposition.     Most  policy  cycle  models  argue  that  for  a  policy  to  come  into  existence,  there  must   first  be  a  need  for  it,  and  that  a  policy  will  come  to  address  that  need.  However,  Dedalus   argued,  and  I  demonstrated,  this  not  the  case.  If  someone  wanted  to  create  a  policy,  the   proper  atmosphere  can  be  created  for  it  by  influencing  the  political  environment  and     151   capitalizing  on  relationships,  and  then  creating  the  policy.  This  seems  to  reflect  the  ideas   outlined  by  Michael  Cohen  et  al.,  on  “organized  anarchies”  in  their  “A  Garbage  Can  Model  of   Organizational  Choice”  (1972).  Specifically,  they  stated  that  “Organizations  can  be  viewed   for  some  purposes  as  collections  of  choices  looking  for  problems,  issues  and  feelings   looking  for  decision  situations  in  which  they  might  be  aired,  solutions  looking  for  issues  to   which  they  might  be  an  answer,  and  decision  makers  looking  for  work”  (Cohen,  et  al,  1972,   pg  1).  It  was  this  self-­‐creation  of  political  and  public  will  that  was  lacking  in  PEFA.       Dedalus  argued  that  if  he  were  to  have  worked  on  PEFA,  he  would  have  approached   this  issue  completely  differently.  He  argued  that  there  is  a  formula  to  form  policy,  but  you   have  to  start  from  the  beginning  of  the  decision  to  pursue  the  policy.  Specifically,  Dedalus   stated,    “The  formula  is  essentially  the  same  for  what  a  company  like  my  firm  would  do,  but   …  we  tend  to  get  called  in  when  the  waters  get  rough  and  that  isn’t  always  the  best  way  to   engage  a  communications  firm  like  us.    But  nevertheless,  it’s  kind  of  when  folks  tend  to   think  of  us  …  [it  is]  …  issue  management.”  Specifically,  Dedalus  outlined  eight  elements  that   need  to  be  in  place  to  set  up  the  proper  atmospheric  conditions  for  socially  engineering  the   outcome  of  a  policy.  These  concepts  are  outlined  below  in  Table  13,  and  a  more  detailed   account  and  an  example  of  setting  up  proper  atmospheric  conditions  using  the  Right  to   Work  legislation  can  be  found  in  the  appendix.                 152   Table  13:  Creating  Atmospherics  Conditions  for  Issue  Management     Creating  Atmospherics  Conditions  for  Issue  Management*   Elements**   Description   Clearly  defined  course   What  is  the  outcome?  What  is  the  policy  or  change  that  is   of  action  and  goals     the  desired  result?  Needs  to  be  clearly  articulated.     Create  the  public  will   If  there  is  not  a  need  for  the  change  (i.e.  the  policy  has  not   to  show  policy  change   naturally  arisen),  show  why  there  is  a  need  for  the  policy  to   is  needed   be  enacted.  Create  the  need.   Identify  target   Who  are  the  key  decision  makers?  Who  do  they  talk  to  and   audience  and  their   trust?  Where  do  they  stand?  What  can  influence  them?     connections   Decide  on  advocacy  of   Will  advocacy  or  education  be  required?  Advocacy  means   or  education  on  the   asking  for  a  particular  vote  on  an  issue  and  requires   issue   adherence  to  certain  campaign  finance  laws.  Education  is   really  a  matter  of  disseminating  information  on  the  idea  or   issue  and  does  not  have  spending  limits.     Grass  tops   Who  advises  the  decision  maker?  Who  will  they  listen  to?   Express  the  issue  to  these  select  few  and  have  them   express  their  view  to  the  decision  maker.     Testing  the  political   Is  this  politically  viable?  Be  convinced  through  research   water   and  other  means,  that  at  the  end  of  the  day,  doing  this  was   not  going  to  be  harmful  to  them  politically.     Grassroots   Generating  local  interaction  with  decision  makers  through   mobilizing  coalition  groups,  phone  calls  to  the  legislative   offices,  and  having  paid  and  unpaid  activists  interact  with   decision  makers  to  form  the  perception  of  local  interest.         Media  messaging   How  will  the  target  audience  be  reached  beyond   relationships  (grass  tops)  and  constituency  (grassroots)  to   show  the  issue  is  serious?  Remember  that  decision  makers   have  to  feel  the  pressure  of  the  issue,  not  the  general  public   –  the  perception  of  the  issue  being  everywhere  they  look  is   needed.     Forms  of  Communication   Classifications   Examples   Paid  Media   Ads,  radio,  TV,  billboards   Earned  Media   Letters  to  the  editor,  news  stories   Social  Media   Websites,  Facebook,  Twitter,  blogs,   etc.         *Every  element  requires  the  capitalization  of  relationships  as  currency  to  get  the   policy  enacted.   **Beyond  the  first  two  elements,  the  order  does  not  matter     153   Dedalus  concluded  his  discussion  by  coming  back  to  the  same  idea  that  he  began   with  –  atmospherics.  He  stated,  “We  look  at  the  bigger  picture,  how  do  we  create  that   climate?”  He  went  on  to  comment  that  the  whole  process  of  creating  atmospherics  and   issue  management  is  really  ironic.  It  is  very  much  about  manipulation  and  creating   conditions  for  policies  to  come  into  existence,  not  allowing  polices  to  subsume  a  need,  at   least  not  many  of  the  big  ones.  However,  PEFA  was  not  able  to  do  this.  This  might  have   been  because  of  a  lack  of  funds,  or  maybe  because  of  inaccurate  targeting  of  certain   decision  makers.  Either  way,  McLellan  did  not  create  the  necessary  atmospheric  conditions   for  PEFA  to  prevail  in  the  legislature,  and  he  relied  too  heavily  on  the  governor,  who  was   not  directly  behind  them.       Policy  Connections     A  combination  of  factors  led  to  the  downfall  of  PEFA.  First,  and  probably  the  most   significant,  was  the  lack  of  direct  support  from  the  governor.  The  governor  wanted   McLellan  to  lead  the  charge  to  create  PEFA,  and  he  gave  him  the  authority  to  do  so,  but  then   he  stepped  back  so  as  to  have  political  deniability  about  PEFA,  especially  when  it  became   controversial.  However,  why  did  it  become  controversial?  Part  of  this  is  because  McLellan   made  a  tactical  error  in  not  lobbying  or  including  the  state  legislature  in  the  PEFA  process,   but  instead  ended  up  in  a  public  war.  Even  with  the  governor  promoting  PEFA,  it  still   would  not  have  become  law  without  the  support  of  the  legislature  to  enact  PEFA  into  law.   All  of  this  leads  to  the  final  element  that  caused  PEFA  to  fail,  atmospherics.  McLellan   essentially  did  not  control  the  policy  message  as  it  moved  throughout  the  public  and     154   political  arenas,  or  systematically  control  the  exposure  of  information  to  and  the  influence   of  key  decision-­‐makers.       Shaping  Policy  and  the  Policy  Cycle   Philip  Cusick  always  used  to  tell  me  that  there  was  a  system  and  an  organization   that  shaped  policy.  Specifically,  he  stated,  “The  organization  is  just  the  outward   manifestation  of  the  compromise  among  all  these  competing  parts  who  want  something,   the  system.”  In  other  words,  what  we  see  (the  organization)  is  just  the  result  of  a  series  of   maneuvers  and  compromises  between  various  actors  (members  of  the  system)  who  want   something.  In  making  sense  of  PEFA,  his  words  resonated  with  me,  especially  when   considering  my  global  research  question,  who  is  it  that  shapes  the  direction  of  educational   policy  at  the  state  level,  and  how?   To  answer  that  question  directly,  I  would  have  to  say  that  it  is  interests.    Particularly   in  the  age  of  accountability,  there  are  interests  and  actors  outside  of  the  traditional  roles  of   education  that  have  come  to  be  principal  shapers  of  educational  policy.  Other  venues  that   legislators  work  with,  such  as  businesses  and  markets,  are  outside  of  government,  and  it  is   nothing  new  that  the  members  of  those  outside  communities  wish  to  shape  the  outcomes   of  policy.  However,  since  the  reconceptualization  of  education  in  an  economic  light,  those   same  outside  actors  have  come  to  be  active  especially  in  the  educational  realm,  which   previously  had  mostly  been  occupied  by  governmental  actors  (including  educators)  or   their  representatives.  However,  these  non-­‐education  actors  already  had  established   relationships  in  the  policy  environment,  and  they  could  bring  issues  to  the  forefront,   making  them  policy  entrepreneurs.  These  entrepreneurs  dealt  with  legislatures  and     155   governors  on  a  whole  host  of  issues,  not  just  education,  and  they  had  relationships  that   went  beyond  educational  issues,  making  these  entrepreneurs  much  more  powerful  in   agenda-­‐setting  than  the  general  education  lobby.       Policy  Is  in  the  Eye  of  the  Beholder     To  demonstrate  this  in  the  case  of  PEFA,  I  turn  to  McLellan’s  views  of  policy.  After   all,  he  was  the  key  policy  entrepreneur  and  policy  driver  of  PEFA.  Exploring  how  he  saw   the  process  helps  to  build  understanding  when  compared  to  Schultz’s  policy  cycle  (2005),   but  looking  at  how  it  actually  unfolded  with  all  of  the  pieces  connected  is  also  important.     In  the  old  days,  McLellan  stated  that  there  was  a  “Framework  about  it  [the  policy   process]  …  [Governors]  Milliken  or  Engler  …  had  experience  with  it,  how  we  did  special   messages  and  tried  to  come  up  with  what  you  wanted  to  do  but  you  had  to  put  it  in  a  bigger   framework”  to  outline  what  needed  to  be  done.  What  this  told  me  was  that  the  process   McLellan  used  was  not  much  different  than  the  formula  he  had  used  for  success  before.  The   difference  was  the  philanthropic  outside  support  of  Broad,  but  also  the  very  public  and   media-­‐laden  exposure  where  McLellan  was  front  and  center  instead  of  being  in  the   shadows.    Specifically,  McLellan  argued  there  are  ten  elements  to  consider  when  shaping   educational  policy.  These  elements  are  outlined  below,  and  they  directed  his  efforts  in   policy  formation.               156   Figure  14:  McLellan’s  Elements  of  Policy  Formation     McLellan’s  Elements  of  Policy  Formation*   1. It  is  about  the  money.  Only  the  money.  Always  about  the  money  –  When   someone  says:  “It’s  all  about  the  children,”  it  is  really  about  the  money.   2. Dominant  role  of  Governor  in  policy  formation  –  Most  ideas  for  change  by   individual  legislators,  the  state  board,  interest  groups,  intellectuals,  etc,  have   little  impact.  The  Governor  gives  weight  to  any  issue  he  or  she  promotes.   3. There  is  a  difference  between  “reform”  and  “transformation”  –  reform   builds  on  the  traditional  structure  and  what  currently  exists,  while   transformation  starts  from  the  beginning  to  shape  policy.  PEFA  sought   transformation,  but  settled  with  reform.     4. New  policy  builds  on  existing  policy  infrastructure  –  There  are  many  laws   and  rules  that  most  effect  what  can  and  cannot  be  done,  but  very  few  are   familiar  with  all  of  the  “rules  of  the  game.”     5. In  Michigan,  education  policy  is  highly  prescriptive  and  incorporated  in   law  –  Most  major  requirements  are  stated  in  law  and  can  be  changed.  Policy   changes  in  law  reflect  the  minimum  necessary  to  get  political  buy  in,  which   means  it  is  hard  to  pass  overall  reforms,  and  new  education  laws  are  more  likely   to  tweak  the  existing  structure.       6. “Local  control”  is  largely  a  myth  –  The  state  controls  local  government   instrumentalities  (including  schools)  and  provides  these  entities  with  their   powers,  which  means  it  can  resend  their  powers.  Further,  in  Michigan,  most  of   the  terms  that  define  schools  are  in  state  law,  not  the  constitution,  which  means   that  the  state  legislature  can  define  or  redefine  terms  as  they  please.       7. Deep  legal  knowledge  and  statutory  draft  skills  are  critical  in  policy   change  –  This  means  that  educational  policy  is  more  than  the  work  of  educators   or  researchers,  but  must  be  incorporated  into  legal  policy  terms.     8. Good  policies  do  not  equal  good  schools  –  Policy  makers  have  been  trying  for   decades  to  improve  education  policies,  and  they  have  rarely  improved  schools.     9. Plan  for  the  life  cycle  of  a  policy  –  Policy  is  complex,  but  needs  to  be  planned.   McLellan  describes  a  particular  process  as  described  below.     10. Apply  a  “WIFM  Matrix”  to  every  public  policy  campaign  –  WIFM  stands  for   “What  is  in  it  for  me,”  and  interest  in  one’s  own  position  drives  policy   interaction.     *based  on  presentation  by  McLellan  and  then  discussed  with  him  through  interviews     Several  of  these  elements  seem  very  cynical,  but  reflect  the  dominant  views  of  McLellan   and  his  supporters.  These  elements  also  show  how  they  viewed  others  in  the  policy     157   formation  process  and  the  public  discourse  of  PEFA.  However,  I  argue  that  many  of  these   elements  were  visible  in  the  opposition  to  PEFA,  especially  the  ideas  about  money.  Often   people  forget  that  when  money  is  taken  away  or  redistributed,  it  affects  adult  jobs  in   education,  just  as  much  if  not  more  than  student  learning.  This  makes  the  members  of  the   education  lobby  fight  for  their  jobs  as  much  as  for  educating  students.     McLellan  concluded  this  about  forming  education  policy:  “There’s  no  issue  in  this   state  that  affects  more  people  directly,  every  family,  every  kid,  every  employer,  every   employee,  everybody  is  affected  by  the  success  or  failure  of  our  public  education  system.   And  therefore,  you  have  to  look,  how  does  a  system  get  created?”  McLellan  answered  by   arguing,  “The  legislature  carries  out  its  function  to  establish  a  system  of  free  elementary   and  secondary  schools.  That’s  the  only,  there’s  three  policy  provisions  there.    One  is  free,   two  is  elementary  and  secondary,  and  the  legislature  has  to  create  it.  That’s  it.  That’s  all  it   says.”  After  meeting  the  constitutional  requirements  of  these  three  policy  provisions,   everything  else  in  the  educational  policy  arena  is  up  for  grabs,  and  therefore  can  be   changed.       The  Actor  Centered  Social  Engineered  Policy  Cycle     As  I  connect  the  various  policy  elements  together  to  demonstrate  who  shapes  policy   and  how,  I  want  to  return  to  element  nine  –  the  policy  cycle.  McLellan  described  his  own   cycle  that  he  used  for  PEFA  and  other  policies  as  being  composed  of  policy  formation,   building  support,  enactment,  implementation,  defense  in  court,  and  refinement.  This   concept  of  policy  is  completely  different  in  several  ways  from  the  literature,  including  that   of  Schultz  (2005)  mentioned  in  Chapter  Three.  McLellan  specifically  argued  that  it  is     158   important  to  plan  for  the  life  of  a  policy.  This  means  that  once  a  policy  is  passed  or   implemented  does  not  mean  it  is  done,  but  rather  the  cycle  is  in  effect  for  the  life  of  the   policy  (until  it  is  no  longer  a  law).  Most  policy  cycles  end  after  the  policy  is  adopted,  but   McLellan  argued  that  that  is  only  part  of  the  process.  McLellan’s  cycle  is  conceptualized  in   Figure  5.   Figure  5:  McLellan’s  Policy  Cycle       In  addition,  the  idea  of  preparing  for  litigation  is  not  part  of  most  policy  cycles,  especially   those  often  used  or  referred  to  in  the  educational  arena.  However,  this  idea  is  very   important.  It  shapes  how  one  approaches  the  writing  of  a  policy  and  how  to  align  elements   within  a  policy.  A  prime  example  of  this  is  McLellan’s  charter  school  authorization  policy   with  Bay  Mills,  as  discussed  in  Chapter  One.  McLellan  did  not  just  arbitrarily  select  an   American  Indian  nation  to  get  around  the  charter  school  cap;  he  knew  he  could  defend  it  in   law  and  in  court.       What  McLellan  described  about  PEFA  may  have  been  what  he  attempted  to  do,  but  it   is  not  what  happened.  What  actually  happened  more  aligns  with  what  Schultz  described  in   his  rational  policy  model  (2005).  However,  Schultz’s  model  still  does  not  capture  the  full     159   complexity  of  the  policy  cycle  and  who  shapes  policy.  Much  of  this  has  to  do  with  the  ideas   of  policy  actors  in  the  age  of  accountability.  Neither  McLellan’s  or  Schultz’s  cycle  captures   the  intricacy  of  the  actor-­‐centered  policy  cycle  that  attempts  socially  to  engineer   educational  policy  by  shaping  legislation.     For  this  case,  I  have  constructed  a  policy  cycle  to  describe  PEFA  in  Figure  6.   Reflecting  on  Schultz’s  policy  cycle  (2005)  (revisited  in  Figure  7),  there  are  many  elements   present  in  my  constructed  model,  but  the  outside  forces  of  policy  entrepreneurs  and   outside  interests  have  changed  the  forces  and  pressures  of  the  cycle.  The  cycle  in  this  case   had  a  beginning  with  Broad  and  McLellan  as  outside  of  education  policy  entrepreneurs  –   these  actors  were  the  real  trigger  of  the  policy,  because  what  they  wanted  to  do  did  not   address  a  specific  problem,  but  instead  was  an  attempt  to  create  policy  around  their   ideological  position  and  vision  for  education  reform.  These  two  then  interacted  with  the   governor  to  present  him  with  two  specific  policy  tools.  Broad  outlined  what  he  wanted  to   see  in  education,  and  McLellan  provided  the  governor  with  the  policy  direction  he  needed   to  take  to  accomplish  Broad’s  goals.  Specifically,  McLellan  needed  authority  from  the   governor  because  he  did  not  have  governmental  authority,  and  the  governor  needed  a   public  trigger  from  which  the  policy  would  be  developed.  In  Schultz’s  model,  this  would  be   called  the  “event.”  However,  here  it  is  much  more  complex.     McLellan  did  not  write  the  special  message  he  recommended  as  a  policy  trigger,  but   members  of  the  State  Board  of  Education  and  the  Michigan  Department  of  Education  did.   However,  the  State  Board,  including  those  on  it  who  helped  draft  the  special  message  on   education,  came  to  align  themselves  with  the  education  lobby  to  oppose  PEFA  as  a  large   education  special  interest  group.  In  Schultz’s  model,  this  would  be  called  “data  collection,”     160   but  it  feeds  back  into  the  perceived  trigger  from  the  real  actor  trigger  in  this  case,  instead  of   values  as  in  Schultz’s.  The  real  trigger,  McLellan,  and  the  perceived  trigger,  the  governor’s   special  message  of  education,  led  to  problem  identification,  which  is  identified  in  Schultz’s   model,  and  this  is  where  McLellan  decided  how  to  operationalize  the  governor’s  message.   This  led  to  policy  formation,  which  was  his  actual  drafting  of  the  law.     From  here,  PEFA  moved  into  the  public  realm  for  policy  debate,  which  is  also  part  of   Schultz’s  model.  This  could  have  been  just  the  legislators,  but  because  of  the  governor’s   push  for  transparency,  PEFA  was  presented  to  the  education  lobby  and  the  public.  Because   these  groups  felt  disfranchised  from  what  was  happening  to  them,  they  formed  an   organized  opposition  and  began  to  influence  the  atmospheric  conditions  of  the  public  view   of  PEFA,  which  McLellan  could  not  battle  effectively.  The  idea  of  controlling  atmospheric   conditions  is  lacking  in  the  overall  Schultz  model,  but  is  a  result  of  outside  forces  applying   pressure  to  the  policy  cycle.   This  pressure  and  the  public  debate  eventually  killed  PEFA,  only  for  it  to  be   resurrected  and  enacted  through  the  annual  school  aid  conference  bill  before  being   implemented  throughout  the  education  system.  The  idea  of  refinement  is  implied  in  the   Schultz  model  through  the  connection  of  public  action  back  to  the  event,  but  it  is  separate   here  in  that  McLellan  specifically  accounted  for  the  defense  of  PEFA  in  court.  This  is  a   crucial  element  that  educational  actors  and  policy  makers  need  to  consider  when  forming   legislation,  especially  when  other  groups  are  opposing  that  same  legislation.  However,  at   the  time  of  this  writing,  21f  has  not  yet  been  adjudicated  in  court,  nor  have  any  cases  been   filed.         161   Figure  6:  The  Socially  Engineered  PEFA  Policy  Cycle         Figure  7  Revising  Schultz’s  Policy  Cycle         162   Policy  Connections     All  of  this  leads  me  to  conclude  that  there  are  several  elements  of  Schultz’s  policy   cycle  at  work  still  (problem  identification,  formation,  debate,  and  public  action),  but  the   flow  has  changed,  and  the  cycle  as  become  distended  with  the  introduction  of  new  policy   actors  in  the  age  of  accountability.  It  also  has  a  specific  beginning,  with  the  policy   entrepreneurs  bringing  issues  to  the  educational  agenda.  However,  there  are  new  concepts   at  work  in  PEFA  that  are  not  represented  in  Schultz’s  policy  cycle  that  are  highly  important,   including  the  connection  and  invitation  between  outside  government  policy  entrepreneurs   and  a  lead  policy  actor  such  as  the  governor,  real  and  perceived  policy  triggers,  interest   group  formation,  creating  atmospheric  conditions,  and  policy  litigation.  These  ideas  have   become  crucial  as  new  actors  attempt  to  shape  educational  policy,  and  as  interests  set  out   to  shape  those  policies.       Concluding  Thoughts  and  Implications  for  Educational  Policy   To  paraphrase  Niccolo  Machiavelli,10  I  am  describing  the  world  as  it  is,  not  as  it   ought  to  be.  The  accountability  movement  in  education  has  brought  forth  new  actors  into   the  educational  policy  arena,  and  in  new  ways  –  namely  policy  entrepreneurs.  McLellan  is   the  embodiment  of  a  policy  entrepreneur,  or  a  policy  elite,  who  can  bring  issues  to  the  state   policy  agenda.  McLellan  has  been  influencing  policy  outcomes  at  the  state  level  for  40   years,  and  in  educational  matters,  particularly  issues  of  choice,  for  the  last  15  years.                                                                                                                     10  In  the  true  Machiavellian  style,  not  only  does  this  study  serve  to  explain  the  case  of  PEFA,   but  is  also  provides  a  handbook  of  how  possibly  to  shape  educational  policy  in  the   Michigan  context  in  the  age  of  accountability  and  emergence  of  public  policy  entrepreneurs   in  education.       163   However,  as  several  have  argued  (Anagnostopoulos,  Rutledge,  &  Bali,  2013;  Figlio  &   Ladd,  2008;  National  Research  Council;  Ravitch,  1995),  accountability  has  changed  the   environment,  which  is  most  assuredly  accurate.  All  of  McLellan’s  previous  work  had  been   done  in  the  shadows.  It  occurred  behind  the  scenes,  and  when  it  happened  on  center  stage,   he  could  not  be  spotted.  Several  have  noted  what  they  called  his  “dark  presence”  or  “dark   hand,”  but  they  could  not  point  him  out  directly.  He  had  used  dark  money  to  fund  projects   before;  PEFA  was  by  no  means  the  first,  but  it  was  by  far  the  most  public  operation  he  had   run.  This  is  the  news.     There  are  several  implications  for  education  policy.  One  is  the  way  that  education   policy  researchers  study  education,  and  those  who  desire  to  change  education  policy  are   going  to  have  adapt  their  methods  to  meet  the  new  conditions  of  the  policy  arena.  This   includes  more  “researching  up”  to  see  the  details  of  how  policy  are  being  formed,  and   especially  engaging  with  policy  entrepreneurs,  and  those  who  practice  education  policy   need  more  attention  to  detail  (e.g.,  how  21f  was  passed).  Finally,  education  policy  has   changed  with  the  emergence  of  outside  actors  playing  a  larger  role.  It  is  not  a  transparent   and  interest-­‐free  process  that  is  about  children,  but  one  that  is  highly  political  and  requires   a  new  way  of  looking  at  how  to  shape  policy  –  something  the  current  educational   establishment  is  not  prepared  to  engage  with.     There  has  been  a  level  of  acceptance  of  the  policy  entrepreneur  from  outside  of   government  being  involved  in  education  policy  making  (e.g.,  Broad,  Gates,  etc.).  It  is  often   outwardly  public,  and  it  has  become  socially  acceptable  that  groups  donate  large  amounts   of  money  to  “improve”  education.  That  involvement  still  requires  an  invitation  by  a  key     164   governmental  policy  actor  –  in  this  case  the  governor,  who  McLellan  correctly  argued  is  the   most  powerful  actor  in  shaping  a  state’s  education  policy  agenda.     However,  what  PEFA  had  that  others  lacked  was  a  clear  intermediary,  which  was   found  in  McLellan,  who  had  unparalleled  knowledge  of  the  role  of  the  governor  in  policy   formation  –  more  so  than  the  governor  himself.  McLellan,  despite  his  dark  reputation,  is  a   policy  genius  and  knows  the  rules  of  the  policy  game.  However,  McLellan  was  not  used  to   being  in  the  public  eye,  a  change  that  the  age  of  accountability  and  the  public  involvement   of  policy  entrepreneurs  have  brought  to  the  forefront.  He  probably  should  have  hired  a   political  communications  firm.  McLellan’s  work  was  the  next  evolution  of  education  policy   in  the  age  of  accountability  at  the  state  level.  It  was  the  direct  application  of  shaping  policy   through  public-­‐private  partnerships,  dark  money,  private  foundations,  government  work   taking  place  outside  of  the  confines  and  rules  of  government,  direct  drafting  of  legislation,   and  key  governmental  actor  involvement  to  support,  introduce,  and  approve  changes  in  the   educational  arena,  and  all  done  while  in  the  light  of  day.  However,  next  time,  the  policy   shapers  must  better  control  the  narrative  of  the  policy  to  secure  its  outright  passage.                                       165                                               APPENDIX                                                     166   Creating  Atmospherics     This  Appendix  explains  the  creation  of  atmospheric  conditions  in  detail.  It  uses  real   examples  from  Right  to  Work  and  recent  Michigan  legislation.     As  Stephen  Dedalus,  long  time  republican  communication  firm  specialist,   illuminated,  policy  is  all  about  issue  management  and  the  creation  of  the  proper   atmospheric  conditions  for  a  policy,  law,  or  a  candidate  to  come  to  fruition,  get  enacted,  or   be  elected,  respectively.  He  continued  that  “The  firm  has  been  involved  with  most  of  the   significant  issues  that  this  town  has  faced.    Most  recently,  the  Right  to  Life,  or  excuse  me,   Right  to  Work  debate.    Personal  property  tax  reform,  energy,  retirement  benefits.  You   know,  we’ve  been,  we’ve  been  involved  with  ballot  campaigns  in  every  election  cycle  going   back  decades.”  As  he  stated,  relationships  have  real  value  in  the  market  place,  and  it  is   about  winning  and  losing  –  nothing  else.  Dedalus  stated,  “We  represent  the  Senate   Republican  Caucus  and  so  I  mention  all  that  because  in  our  world,  relationships  are  capital.     Relationships  have  value.”  This  is  important  to  policy  development  because  he  helps  set   what  he  termed  atmospheric  conditions.  Specifically,  “Communications  firms  bring  a  lot  of   those  relationships  and  a  lot  of  that  value  to  an  issue  because  if  a  firm  like  Ulysses  is   engaged  that  sends  a  message  to  legislators  aimed  to,  in  our  case,  conservatives  and   Republicans.”  And,  it  is  these  groups  that  currently  make  up  the  bulk  of  those  in  charge  of   state  government  in  Michigan,  which  means  when  they  take  on  an  issue,  it  is  a  “Good   Housekeeping  seal  of  approval,  so  to  speak.”   To  begin  such  a  process  is  issue  management  of  a  policy.  The  first  step  is  to  define   the  issue  –  what  it  is  that  needs  to  be  accomplished,  and  then  help  create  the  narrative   around  it.  It  is  important  to  tell  the  story  of  the  policy  in  a  strategic  way  that  shows  it  is     167   needed.  Dedalus  said  it  is  important  to  begin  with  advocacy  and  a  communications   element,  all  while  knowing  and  focusing  on  your  target  audience.  When  I  asked  what  he   meant  by  advocacy,  he  said,  “Advocacy  means  persuasion  …  [and]  …  There’s  a  distinction   between  advocacy  and  education.  You  can  educate  someone  without  advocating,  right?”  As   Dedalus  defined  it,  educating  is  when  “You  know,  …  sit  down  with  a  legislator  and  say  let   me,  I  think  your  vote,  Senator,  was  ill  informed.  And  that’s  not  to  say  it  was  right  or  wrong   but  it  was,  you  know,  let  me  help  you  understand  the  issue  better.  And  it  may  be,  you  know,   a  biased  perspective  but  as  long  as  I’m  not  saying  so  Senator,  will  you  vote  yes  on  this  bill,   or  will  you  vote  no  on  this  bill,  if  it’s  just  in  the  context  of,  of  providing  information  and  data   and  perspective.”  It  is  a  way  to  shape  views  on  a  policy  without  formally  taking  action  to   shape  them,  but  again  such  advisors  would  have  to  have  relationships  in  place  to  do  this.     Referring  back  to  the  tactical  error  argument  posited  by  Phillip  Marlowe,  PEFA  was   not  education  or  advocating  for  its  proposed  law.  Instead,  various  aligned  interest  groups,   especially  the  MEA,  were  busy  “educating”  legislatures  on  this  law,  which  was  ultimately   damning  to  McLellan  and  PEFA’s  overall  positing  of  trying  to  pass  their  legislation.  This   was  not  because  PEFA  could  not  do  the  same  thing  and  could  not  have  gotten  supportive   results;  they  were  not  educating  decision  makers  at  all.  They  were  engaging  in  other  public   debates  that  informed  the  general  citizenry,  which  matters  relatively  little  to  pass  a  law  in   Lansing,  especially  if  you  have  a  hired  firm  like  Dedalus’s.     While  educating  is  an  informal  way  to  access  decision  makers,  advocacy  has  rules,   because  during  the  process  a  position  is  asked  to  be  taken.  Dedalus  explained,  “Advocacy  is   when  at  the  end  of  the  conversation  or  beginning  or  the  middle,  …    you’re  clearly  asking  for   a  vote.    So  you  know,  the  distinction  is  really  a  legal  one.  When  you’re,  when  you’re     168   educating,  unlimited  amounts  of  money  can  be  spent.    And  it  can  come  from  anywhere.     Because  it  really  doesn’t  fall  into  the  political  arena  at  that  point.”  However,  the  rules   change  when  you  get  into  advocacy  and  you  are  now  part  of  the  political  arena,  “and   therefore,  you  know,  there  are  election  laws  and  campaign  finance  laws  that  come  into   play.”  All  of  this  comes  back  to  money  and  “knowing  how  much  money  we  have  and  what   kind  of  money  we  had  to  spend,  is  it  on  education  or  is  it  on  advocacy  helps  shape  the   ultimate  plan.”     PEFA  operated  on  a  fairly  limited  budget  compared  to  other  political  groups.  Again,   the  Oxford  Foundation  only  provided  $200,000,  which  limited  their  ability  to  engage  in   education  or  advocacy  once  the  bill  became  contested  and  controversial.     Continuing  with  the  issue  of  the  management  process,  Dedalus  explained  that  when   it  is  a  “regulatory  value  we’re  seeking  to  influence  …  normally,  when  we’re  engaged  in  the   policy  arena,  the  target  audience  is  ultimately  the  decision  makers  which  is  the  legislature   and  the  executive  office.”  However,  they  do  not  just  stop  with  those  key  policy  makers.   Groups  like  Dedalus’s  also  look  at  other  “key  influencers”  around  the  decision  makers,  to   create  the  perception  of  public  will  and  interest  –  all  while  rarely  concerning  themselves   with  the  public.  Continuing,  Dedalus  stated,  “Who  are  the  people  that  the  decisions  makers   are  going  to  listen  to  when  they  seek  counsel?  And  so  you  know,  we  put  together  a  list  of   who  those  folks  are.  And  when  we  look  at  the  legislature,  …  generally  with  a  lobbying  team   that  has  done  some  kind  of  a  preliminary  head  count,  you  know,  for  a  legislative  issue.    And   therefore,  they’ve  got  a  series  of  …  targeted  legislators.”  From  here,  depending  on  the   budget,  Dedalus  would  start  using  his  “variety  of  policy  tools.”     169     It  is  in  the  effective  use  of  these  policy  tools  that  firms  like  those  of  Dedalus  can  help   create  the  atmospherics  that  he  termed  so  important  to  the  policy  cycle.  Dedalus  explained   that  there  is  a  range  of  tools.  He  continued,  “They  range  from  direct  order  contact  with   legislators  [to]  where  we  organize  grass  roots  contact.”  Note  that  he  did  not  say  it  was  a   grassroots  movement,  but  rather  that  the  contact  came  from  the  public  –  not  that  there  was   a  great  deal  of  public  interest  or  that  the  movement  was  organic  –  it  is,  to  use  his  words,  “an   organized  movement.”     However,  this  grass  element  can  be  divided  in  two  ways  –  grass  roots  and  grass   tops.  Dedalus  explained,  “We’ll  look  at  each  targeted  legislator  individually  and  say,  as  I   mentioned,  who  is  this  person  gonna  listen  to?  And  it’s  usually  a  grass  tops  and  grass  roots   element.  A  grass  tops  means,  you  know,  who  are  the  key  community  leaders  that  are  gonna   matter.  You  know,  the  head  of  the  local  chamber  and  councilmembers…  maybe  …  his   financial  advisor  who  he’s  known  for  30  years.  His  campaign  manager.”  It  is  important  to   access  “his  sphere  of  influence,  his  circle  of  influence  and  how  do  we  get  to  those  people?”   Once  these  grass  tops  people  are  found,  the  communication  firm  goes  about  winning  them   over.  Dedalus  explained,  “We  can  convert,  you  know,  the  people  who  are  closest  to  him  to,   or  if  they’re  on  our  side,  get  them  to  express  their  views,  that’s  a  very  powerful  method  of   communication.”   The  idea  of  grass  tops  and  influential  people  in  the  background  brings  to  mind  the   research  on  “shadow  board,”  or  groups  of  people  that  are  behind  the  scenes  of  the  attention   and  confidence  of  the  decisions  makers.  This  idea  came  up  several  times  during  the  course   of  collecting  data.  The  lobbyist  that  I  interviewed,  Phillip  Marlowe,  commented  on  this   further,  saying,  “People  don’t  appreciate  the  fact  that  in  any  area  you  want  to  talk  about,     170   any,  any  public  area,  you  know,  roads,  schools,  hospitals,  there  is  a  group  of  people  who   you  never  know  their  names,  you  never  see  them  publicly,  but  who  have  a  great  deal  of   influence  because  of  their  knowledge  and  their  interest  and  their  willingness  to  work  at  it.     And  people  think,  well,  that’s  terrible.  Well,  that’s  reality.  It  is  and  always  has  been  the   reality  of  how  things  get  done.”  So,  what  does  this  mean  for  the  policy  process  when  there   are  shadow  actors  and  influencers?  Do  they  always  win?     Well,  Marlowe  contended  that  they  do  not  always  win,  but  they  are  always  there,   and  they  are  a  standard  part  of  the  system.  He  continued,  “They  don’t  always  win  but  see,   the  other  thing  about  them  is  they  never  take  their  marbles  and  go  home.    You  may  win  this   time  but  they’re  gonna  be  back.  And  it’s  reality.  Personally,  I  think  it’s  democracy.  Anyone   who  wants  to  can  do  it.  Most  people  don’t  want  to.  They  just  want  to  complain  about  it   when  it  happens,  when  they  hear  about  it.  I  mean,  that’s,  that’s  life.”  Furthermore,  he  felt   that  this  shadow  operation  directly  applied  to  PEFA,  and  particularly  to  McLellan.  Marlowe   argued,  “And  I  think  Dick  McLellan  is  a  master.  I  mean,  I  really  admire  the  guy  and  I  like   him.  Any  time  I’ve  met  with  him,  I  like  him.  He’s  certainly  not  an  unpleasant  person  if  you   agree  with  him  and  he  is  certainly  very,  very  influential  in  the  state  of  Michigan  on   educational  policy  and  he  has  been  for,  well,  I  can  say  over  20  years  that  I’ve  been  around.”     William  Gordon,  long  time  Lansing  politician,  confirmed  this  idea  of  McLellan  being  one  of   those  shadow  advisors,  despite  this  very  public  campaign.  Gordon  continued,  “Every,  every   governor,  every  president,  every  CEO  has  what  I  call  a  hidden  advisor.  Could  be  his  wife,   could  be  a  mentor,  could  be  a  bowling  partner,  hunting  partner,  mistress.  Could  be  a  hell  of   a  lot  of  different  people.    McLellan  has  been  a  hidden  advisor  to  multiple  governors,   predominantly  Republican  but  not  exclusively.”  So  why  was  this  one  so  public?       171   However,  this  is  also  the  grass  roots  element,  or  at  least  the  perception  of  grass   roots.  As  Dedalus  explained,  “At  the  same  time,  you  know,  legislators  respond  to  personal   pressure,  they  respond  to  constituent  pressure  but  they  also  respond  to  public  opinion.   And  so,  you  know,  another  tool  in  the  tool  belt  is  media  and  the  creation  of  public  opinion;   …  we  sort  of  generate  first  that  kind  of  activity.”    This  is  what  he  called  “issue  advocacy.”  All   of  this  means  “nothing  more  than  campaigning  for  an  issue  rather  than  a  candidate.”  Most   recently,  he  continued,  this  approach  has  “sparked  a  firestorm  because  in  a  lot  of  ways,   issue  advocacy  is  what  led  to  the  Citizens  United  ruling  by  the  Supreme  Court  which  said   that,  you  know,  corporations  are  people,  too.  Which  really  opened  the  Pandora’s  box  on   campaign,  on  spending,  which  is  a  good  thing  for  firms  like  ours  but  not  necessarily  a  good   thing  for  television  viewers  because  now  there’s  no  end,  there’s  no  beginning  or  end  to   political  advertising  season  anymore.    It’s  constant.”  Ironically,  he  clarified  that  much  of  the   issue-­‐based  concerns  that  people  hear  about,  but  cannot  vote  on,  are  not  even  aimed  at   them,  but  aimed  to  put  pressure  on  decision  makers  without  even  a  real  need  for  the   public  to  take  action.       Dedalus  went  on  to  say  that  PEFA  could  have  been  more  successful  if  it  had   operated  more  like  some  of  his  other  clients.  In  particular,  he  said  that  one  of  his  most   recent  clients  and  projects,  Right  to  Work  in  Michigan,  had  all  the  components  that  PEFA   would  have  needed  to  be  successful.  Dedalus  explained,  “For  Right  to  Work  to  move  in   Michigan,  and  we  were  in  the  middle  of  that,  you  know,  a  lot  of  things  had  to  happen.”  He   began,     Number  one,  legislators  had  to  hear  from  people  important  to  them  that  they  had  to   do  this.  And  so  for  the  first  time,  you  had  both  the  CEOs  of  all  the  major  companies   in  Michigan,  key  conservatives  across  the  state,  significant  Republican  donors  really   putting  pressure  on  legislators  to  do  something  last  year  in  the  wake  of  the  unions’     172   attempt  to  enshrine  themselves  essentially  in  the  constitution  through  a  ballot   initiative  …  And  when  the  voters  rejected  that  [union  addition  to  the  constitution]  …     CEOs,  those  GOP  donors,  those  key  conservatives  were  able  to  call  legislators  and   say,  see,  the  people  are  on  your  side.  They’re  on  our  side  on  this  issue.    Now  is  the   time  to  do  this.    It  can’t  wait  …  grass  tops  communication  was  happening.    Those  key   influencers  were  telling  the  people  that,  you  know,  we’re  in  a  position  to  make  a   decision  on  that  issue,  that  they  needed  to  do  something.     As  Dedalus  explained,  the  Right  to  Work  issue  was  not  triggered  because  of  a  policy  need,   but  because  of  a  strike  back  to  the  union.  He  implied  that  it  was  similar  to  PEFA,  because   PEFE  was  not  really  the  answer  to  any  policy  problem,  but  a  way  to  change  education  in  the   state.       The  second  part  is  really  about  testing  the  waters.  The  legislators  were  beginning  to   feel  pressure  of  the  grass  tops  who  had  hired  Dedalus’s  firm,  and  they  were  beginning  to   wonder  if  this  was  a  politically  viable  issue.  So,  Dedalus  stated,  “Number  two,  they  were   convinced  that,  and  through  research  and  other  means,  that  at  the  end  of  the  day,  doing   this  was  not  going  to  be  harmful  to  them  politically.  You  know,  essentially,  the  people  who   don’t  like  you  will  still  not  like  you.  The  people  who  do  like  will  like  you  even  more  and  the   ones  that  you’re  fighting  for  every  year  in  the  middle  are  with  you.  So  politically,  there’s  no,   there’s  no  downside.”  And,  of  course,  his  firm  provided  the  necessary  research  and   advocacy  to  help  inform  the  legislature  on  this  issue,  like  any  other  he  is  hired  to  do.   Dedalus  said  that  the  decision  makers  must  see  it  was  politically  viable  for  the  necessary   votes  to  occur.  He  continued,  “So  you  know,  that’s  an  important  element  regardless  of  the   issue.  No  legislator  wants  to  be  on  the  other  side  of  his  constituents  …  if  a  legislator  thinks   that  voting  in  a  certain  way  would  be  contrary  to  the  needs  of  their  district,  then,  you   know,  that’s  a  tough  sell.  So  you  know,  that’s  an  important  component,  making  sure  that   they  know  that  the  water  temperature  is  fine.  It’s  okay  to  jump  in.”     173     The  third  step  is  really  the  grass  roots  element  –  to  affirm  that  what  the  grass  tops,   the  political  viability  research,  and  issue  advocacy  have  stated.  So,  to  do  this,  firms  like   Dedalus’s  create  a  grass  roots  stir.  As  he  stated,  “They  [decision  makers]  need  to  hear  from   people;  it’s  one  thing  for  me  to  tell  them,  it’s  another  thing  for  them  to  hear  from  folks.  And   legislators  and  the  governor,  whether  it’s  a  county  commissioner  or  a  state  rep  or  a   member  of  Congress  still  respond  to  voters,  to  constituent  outreach.”  To  follow  up,  I  asked   Dedalus  how  he  does  this.  He  stated  that  it  is  about  generating  phone  calls.  He  explained,   “You  know,  ten  phone  calls  in  a  legislative  office  on  a  single  issue  on  a  single  day  is  huge.   Generate  a  few  phone  calls  a  day  over  a  few  weeks  is  really  significant.  I  mean,  you’re   getting  their  attention.  If  you  can  generate,  you  know,  80,  90,  100  calls,  over  a  couple  days,   then  you’ve  really  dominated  the  landscape.”  However,  where  do  the  people  making  the   phone  calls  come  from?  A  grass  roots  movement  is  often  touted  as  authentic,  but  that  is  not   this.  It  is  an  organized  outreach  from  the  firm  at  the  top  to  interest  groups  and  some  hired   staff  members  at  the  grass  roots  level  to  produce  the  appearance  of  an  actual  constituent   movement.       Dedalus  continued,  “And  so  the  grass  roots  advocacy  element  is  getting  people  at   the,  you  know,  grass  roots  level  in  their  district  to  reach  out  and,  and  contact  them  on  this,   in  this  case,  on  Right  to  Work.    And  so  we  do  that  through  coalition  development  and   building  a  coalition  of  support  for  an  issue.”    In  this  particular  case,  who  would  want  to   support  Right  to  Work  and  what  groups  already  exist?  Dedalus  stated,  “So  obviously   business  groups,  anti-­‐tax  groups,  conservatives,  those  types  of  folks,  Republicans,  you   know,  would  be  most,  most  favorable,  right?  And  so,  we  get  their  leadership  in  a  room  and   we  say,  you  know,  here’s  what  you  need  to  do  from  a  grassroots  perspective  to  win  this     174   issue  and  to  help  us  get  over  the  top.”  To  further  understand  how  ingrained,  organized,  and   effective  this  process  of  creating  atmospherics  is,  it  is  important  to  note  that  this  whole   Right  to  Work  issue  occurred  in  a  lame  duck  session  (after  the  November  2012  election   and  before  officials  took  office  at  the  end  of  January  2013),  so  it  was  a  compressed   timeframe.  Dedalus  continued,  “So,  we  did  a  lot  of  calls  a  day  over  a  short  period  of  time.     There  are  groups  out  there  that  have  membership  and  so  we  get  them  in  a  room  and  we   have  them  reach  out  to  the  membership  and  mobilize  them.  And  that’s  really  what  they   exist  for.    I  mean,  most  of  these  associations  exist  to  build  political  power  and,  therefore   the  ability  to  persuade  legislators.”     This  coalition  building  is  the  embodiment  of  the  Countervailing  Power  perspective   of  interest  group  theory  (Sipple  et  al.,  1997),  a  force  that  PEFA  did  not  have  access  to   because  of  their  lack  of  setting  the  atmospheric  conditions.  However,  these  groups  did  not   organize  for  this  issue.  They  were  organized  for  various  membership  reasons  and  waited,   waited  until  a  group  like  Dedalus’s  communication  firm  put  them  into  action.  He  explained,   “Coalition  development  was  a  very  important  piece  and  is  an  important  piece  regardless  of   the  issue.  If  it’s  no  fault  insurance  reform,  you’ve  got  the  hospitals,  the  trial  attorneys  on   one  side  of  the  aisle  and  you’ve  got  business  and  insurance  companies  on  the  other  side  of   the  aisle.”  However,  who  does  not  start  to  mobilize  forces?  PEFA  relied  on  transparency   and  hoped  for  republican  support  because  that  is  what  the  governor  wanted  to  do,  but  that   was  not  enough.  Other  groups  organized  against  them.  To  answer  this,  Dedalus  said,  “You   know,  what  kinds  of  coalitions  can  we  develop  to  generate  grassroots  support?  What   assets  do  we  have?  We  have  employees.  We  have  customers,  we  have,  you  know,  for   insurance  companies.  If  we’re  the  trial  attorneys,  we’ve  got,  you  know,  attorney  networks     175   all  over  the  state.    If  we’re  the  health  or  hospital  association,  we’ve  got  nurse  and  doctors   and  employees  and  so,  you  know,  no  matter  what  the  issue  is,  you  know,  you  look  at  it  that   way.  What  kind  of  coalition  can  we  put  together  that  demonstrates  that  this  is  an   important  issue  and  allows  us  to  build  some  power  and  strength  behind  their  argument?   And  then  we  mobilize  those  folks.”     To  go  a  step  further,  groups  like  Dedalus’s  even  organize  the  calling.  He  stated,  “We   provide  them  with  the  vehicle  through  which  they  can  contact  legislators  by  phone.  These   are  what  are  called  pass  through  calls.”  This  is  where  the  member  of  the  public  calls  the   communications  firm  and  then  they  put  the  caller  on  the  line  with  the  legislator.  It  is  then   one  organized  call  after  another  on  that  issue  through  the  firm,  which  sets  up  the  callers   and  legislators  in  advance.  An  important  note  is  that  “A  patch  through  is  a  paid  component.   A  volunteer  picking  up  a  card  with  a  number  on  it  and  just  going  home  and  dialing  it  is  a   volunteer  component.    That’s  a  much  harder  thing  to  generate  these  days.”  Dedalus   continued  that  firms  like  his  have  changed  the  game,  and  “Rarely  [is  there]  a  true   ‘grassroots’  only  component  anymore.”  Rather,  it  is  organized.       A  fourth  element,  depending  on  needs  and  funds,  is  advertising.  However,  it  is   important  to  consider  who  the  audience  is.  It  is  not  the  average  citizen,  but  the  decision   maker.  They  will  use  targeted  television  ads,  radio  ads,  billboards,  blogs  (and  their  staged   discussions),  websites,  etc.  For  example,  Dedalus  stated,  “It’s  no  accident,  and  no  pun   intended,  that  on  the  road  funding  issue,  most  of  their  advertising  has  been  through   billboards.  I  actually  ran  that  campaign  at  one  time  and  the  reason  is  when  are  you  most   frustrated  with  the  quality  of  your  roads?  When  you’re  driving  on  them.    So,  if  people  are     176   already  frustrated  behind  the  wheel,  a  billboard  is  a  good  way  to,  to  reach  them  at  a  time   when  they’re  probably  thinking  about  your  issue  anyway.”   Depending  on  our  understanding  of  media  use,  Dedalus  explained  the  importance  of   TV  and  radio  slots  in  creating  atmospheric  conditions.  Turning  back  to  Right  to  Work,  he   explained,  “The  tool  we  used  was  radio  during  drive  time  to  try  and  reach  folks.  A  lot  of   what  we  do  is  making  sure  legislators  or  members  of  Congress  …  know  that  the  issue  is   real  and  is  serious.    Advertising  on  television,  radio  lets  them  know  you’re  serious.”  This  is   something  that  PEFA  did  not  do,  but  it  did  use  websites  and  the  newspapers.  However,  it  is   not  just  about  ads  –  there  is  a  system  to  it.  He  stated,  “Oftentimes,  you  know,  we’ll  spend  a   deceptively  low  amount  of  money  targeting  radio  stations,  radio  programs,  television   programs  that  we  know  legislators  watch,  that  we  know  our  target  audience  watches  or   listens  to.”  For  example,  “if  they’re  driving  …  legislators  generally  come  into  town  on   Monday  nights  during  session  week  because  sessions  run  Tuesday,  Wednesday,  Thursday.     So  we  know  that  legislators  are  going  to  be  driving  in  the  night  before  or  that  morning  …   and  so  we  buy,  there  are  significant  talk  radio  in  both  those  markets,  a  few  ads  a  day  just   on  those  talk  radio  stations  those  legislators  are  listening  to  on  the  way  into  the  office   creates  the  illusion  that  we’re  everywhere.”  When  it  came  to  Right  to  Work,  “we  only   bought  maybe  eight  ads  over  two  days,  to  hit  them  on  their  way  into  town  and  on  their   way  out  of  town.”  Generally,  Dedalus’s  firm  will  also  “buy  maybe  three  or  four  billboards   and  put  them  on  roads  and  highways  that  we  know  legislators  are  going  to  be  traveling   over.    So  the  point  is,  we  want  them  to  see  that  we’re  stirring  up  folks  and  that  they’ve  have   to  deal  with  us.”       177   Dedalus  concluded,  “It’s  kind  of  ironic  that,  you  know,  with  all  the  technology  at  our   disposal  and  all  the  different  tools  in  the  tool  belt  now  for  communications  with  the   internet  and  social  media,  you  know,  the  amazing  array  of  television  programming  and  the   new  data  that  we  can  get  from  that  to  target  audiences,  at  the  end  of  the  day  it  is  direct   personal  contact  that  matters  the  most.”  And  that  is  how  you  can  control  the  formation  of  a   policy.                                                                         178                           REFERENCES                         179   REFERENCES   2013  Mich.  Pub.  Acts  60.   Anagnostopoulos,  D.,  Rutledge,  S.,  &  Bali,  V.  (2013).  State  education  agencies,  information   systems,  and  the  expansion  of  state  power  in  the  era  of  test-­‐based  accountability.   Educational  Policy,  27(2),  217-­‐247.   Associated  Press.  (1999,  April  28).  Court  rules  for  Engler  in  school  board  case.  The  Blade.     “Average  Daily  Attendance.”  (2011).  Joint  report  of  the  Washington  State  Senate  Learning   and  K-­‐12  Education  Committee  and  the  Senate  Ways  and  Means  Committee.     Baumgartner,  F.R.,  &  Leech,  B.L.  (1998).  Basic  interests.  Princeton,  NJ:  Princeton  University   Press.   Bell,  D.  (Aug  9,  1999).  Attorney  wields  influence  quietly,  his  low  profile  belies  big  role  in   policy  bebates.  Detroit  Free,  Press.  B1.     Botwinski,  B.  (2013).  Research  design.  Unpublished  manuscript.     Bowen,  G.  (2009).  Document  analysis  as  a  qualitative  research  method.  Qualitative   Research  Journal,  9(2),  27-­‐40.     Bryan,  A.  (2010).  Corporate  multiculturalism,  diversity  management,  and  positive   interculturalism  in  Irish  schools  and  society.  Irish  Educational  Studies,  29(4),  253-­‐ 269.     Christensen,  C.  (2010).  Disrupting  class:  How  disruptive  innovation  will  change  the  way  the   world  learns.  Columbus,  Ohio:  McGraw-­‐Hill.     Cohen,  D.  (1982).  Policy  and  Organization:  The  impact  of  state  and  federal  educational   policy  on  school  governance.  Harvard  Educational  Review,  52(4),  474-­‐499.     Cohen,  M.,  March,  J.  &  Olsen,  J.  (1972).  A  garbage  can  model  of  organizational  choice.   Administrative  Science  Quarterly,  17(1),  1-­‐25.     Council  of  Organizations  &  Others  for  Educ.  About  Parochiaid,  Inc.  v.  Governor,  566  N.W.2d   208  (1997).   Cusick,  P.,  &  Borman,  J.  (2002).  Reform  of  and  by  the  system:  A  case  study  of  a  state’s  effort   at  curricular  and  systemic  reform.  Teachers  College  Record,  104(4),  765-­‐786.     Daubenmier,  J.  (1996).  Engler  strips  power  from  State  Ed  Board.  Ludington  Daily  News.   Davis,  D.  (2002).    “Interest  Group  and  Elite  Theories.”  Political  Science  and  Public   Administration:  University  of  Toledo.  Retrieved  Feb  8,  2013,  from   http://www.utoledo.edu/llss/pspa/faculty/davis/IGelite.htm.     180   DeAndrade,  L.L.  (2000).    Negotiating  from  the  inside:  Constructing  racial  and  ethnic   identity  in  qualitative  research.    Journal  of  Contemporary  Ethnography,  29  (3),    268-­‐   290.   Denzin,  N.,  &  Lincoln,  Y.  (2000).  Handbook  of  qualitative  research  (2nd  edition).  Thousand   Oaks,  CA:  Sage  Publications.   Dunbar,  C.  Jr.  Rodriguez,,  &  D.  Parker,  L.,  (2001).  Race,  subjectivity,  and  the  interview   process.    In  J.  Gubrium  &  J.  Holstein  (Eds.),  The  handbook  of  Interviewing  (pp.  279-­‐ 298).  Thousand  Oaks,  CA:  Sage  Publications.   Figlio,  D.  and  Ladd,  H.  (2008).  School  accountability  and  student  achievement.  In  H.  Ladd  &   E.  Fiske,  (Eds.),  Handbook  of  research  in  education  finance  and  policy  (pp.  166-­‐182).   New  York:  Routledge.     Glesne,  C.    (2011).  Becoming  qualitative  researchers:  An  introduction  (4th  edition).  Boston,   Massachusetts:  Pearson  Education,  Inc.     Green,  T.  F.  (1983).  Excellence,  equity,  and  equality.  In  L.  Shulman  &  G.  Sykes  (Eds.),   Handbook  of  teaching  and  policy  (pp.  318-­‐341).  New  York:  Longman.   Henig,  J.  (2013).  The  end  of  exceptionalism  in  American  education:  The  changing  politics  of   school  reform.  Cambridge,  Massachusetts:  Harvard  Educational  Press.       Herriott,  R.E.,  &  Firestone,  W.A.    (1983).    Multisite  qualitative  policy  research:  Optimizing   description  and  generalizability.    Educational  Researcher,  12(2),  14-­‐19.     Hess,  F.,  &  Meeks,  O.  (2013).  “Unbundling”  schools  and  schooling:  Let’s  think  more  flexibly   about  how  to  structure  institutions  and  jobs.  In  The  future  of  school  reform.   Cambridge,  MA:  Harvard  Education  Press.     Hesse-­‐Biber,  (2010).    Qualitative  approaches  to  mixed  methods  practice.    Qualitative   Inquiry,  16(6),  455-­‐468.     Hunault,  J.,  Cleary,  M.,  &  Wicksall,  B.  (2008).  Restore  state  board  of  education’s  authority   over  special  education  rules.  Retrieved  from  House  Fiscal  Agency.     Jacobsen,  R.,  &  Young,  T.  V.  (2013).  The  new  politics  of  accountability:  Research  in   retrospect  and  prospect.  Educational  Policy,  27(2),  155-­‐169.   doi:10.1177/0895904813478164     Johnson,  J.,  (2002).  In-­‐depth  interviewing.    In  J.  Gubrium  &  J.  Holstein  (Eds.),  The  handbook   of  interviewing,  (pp.  103-­‐119).  Thousand  Oaks,  CA:  Sage  Publications.   Kincheloe,  J.,  and  McLaren,  P.,  (2000).  Rethinking  critical  theory  and  qualitative  research.   (pp.  279-­‐313).  In  N.  Denzin  &  Y.  Lincoln  (Eds.).  Handbook  of  qualitative  research.   (2nd  edition).  Thousand  Oaks,  CA:  Sage  Publications.     181   Kingdon,  J.  (1997).  Agendas,  alternatives,  and  public  policies.  (2nd  Edition).  Hammersmith,   United  Kingdom:  HarperCollins  Publishers.   Lindblom,  C.E.  (1959).  The  science  of  "muddling  through".  Public  Administration  Review,  39,   79-­‐88.     Lofland,  Snow,  Anderson,  &  Lofland  (2005).    Analyzing  social  settings:  A  guide  to  qualitative   observation  and  analysis  (4th  edition).    Belmont,  CA:  Wadsworth.    Chapter  6:   Thinking  Topics  (pp.  119-­‐143).   Lofland,  Snow,  Anderson,  &  Lofland  (2005).    Analyzing  social  settings:  A  guide  to  qualitative   observation  and  analysis  (4th  edition).    Belmont,  CA:  Wadsworth.  Chapter  7:  Asking   Questions  (pp.  144-­‐166).   Louis,  K.,  Leithwood,  K.,  Wahlstorm,  K.,  &  Anderson,  S.  (2010).  Investigating  the  links  to   improved  student  learning.  Toronto,  Canada:  University  of  Toronto:  Ontario   Institute  for  Studies  in  Education.     Lowery,  D.  (2007).  Why  do  organized  interests  lobby?  A  multi-­‐goal,  multi-­‐context  theory  of   lobbying.  Polity,  39(1),  29-­‐  54.   Max,  R.    (2009).    The  decalage  and  bricolage  of  higher  education  policymaking  in  an   intern/national  system:  The  unintended  consequences  of  participation  in  the  1992   Senegalese  CNES  reform.    In  Frances  Vavrus  &  Lesley  Bartlett  (Eds.),  Critical   approaches  to  comparative  education:  Vertical  case  studies  from  Africa,  Europe,  the   Middle  East,  and  the  Americas  (pp.  21-­‐38).    New  York:  Palgrave  Macmillian.   McDermott,  K.  (2009).  The  expansion  of  state  policy  research.  In  G.  Sykes,  B.  Schneider,  &  D.   Plank  (Eds.),  Handbook  of  education  policy  research  (749-­‐766).  New  York:   Routledge.   McFarland,  A.  S.  (1992).  Interest  groups  and  the  policy-­‐making  process:  Sources  of     countervailing  power  in  America.  In  M.  P.  Petracca  (Ed.),  The  politics  of  interest:   Interest  groups  transformed  (pp.  58-­‐79).  Boulder,  CO:  Westview  Press.     McLellan,  R.  (2013).  HB  5923  should  not  be  reintroduced.  Lansing,  Michigan:  Oxford   Foundation.   McLellan,  R.,  Ruddell,  P,  &  Shields,  M.  (2013).  The  Michigan  Public  Education  Finance  Act.   Lansing,  Michigan:  Oxford  Foundation.     McLellan,  R.  (2013).  The  role  of  private  resources  in  top  level  government  management   (White  paper).  Lansing,  MI:  Law  Offices  of  Richard  McLellan.     McLellan,  R.  (2013).  “Skunk  Works”  School.  Lansing,  MI:  Law  Offices  of  Richard  McLellan.     182   Mehta,  J.  (2013).  How  paradigms  create  politics:  The  transformation  of  American   educational  policy,  1980-­‐2001.  American  Educational  Research  Journal,  50(2),  285-­‐ 324.     MICH.  COMP.  LAWS  ANN.  §  380.1  –  380.1853  (2013).   Michigan  Department  of  Education.  (2013).  About  the  State  Board.  Retrieved  from:   http://www.michigan.gov/mde/0,4615,7-­‐140-­‐5373-­‐-­‐-­‐,00.html.   MICH.  CONST.  art.  II,  §  4.   Mintrom,  M  and  Norman,  P  (2009).  Policy  entrepreneurship  and  policy  change.  The  Policy   Studies  Journal,  37(4),  649-­‐663.   Murphy,  J.  (2010).  Educator’s  handbook  for  understanding  and  closing  achievement  gaps,   Thousand  Oaks,  California:  Corwin.       National  Research  Council,  Incentives  and  test-­‐based  accountability  in  education.   Washington,  DC:  National  Academies  Press,  2011.   http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12521   Neal,  S.  &  McLaughlin,  E.  (2009).  Researching  up?  Interviews,  emotionality  and   policy-­‐making  elites.  Journal  of  Social  Policy,  38(4),  689-­‐707.   Odendahl,  T.  and  Shaw,  A.,  (2002).  In-­‐depth  interviewing.    In  J.  Gubrium  &  J.  Holstein  (Eds.),   The  handbook  of  interviewing,  (pp.  103-­‐119).  Thousand  Oaks,  CA:  Sage  Publications.   Olson,  M.  J.  (1965).  The  logic  of  collective  action.  Cambridge,  MA:  Harvard  University  Press.   Opfer,  V.  D.,  Young,  T.  V.  &  Fusarelli,  L.  D.  (2008).  Politics  of  interest  groups  and  advocacy   coalitions  in  American  education.  In  B.  Cooper,  J.  Cibulka  &  L.  Fusarelli  (Eds.),   Handbook  of  education  politics  and  policy  (pp.  195-­‐216).  New  York:  Routledge.   Portes,  A.  (2000).  The  hidden  abode:  Sociology  as  analysis  of  the  unexpected.  American   sociological  review,  65,  1-­‐18.   Ravitch,  D.  (2011).  The  Death  and  Life  of  the  Great  American  School  System:  How  Testing   and  Choice  Are  Undermining  Education.  New  York,  NY:  Basic  Books.   Ravitch,  D.  (1995).  National  standards  in  American  education.  Washington,  D.C.:  The   Brookings  Institution.   Rubenstein,  B.  &  Ziewacz,  L.  (2008).  Michigan:  A  history  of  the  Great  Lakes  state.  Wiley-­‐ Blackwell.     Sabatier,  P.  A.  (1992).  Interest  group  membership  and  organization:  Multiple  theories.  In  M.   P.  Petracca  (Ed.),  The  politics  of  interest:  Interest  groups  transformed  (pp.  99-­‐129).   Boulder,  CO:  Westview  Press.       183   Salisbury,  R.  H.  (1969).  An  exchange  theory  of  interest  groups.  Midwest  Journal  of  Political   Science,  13,  1-­‐32.     Schlozman,  K.  L.  (2010).  Who  sings  in  the  heavenly  chorus?:  The  shape  of  the  organized   interest  system.  In  L.  S.  Maisel,  J.  M.  Berry,  &  G.  C.  Edwards  (Eds.),  The  Oxford   handbook  of  American  political  parties  and  interest  groups  (pp.  425-­‐450).  New  York:   Oxford  University  Press.   Schultz,  D.  W.  (2005).  How  governments  participate  in  education  in  the  United  States:  A   study  of  policy,  process  and  politics.  Y.  Zhao,  D.  Lustick,  and  W.  Yang  (Eds.)  In   Government,  accountability  and  assessment  in  the  United  States  (March  2005).  East   Lansing:  U.S.  China  Center  for  Research  on  Educational  Excellence  and  Michigan   State  University.     Shields,  Tom.  (2013).  Public  Education  Finance  Act.  Retrieved  from:   http://pefaproject.wordpress.com.     Shipps,  D.,  (2011).  The  politics  of  educational  reform:  Idea  champions  and  policy  windows..   In  D.  Mitchell,  L.  Crowson,  &  D.  Shipps  (Eds.),  Shaping  education  policy:  Power  and   process.  (pp.  259-­‐281).  London,  Routledge.   Silverman,  D.,  (2000).  Analyzing  talk  and  text.  In  N.  Denzin.  &  Y.  Lincoln  (2000).  Handbook   of  qualitative  research.  (2nd  edition)  (pp.  821-­‐834).  Thousand  Oaks,  CA:  Sage   Publications.   Sipple,  J.  W.,  Miskel,  C.,  Matheney,  T.,  &  Kearney,  C.  (1997).  The  creation  and  development   of  an  interest  group:  Life  at  the  intersection  of  big  business  and  education  reform.   Educational  Administration  Quarterly,  33(4),  440-­‐473.   Snyder,  R.  (2011).  A  special  message  from  Governor  Rick  Snyder:  Education  reform.  Lansing,   Michigan:  Executive  Office.     Stake,  R.  (2004).    Qualitative  case  study.    In  N.  K.  Denzin  &  Y.S.  Lincoln  (eds.)    The  Sage   handbook  of  qualitative  research,  (3rd  edition),  (pp.443-­‐466).    Thousand  Oaks,  CA:   Sage.   Stone,  D.  (2002).  Policy  paradox:  The  art  of  political  decision  making.  NY:  WW  Norton  &  Co.     Summers,  K.  (2013).  House  Bill  4228:  FY  2013-­‐14  education  omnibus  appropriation  bill.   Retrieved  from  Senate  Fiscal  Agency.     Thomas,  G.    (2011).  A  typology  for  the  case  study  in  social  science  research  following  a   review  of  definition,  discourse,  and  structure.    Qualitative  Inquiry,  17(6),  511-­‐521.   Thorne,  B.    (2004).    “You  still  takin’  note?”  Fieldwork  and  problems  of  informed  consent.    In   S.  Hesse-­‐Biber  &  P.  Leavy  (Eds.),  Approaches  to  qualitative  research:  A  reader  on   theory  and  practice  (pp.  159-­‐176).    New  York:  Oxford  University  Press.       184   Truman,  D.  B.  (1951).  The  governmental  process.  New  York:  Knopf.   Vavrus,  F.  &  Bartlett,  L.    (2006).    Comparatively  knowing:  Making  a  case  for  the  vertical  case   study.  Current  Issues  in  Comparative  Education  8  (2),  95-­‐103.       Vavrus,  F.    (2005).    Adjusting  inequality:  Education  and  structural  adjustment  policies  in   Tanzania.    Harvard  Education  Review,  75  (2),  174-­‐201.   Warren,  C.,  (2002).  Qualitative  interviewing.  In  J.  Gubrium  &  J.  Holstein  (Eds.),  The   handbook  of  interviewing  (pp.  83-­‐101).  Thousand  Oaks,  CA:  Sage  Publications.   Yin,  Robert  (2003).    Case  study  research:  Design  and  methods  (3rd  Edition).    Thousand  Oaks,   CA:  Sage.   Young,  T.  V.  &  Fusarelli,  B.  C.  (2011).  The  politics  of  education  and  equity  in  turbulent   times.  Peabody  Journal  of  Education,  86(3),  211-­‐214.   Young,  T.V.,  DiMartino,  C.,  &  Boggs,  B.  (Forthcoming).  Interest  groups  revisited.  In  B.   Cooper,  J.  Cibulka,  &  L.  Fusarelli  (Eds.),  Handbook  of  education  politics  and  policy   (2nd  ed.).  New  York:  Routledge.       185