.53.”;
., . ‘ aka“: emu

.k..

i...
y
i as A
Eras»

5.

1...... 1...!
la v.1

ifﬂrv... G

r534»,

, «x 15.
fﬁzhaﬂf.

 

 

 

ﬁzﬁﬁﬁn

7a....

 

 

1HE$S
L

/
~./
rfl:

‘. r
U» I

 

 

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

THE POLITICS OF EDUCATION REFORM:
STATE POWER AND THE FIELD OF EDUCATIONAL
POLICY IN NEW JERSEY

presented by

ERAN TAMIR

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

degree in Educational Administration

 

 

{V/MML.‘

 

Md or Professor’ 5 Signature

4,0 A‘rdr’ ”loot;

 

Date

MSU IS an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2/05 p:/CIRC/DaIeDue.indd-p.1

 

 

 

THE POLITICS OF EDUCATION REFORM:
STATE POWER AND THE FIELD OF EDUCATIONAL POLICY IN NEW JERSEY

By

Eran 'I‘amir

A DISSER'I‘A'I‘ION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOC'I‘OR OI’ PHILOSOPHY
Department of Educational Administration

2006

ABSTRACT

THE POLITICS OF EDUCATION REFORM:
STATE POWER AND THE FIELD OF EDUCATIONAL POLICY IN NEW JERSEY

By
Eran Tamir

This dissertation studies the politics ofeducation reform and the struggles over
educational policy in New Jersey during the l98()s. I identify the main participants (social
agents) who operated in the field of education (teacher unions. the state and department
of education, teacher educators, house representatives. and others). consider their
interests. ideologies, and examine the strategies they were using to get hold ofthe
positions of power in the field. I focus in particular on the constant attempts ofthese
social agents to forcefully change the public sphere by proposing to reform educational
policy in ways that would advance their interests and visions.

I have collected archival data from New Jersey State Archive. conducted semi-
structured interviews with key players. and reviewed educational policy coverage in the
mass-media. The data analysis has been guided by Bourdieu‘s notions ofcapital. social
ﬁeld, and habitus. These notions were then used to develop a viable alternative to the
mainstream pluralist approach of John Kingdon to educational policy analysis.

Overall, the findings ofthis work suggest that New Jersey‘s governor and
department of education were successful in increasing their power 'in the field of
education. Nevertheless, a careful and comprehensive analysis of the findings reveals a
more nuanced picture. When considering a broad array of educational policies. there are
indications that policies concerning teacher certiﬁcation and preparation (e.g.. the

alternate route to teaching) have been established and implemented by the state in a way

that marginalized the authority of teacher educators and teacher unions in the lield. Yet.
the state failed to expand its authority on issues like merit pay which was a top priority
for the governor. Thus, it becomes rather clear that the state had enhanced its control in
some parts of the field, but failed to do so in other parts where other social agents. in
particular the New Jersey Education Association (NJ EA). continued to hold key positions

in the ﬁeld.

Copyright by
ERAN TAMIR
2006

To Nira. my true love and best friend

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work is the outcome of two years of extensive work. I am indebted to many
kind and bright people at Michigan State University who pushed me to think and consider
the ideas that led to this work. I met with them during courses. some were teachers, and
others were students. I was also lucky to earn the friendship of some who worked nearby.
like myself, as research assistants or were part of the Spencer Fellowship program.
Exchanging ideas with them about work and life has been always a pleasure. Some of
these good friends are John Brender, Nils Kauffman, Melissa McDaniels. Raymond
Mapuranga, and Marjorie Cooper.

I was very lucky to enjoy the generous institutional support ofthe college of
education that has helped me develop and maintain my research throughout the program.
ﬁrst through a summer research fellowship and later with two years of Spencer Research
Training Grants. The higher education program also deserves my special thanks for the
warm home and generous grants they have provided me with.

My parents, sister, and grandmother have been an important source of support. I
am forever grateful to them. Nira deserves my special thanks for being always patient.
understanding, full of good advice, and extremely supportive of my work.

Some friends and colleagues at Michigan State University deserve my special
gratitude. They all took valuable hours of their busy schedules to meet, discuss. and read
various versions of this manuscript. My advisor, Steve Weiland, supported me from the
very beginning with his thoughtful advice and direction. He became a good friend that I

could talk with and rely on at any time. Michael Sedlak helped me gain a deeper

vi

understanding of the history of teaching in America. His comments forced me to be more
careful in my observations and interpretations. Gary Sykes with his enormous experience
and knowledge of teacher education policy always gave me the leading clues to questions
that I have struggled with. Gary listened carefully and then would challenge me with his
questions that pushed me to reﬁne my arguments. The hours that I spent with Dorothea
Anagnostopoulus were always insightful. Her advice. comments. and guidance on theory
and analysis were critical and had substantial impact on the development of this work.
My most sincere thanks are reserved for Suzanne Wilson my dissertation director.
Meeting Suzanne was a turning point in my Ph.D. program. Working with her and
enjoying her mentorship taught me important lessons for life and helped me become a
better educational researcher. She was always available to hear my concerns. read my
texts, and provide careful, thoughtful, and illuminating commentary. Without Suzanne‘s
continuous support and unsurpassable generosity this dissertation would never become
what it is. Her thoughts and suggestions are felt in almost every line ofthis text. My

gratitude to her is enormous.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................. xi
CHAPTER 1
Overview ......................................................................................... I
The Pluralist Theoretical Approach to Policymaking ..................................... 6
The Initial Proposal for an Alternate Route ................................................ 9
The Main Argument .......................................................................... 12
Chapter Summaries ........................................................................... 16
CHAPTER 2

THEORIZING THE POLITICS OF EDUCATIONAL REFORM:
THE CASE OF NEW JERSY’S ALTERNATE ROUTE TO TEACHER
CERTIFICATION

Introduction ..................................................................................... 2 1
Methods and Data .............................................................................. 24
Conceptualizing the Struggle over Educational Policy-Making ......................... 25
Problems, Policy Solutions, and Politics: The Case of New Jersey ..................... 36
The Battle over Education Reform .......................................................... 47

Summary ........................................................................................ 67

CHAPTER 3
THE FOUR C’S OF EDUCATIONAL POLITICS:
THE CASE OF NEW JERSEY ALTERNATE ROUTE TO TEACHING

Introduction ...................................................................................... 72
A Brief Historical Account .................................................................. 74

The Four C’s ................................................................................... 79

Method .......................................................................................... 94

Capital, Power and the Struggle over Teacher Certiﬁcation ............................. 96
Discussion and Summary ................................................................... 122

CHAPTER 4

THE STRUCTURE OF POWE IN THE FIELD OF EDUCATIONAL POLICY IN NEW
JERSEY: OPERATIONALIZING BOURDIEU'S CONCEPT OF THE FIELD

Introduction .................................................................................... I28
Theoretical Context ......................................................................... 13 I
Operationalizing Bourdieu‘s Concept of Field .......................................... 140
Data and Method .............................................................................. 146
Findings ....................................................................................... 148
Discussion ..................................................................................... I66
Conclusions ................................................................................... I73

viii

CHAPTER 5
THE STRUCTURE OF POWE IN THE FIELD OF EDUCATIONAL POLICY IN NEW
JERSEY: OPERATIONALIZING BOURDIEU S CONCEPT OF THE FIELD

Main Findings .................................................................................. I77
Theoretical Contribution ...................................................................... 179
Limitations ...................................................................................... l 85
Future Research ................................................................................. 192
APPENDIX ........................................................................................ 195
REFERENCES .................................................................................... 197

LIST OF TABLES

Table 4.1 Educational agents’ appearance and prominence in the news ................. 151
Table 4.2 Agents’ appearance on page ...................................................... 153
Table 4.3 Types of educational policy appearance in the news ........................... 161
Table 4.4 Educational policy appearance on page 1 ....................................... 163
Table 4.5 Status summary of educational policy in New Jersey, 1985 ................... 166
Table 5.1 A theoretical comparison between Bourdieu and Kingdon .................... 184
Table Appendix A Variables coding guide ..................................................... 196

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3.1 Caricature of the NJ EA, Newark Star-Ledger. (June 15, I983) ............. 10]

xi

Chapter 1

Overview
This dissertation evolved from a series ofquestions concerning the teaching profession
that have intrigued me for the past few years. I started by asking general questions: Why
does the teaching profession seem to have a relatively low status? How did this status
develop over time? How did the unique historical context of American education -- with
its strong emphasis on local arrangements -- shape the development of the teaching
profession? Then I noticed that, during the 19803. something had changed in the
discourse about teaching. Debates concerning teacher quality mushroomed. Commissions
-- then and now -- issued numerous reports. Talking about education reform became a
hen ton.

In particular, I was intrigued to the heated discussions among teacher educators.
economists, policy-makers. teacher unions, and others on the merits of traditional and
alternative teacher preparation and certiﬁcation programs. In this debate, various
stakeholders embraced contrasting notions and understandings concerning the concepts
that stand in the core of teacher education and teaching as a profession. Some. like the
Holmes Group (1986), advocated for teaching as an advanced profession backed by
scientiﬁc research. Others, like harsh critics of teacher education, argued that the
profession would become stronger only if it opened the gates to talented individuals who
were not trained in teacher preparation programs (e.g.. C ooperman & Klagholz. I985;
Hess, 2001; Will, 2006). Curriculum, teaching knowledge, and the value of pedagogy for
the preparation of teachers also became a subject of ﬁerce debates. While these debates

have been around for many decades. they have certainly intensiﬁed since the 19805.

Scientiﬁc evidence and objective results have not been the currency of these debates.
Rather, participants exploited arguments over teacher certiﬁcation to further their own
agenda, or to distort that of an opponent. Sentiments, ideology, interests, self-
righteousness, and an honest belief in one’s own vision have played a central role in
shaping the character of this debate for years.

Two decades after these discussions began to be inﬂamed, I experienced the
tension ﬁrsthand when attending to a presentation by Linda Darling-Hammond at AERA
in April of 2004. There she stood in front of a packed conference room ﬁlled with many
excited educators. One of the prominent leaders -- perhaps the most prominent -- ofthe
ﬁeld, she was energetic, candid, and sharp in articulating her opinions. Her argument was
about the superiority of traditional teacher preparation programs compared to alternative
routes to teaching, based on her own objective analysis of scientiﬁc data. One could
easily see that she was speaking about things that she greatly valued and believed in. The
crowd was supportive, applauding her frequently.

Yet there was another, concealed layer to her argument. In the same presentation,
besides conveying her emergent ﬁndings, Darling-Hammond was communicating to her
audience a sense of pride in what they were doing. a validation of the work of teacher
education. In so doing, she was also telling those teacher educators that some outsiders --
who don’t understand their work -- were trying to discredit the profession. unjustiﬁably.
Since teacher educators, like most other people. want and need to believe that their work
makes a difference, Darling Hammond’s ﬁndings were accepted as scientiﬁc support for
what everybody already seemed to have known. I began to notice that what on the

surface intended to be a professional scientiﬁc presentation also had a political aim of

informing and mobilizing educators to stand ﬁrm against criticism and attacks launched
at them.

Others who view the education establishmentl from outside (e.g.. policy-makers.
university professors from other disciplines) sometimes hold very different ideas and.
thus. are naturally more suspicious regarding to the professional claims made by
educators. Like educators, they have their scientiﬁc sources of data that usually suggest
that teacher education programs have no positive effect on teachers’ quality and students‘
achievements (e.g., Ballou & Podursky, 2000; Goldhaber & Brewer, 2001 ). Indeed.
offering evidence to support or refute the effectiveness of teacher education and its
alternatives, teachers more generally. and advanced certiﬁcation programs like the
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards has become a cottage industry of late
(e.g., Abell Foundation, 2001; Wilson, Floden &, Ferrini-Mundy, 2001 ).

In addition, the ideological divide between educators and their critics appears to
be widening (or, at the very least, becoming much more public). Critics and educators
differ on the practices that constitute good teaching and learning and about the roles and
expectations from teachers. Ravitch (2000), Hirsch (1996) and others vehemently argue
that teacher educators belong to a progressive establishment detached from mainstream
America, one that believes teachers should nurture their students, mediate and foster the
learning process (instead of demanding students to accumulate basic knowledge), help
students to think how to deal with problems (rather than simply solving them), and so on.

Furthermore. critics argue that, because there is no valuable scientiﬁc research that

 

I I use this term from now on as one that describes the loosely coupled groups of teachers. and educators
who work as practitioners, university professors, administrators. and sometimes as state officials in
departments of education. In my writing. I strip the term from the negative aspects that are sometimes
associated with it in the writing of education critics.

supports these progressive notions, they should be abandoned in favor of good traditional
practices that proved to work in the past, like focusing on acquiring canonical knowledge.
The most important factor for teacher quality, they continue, is making sure that teachers
know their subject matter, which stand in contrast to the emphasis of teacher preparation
programs on pedagogy (Finn, 2001; Hirsch, 1996; Null. 2006; Ravitch. 2000).2

With this picture in mind, I decided to go back in history to a beginning. Max
Weber (1 952) argued that there are times of uncertainty in history. when it is still unclear
what shape or course history will take. Weber was referring here to points in history
when several alternatives -- backed by different social groups -- struggled for dominance.
Usually, the various groups tend to provide different interpretations ofthe current reality
and contrasting visions for the future. When the battle is ﬁnally decided, and one group
or coalition of several groups starts to construct and inscribe their notions and visions into
the social reality, the process of institutionalization begins. The process of
institutionalization is matured, when most individuals view the course of history as
natural and deterministic, as though things could never have happened otherwise.

Alternative routes into teaching that were under ﬁerce debate in the 19805 now
exist in 48 states and the District of Columbia, and are the status quo (Frcistritzer. 2006).
One way to better understand this current social reality is by tackling the authoritarian
nature of the collective amnesia that accompanies every process of institutionalization.
Historical research in this sociological tradition is liberating, because it goes against the
social forces that have “ﬂattened the ground,” working as they do to institutionalize only

one interpretation of reality. Thus, for a social scientist who would like to better

 

2 This description is only fraction ofthe complex arguments that go back and forth between the education
establishment and its various critics. For a detailed analysis of this set ofarguments raised by the critics.
see Wilson & Tamir (in preparation).

understand the political debates surrounding teacher quality policies, like alternate routes.
one promising way involves studying how it all began and where the battles were ﬁrst
fought.

For these reasons, studying the politics surrounding the ﬁrst state-sponsored
alternative route to teacher certiﬁcation of New Jersey seemed to be almost a natural
choice. The New Jersey case was the ﬁrst of its kind (a beginning in this sense), and it
received major state and national attention, which, in turn, drew the different social
agents -- state ofﬁcials, teacher educators, teacher unions, and others -- who had stakes in
the policy to invest their very best efforts in gaining more control over the policy-making
process.

In this introduction, I lay out my vision of the dissertation. its content. and the
main theoretical arguments that undergird the analyses to come. In addition, I describe
the initial proposal for the alternate route to teacher certiﬁcation in New Jersey, the
policy that captured my attention in the ﬁrst place and drew me deep into New Jersey’s
politics of education, and a policy that I continually refer to in the chapters that follow.

In Chapter 2, I use the case of alternate route for teachers in New Jersey to
challenge the pluralist tradition in scholarly analyses of policy and policy-making (e.g..
Dahl, I961; Lindblom, 1977) and focus on the potential that Bourdieu’s political
sociology has to shed light on the politics of educational policy in New Jersey. In C haptcr
3. I employ Bourdieu’s concept of capital to understand how social agents. especially
state ofﬁcials and teacher educators. used four different forms of capital to capture

positions of prominence in the ﬁeld of educational policy in New Jersey.

In Chapter 4, I use Bourdieu’s concept of social ﬁeld to analyze the ﬁeld of
educational policy in New Jersey as it was reflected in archival documents and in New
Jersey’s leading newspaper — the Newark Star-Ledger -- during 1985. In this paper. I
portray the complex hierarchical structure of agents in the ﬁeld of educational policy. I
argue that, although state officials were relatively successful in enhancing their power in
issues relating to teacher certiﬁcation and preparation, they were less successful in other
areas where the powerful teacher union, the New Jersey Education Association (NJ EA)
had more interest in resisting them. Overall, although the three chapters focus on
different theoretical concepts, they all build on the assumption that educational policy --
as we know it today -- has important roots in the New Jersey case of the 19805. Thus. the
three essays should be understood together as pieces that complement each other to
provide a broad outlook on the nature of the social struggle among various groups
interested in educational policy in the US. I turn to this big picture view in C hapter 5.
where I will revisit the main lessons that can be learned from this work about theory of
educational policy-making in general and teacher certiﬁcation politics in particular.

Since, in many ways, this work aims at developing a theoretical alternative to the
pluralist mainstream approach to policy-making, it would be helpful to lay out the
principles of this approach here in more detail, before I continue to discuss the theoretical
alternative of Bourdieu.

The Pluralist Theoretical Approach to Policymaking

Over‘the years, policy models in the policy literature (e.g., the garbage can model.

the incremental model, the agenda setting model, etc.) have developed mainly within the

pluralist paradigm, meaning they have maintained a close theoretical (which seems

almost ideological) link to the pluralist assumptions as developed by Dahl (1961),
Lindblom (1977), and others. The work of Kingdon (2003) on public policy-making is
central to and representative of this tradition. Kingdom, as did other pluralists.
conceptualized American politics as an arena led by elected politicians. These politicians
represent certain voices and constituencies to which they are accountable. In addition,
American democracy allows individuals other pathways of political action (e. g., interest
groups) to insure their interests get resolved in the political system. Non-elected state
ofﬁcials and other groups or individuals (like business corporations) whose sources of
power are not directly controlled by citizens are usually considered by pluralists to be
subordinated to the state’s democratic power. Overall, Kingdon’s portrayal of the state is
of a decentralized (power is shared by many players) yet powerful entity that is ﬂexible
and accountable (representing and reﬂecting the will of the people).

In light of these assumptions, Kingdon developed a simple model that would
explain how a policy proposal can become part of the political agenda. His model is built
around three independent streams: the stream of problems, the stream of policies. and the
stream of politics (see Chapter 2 for further explanation). Basically, Kingdon’s argument
is that these three streams develop and exist independent from each other. So for
example, in a given moment, there is a constant flow of an enormous number of problems
up for consideration (e.g.. teacher quality, teacher shortage, etc.). All the while, there is a
constant ﬂow of thinking and development of policy proposals that represent the ideas.
interests, and visions of a large variety of players. The third component, the stream of
politics, also develops in a sphere of its own. It consists of important political events. like

a new appointee elected to hold a high ofﬁce (say a president). Economic crises and wars.

are also major events that have direct effects on what ideas and issues are placed on the
agenda.

Each of these streams is governed mainly by chance. Kingdon argues that. for a
policy proposal to become part of the agenda, it should deﬁne and provide a simple
solution that addresses a high proﬁle problem (one that draws a lot of attention, but is
also manageable) in a favorable political context. The most important thing here is the
ability to tie together -- as smoothly as possible -- the three independent streams.
According to Kingdon, when speciﬁc windows of opportunity are opened, only one
person or a few individuals -- the “policy entrepreneurs” who are highly dedicated to
promoting a certain solution to a given problem -- become responsible for bringing the
three streams together and transforming them into a successful policy proposal.

There are several limitations to consider in this model. First, there is the fact that
most pluralist models refuse to reconsider their assumption that real democracies consist
of all (or most) the values and merits that are part of an ideal democracy on paper. For
example, one crucial assumption is that individuals not only understand that by forming
groups and coalitions they are able to mobilize power, but that they are actually doing so
as a natural part of their life. This assumption is problematic, for the model does not
acknowledge the deep divides in American society, where players do not have the
knowledge or lack the information needed to play the game, while others come to possess
excessive volumes of power that allow them to maintain and preserve their interests over
time.

Second, there is a problematic conceptualization of power in the model, which

assumes that democratic societies have a relatively flat power system. Indeed. for

pluralists, power is ﬂuid and is spread around the system, changing forms and patterns
frequently, never consolidating for long periods of time. In light of this notion. pluralists
tend to view the state as an entity which was built and is run by the people for the people
(i.e.. the state is simply considered the servant of its citizens).

Third, Kingdon provides an important role for luck and chance in the
deliberations leading to a policy proposal that eventually becomes part ofthe agenda.
Again this is problematic: Chance could be considered to play a key role in policy-
making and political decisions only ifone dismisses the systematic pressures in place by
preexisting power structures on the policy-making process. These existing power- full
structures (like the one placed by the business community) can be found in almost any
environment at every level. Some professions and interest groups can also be
characterized as power structures since they have a longstanding history of pressuring
and actively shaping policies that if institutionalized would beneﬁt their members.

Before I discuss the arguments and chapters in more detail. a succinct description
of the initial alternate route policy might be helpful.

The Initial Proposal for an Alternate Route

In September 1983. New Jersey’s Commissioner of Education, Saul Cooperman.
and his colleagues, laid out a detailed proposal for the construction of an alternate route
to teacher certiﬁcation, titled, An Alternative Route to Teacher Selection and I’ro/essiomrl
Quality Assurance: An Analysis of Initial Certiﬁcation (C ooperman, Webb, & Klagholz.
I983a). The proposal provided a detailed background of what was described as the
largely deﬁcient body of students who enroll into teacher preparation programs. The

proposal went on to describe the lack ofconsensus among teacher preparation programs

regarding to the professional knowledge required for new teachers, as well as the minimal
standards that students of teaching had to acquire during their preparation. In the absence
of consensus, every program developed its own standards. The same inconsistency
appeared among teacher educators and other professors regarding to the theoretical roots
of teaching, the reported went on to argue. Thus, Cooperman and his colleagues (I983a)
contended: “For certiﬁcation purposes, there is little basis for requiring speciﬁc
theoretical courses. To do so would be merely to set up an artiﬁcial hurdle to professional
access at a time when we can ill afford to turn away talented individuals” (p. 6).

Instead, the authors suggested that teachers should be taught practical knowledge.
preferably on the job, and assessed individually. The certiﬁcation standards in the initial
proposal suggested that teaching candidates should:

I) possess a baccalaureate degree from an accredited college or university;

2) demonstrate that they know the subject matter that they will teach;

3) demonstrate teaching ability by completing a full-time internship under the

supervision of a qualiﬁed expert and in accord with established assessment

criteria. (pp. 8-11)

These requirements were intended to set comprehensive and rigorous standards
for entry into teaching, both for students in teacher preparation programs and for those
majoring in any non-education ﬁeld of study. Thus, for instance, the ﬁrst requirement
was designed to cease the practice of granting emergency certiﬁcates to individuals who
failed to possess a college degree. The second requirement was intended to enhance the
quality of teaching, based on the “logically defensible” assumption that teachers who

know their subject matter will be more effective.

10

The third requirement praised the practice of internship as one that “providels'l the
appropriate vehicle for transmitting the applied knowledge and techniques which are
related to effective teaching and which undergird the profession” (p. 10). Here the writers
do not forget to add that internship experiences should be obtained during college. if one
enrolls into a teaching preparation program, or “after graduation by a local district" (p.
10) if one pursued a degree in non-education ﬁeld. Cooperman and his colleagues
(1983a) further clarify their intentions for the internship near the end of the document:

There is a need to provide an alternate route to certiﬁcation for those who possess

a degree but who have not completed an internship, and thereby open the doors of

the teaching profession to talented persons from all collegiate ﬁelds of study. . . .

It is recommended that school districts be permitted to hire anyone who holds the

bachelor’s degree and who has appropriate state subject matter test. . . . Upon

employment, the individual will be issued a one—year provisional certiﬁcate and

will be placed in a district operated on-the-job internship. (p. 13)

While clearly pointing toward a new direction for teacher preparation and
certiﬁcation, the initial proposal intentionally left the most contentious issue-— what the
intemship’s “practical” knowledge would entail -- for future deliberations of “A panel of
nationally recognized experts and members of the profession... appointed to deﬁne the
criteria for developing and judging teaching ability, as well as the practical knowledge
about teaching which fosters that ability” (Cooperman, Webb, &, Klagholz, 1983b, p. 3).
Only appointed, this panel of experts, which became to be known by the name of its

report -- The Boyer Report -- issued a report that was aligned with the ideas expressed by

11

Cooperman and his colleagues in this initial proposal (e.g., the emphasis on practical
knowledge of classroom management backed by strong subject matter knowledge.)3

This is only a brief summary of Cooperman’s initial proposal for an alternate
route to teacher certiﬁcation. 1 have not included how the actual policy evolved, the
struggles that developed as a response to this proposal, and the further steps taken by the
state to assure its implementation. These are discussed in detail in Chapters 2 and 3.

The Main Argument

Public education is among the most powerful institutions in every modern society.
As such, many look to have some control over it. In Europe, where the idea of nation-
state ﬁrst evolved, public education was seen as a mechanism to enhance social cohesion.
to channel state ideology, and later to train workers for the economic growth of the
nation. In the US, public education started in small communities, which were looking to
train their youngsters to read, write, and acquire other skills to become productive
individuals. States did not have much say in education matters up to the late 19”1 century.
for authority rested in local school boards and communities (Sedlak, in press). Ever since
then, things have moved rather slowly in matters concerning teacher preparation and
certiﬁcation (e.g., Frazier, 1938; Angus, 2001). This work identiﬁes one important
historical juncture in the relationship of states and public education in the US. during the
19805, when many states started regulating and gradually taking over critical
responsibilities once held by educators.

In New Jersey, state regulation since the 19805 has leaned toward a market-based

model. Among the policies that were promoted at that time were merit—based awards for

 

3 See Chapter 3 for further discussion of The Boyer Report.

teachers, teacher Iicensure tests, and alternate route for teacher certiﬁcation. The latter. in
particular, became the subject of a ﬁerce struggle as the state pressed to have more
control in shaping the educational policy agenda.

By 1985, after three years of debate, the state was able to establish the alternate
route program to teaching. The program planners sought to circumvent and break the
long-standing monopoly of the “failing teacher preparation programs” (Cooperman &
Klagholz, 1985), and instead, recruit teacher candidates with strong subject matter
knowledge that would be provided a 200 hour program that covered the core issues of
teaching (e. g., class management and student learning) during the ﬁrst year of teaching.
The state was conﬁdent that this policy would enhance teacher quality. or at least supply
“warm bodies” to cope with the surging demand for new teachers in the urban districts.

The ﬁrst argument (which is descriptive in nature) that I am trying to develop.
using Bourdieu’s terminology, is that educational policy in New Jersey should be
understood as a contentious political and ideological struggle among social agents
(groups, individuals, and institutions) who possess different sources and volumes of
capital, have different stakes in the ﬁeld, and occupy different positions in the social
space. In general, we could argue that the ﬁeld of educational policy is divided in two.
On the one hand, there is the traditional orthodoxy, which has controlled the ﬁeld for
decades and consists of teacher educators, teacher unions, and many other organizations
that are aligned along a loose set of ideas and the institutional rewards attached to them.
On the other hand, there is the heterodoxy -- social agents deeply concerned with the
current situation and seeking fundamental changes that will bring the ﬁeld back to its

"glamorous past” (Bourdieu, 2005). These social agents were primarily state ofﬁcials in

13

the Department of Education and the governor, backed by the higher education
establishment (the New Jersey Department of Higher Education and university
presidents), and politicians (many business and corporation leaders later joined this trend.
substantially strengthening it).

Then, based on a detailed analysis of state archive documents and review of the
news coverage concerning educational policy, I argue that during the 19805, the field of
educational policy in New Jersey experienced substantial shifts of power, with the
heterodoxy (the state) gaining more power to shape educational policy, especially in
issues concerning teacher quality, while the orthodoxy, (in particular teacher educators).
lost signiﬁcant positions of power and control that it had possessed in the past.

In this dissertation, I also aim to model and use a new approach to educational
policy analysis. Currently, policy and political scientists who base their work on pluralist
assumptions carry out most research in areas related to public policy. In this dissertation.
I have adopted the work of the prominent French sociologist, Pierre Bourdieu, to provide
a viable alternative that challenges the pluralist assumptions and addresses the limitations
of Kingdon’s agenda setting model (2003). That is, instead of the classic pluralist
argument, which would view power as one that is shared by most individuals over time,
(because it is being established randomly by ad hoc coalitions of interest groups, across
the political spectrum), Bourdieu would view power as a scarce resource that is allocated
unequally among social agents (individuals, groups, and institutions). What often
happens in social ﬁelds according to Bourdieu’s scenario (including in those ﬁelds that
are presumably democratic) is a steady state of constant competition for power among

agents (the state included). These social agents who are able to acquire power then

14

usually use their power in a way that blocks others from having it and, at the same time.
develop legitimate social mechanisms that help them reproduce their control and power
overtime. Educational policy, according to this approach, is a tool used by social agents
in their struggle to enhance their power in the ﬁeld of educational policy.

My research seems to of fer partial support to the conﬂictual assertion made by
Bourdieu. Indeed social agents ﬁercely struggle for power. but the outcomes oftheir
struggles may differ to some extent. In some social ﬁelds. like the ﬁeld of teacher
certiﬁcation and preparation (see Chapters 2 and 3), the outcome of the struggle over
educational policies like the alternate route to teaching was a substantial transformation
of power from the hands of teacher educators to state ofﬁcials. All the while, in the ﬁeld
of educational policy (see Chapter 4), where agents fought over various kinds of
educational policies, state ofﬁcials did not appear to acquire the same prominence and
power they had in the areas of certiﬁcation and preparation, and thus were forced to share
power with other prominent agents like teacher unions and house legislatures. This
ﬁnding may suggest that allocation of power and hierarchical structures vary across
social ﬁelds, with some social ﬁelds enjoying a more democratic allocation of power than
others. In addition, one should keep in mind that the balance of power in a given ﬁeld is
forever subject to change. For example, in this work I show how the state occupied more
power during the 19805. This, however, does not mean that the state is going necessarily
to hold the same position in the future.

I advance here the argument that a Bourdieuan approach is very helpful in
illuminating the social complexity of the politics surrounding educational policy-making.

Although, as Swartz (2005) noted recently, it is not entirely clear why Bourdieu‘s

15

scholarship has such a small impact in the US, he argues (and I agree), that putting it to
use here can help unravel and challenge many misconceptions that have been
institutionalized over time in the way Americans understand their political system.
Chapter Summaries
I describe each of the following chapters in turn.
Chapter 2

In this chapter, I lay out the historical background for understanding the growing
role ofthe state in controlling the K-12 public education system. Within this context. I set
up the background to discuss the ﬁerce struggles of various social agents over the
alternate route to teacher certiﬁcation in New Jersey. The case of New Jersey is then
considered through two distinct theoretical traditions. which argue for two separate
explanations on the nature of political struggles. the motives of agents involved in it. the
nature of decision making processes, the goals agents seek to achieve. and the overall
features of the system in which they operate. For years, the underlying assumptions ofthe
pluralist theory. as can be seen in regime theories (Gittell & Mckenna, 1999), in
Kingdon’s agenda-setting model (Kingdon, 2003; McDennott, 2005), and even through
historical modeling (Rotherham & Mead, 2004), have shaped the way researchers studied
and interpreted struggles over US. educational policy. This theoretical outlook. which
understands educational policy-making as a democratic process of establishing ad-hoc
coalitions among interest groups and political actors. disregards the powerful role that
states have had over public education, since the 19805 (not simply as the representatives

of their people, but as an independent player). and the hierarchical pattern of social

16

interaction that characterizes the ways in which different agents communicate about
political issues concerning education.

Thus, I argue, we ought to consider an alternative frame, speciﬁcally Bourdieu’s
(1985; 1991) ideas about “social ﬁelds.” This concept can contribute to an improved
understanding of the recent history of the politics of education, including the case of New
Jersey, where the ﬁeld of educational policy was partly subordinated to the power of the
state during the 19805.

Chapter 3

While the previous chapter considered two alternative theories for
conceptualizing the struggle over the New Jersey alternate route policy, this chapter
focuses only on the work of Bourdieu and takes the analysis one step further. Here
instead of the general consideration given to the theory of social ﬁelds in the previous
chapter, I focus on one core concept in Bourdieu’s theory — “Capital.” Capital is a
speciﬁc capacity or resource that provides an individual or group the legitimate right to
hold and use power in a ﬁeld. There are four basic forms of capital that Bourdieu
identiﬁed over the years: Economic, social, cultural, and bureaucratic. My aim in this
chapter is to describe each and discuss how it was used by state ofﬁcials and teacher
educators to strengthen and solidify their positions in the struggle over the teacher
alternate route policy and teacher preparation reform in New Jersey. This analysis is
helpﬁrl because it provides an organized account of what happened during the struggle
and as a result of it, and why social agents used certain strategies while avoiding others.

Based on this analysis, I argue that the two major social agents who participated

in the struggle relied on different sources of capital. The state employed a variety of

17

capitals, but focused primarily on bureaucratic and cultural capital. Teacher educators
(who lacked social, economic, and bureaucratic capital) needed to rely on their cultural
capital alone. I conclude that the state’s alternative vision for teacher certiﬁcation and
preparation (one that supported the formation of a new generation of teachers with broad
liberal art training, deep subject matter knowledge, and lean pedagogic training) was
related to the cultural capital held by the state’s leaders of that time. Governor Kean.
Commissioner of Education Cooperman, and the Director of Teacher Certiﬁcation
Klagholz, had all acquired private elite or religious education. They were all part of the
ﬁeld of education as professional adults. yet unattached to the centers of power of the
public education system. In addition, I show how these (elected and appointed) high
ranked state ofﬁcials were able to develop effectively the states’ potential for
bureaucratic capital. This bureaucratic capital was then used by the state to create and
pour new forms of capital into the ﬁeld (in particular, economic and symbolic capital).
which eventually helped the state to capture a more prominent role in teacher preparation
and certiﬁcation.
Chapter 4

Considering and analyzing a speciﬁc struggle between social agents, like the one
focused on teacher certiﬁcation and preparation, is illuminating but may also be tricky as
it provides only a partial picture, one that might create a bias in the way researchers
understand the period in question as a whole. In this chapter, I hope to address this
problem and provide a description of the entire ﬁeld of educational policy in New Jersey
during one year: 1985. Based on Bourdieu’s theory, I argue that the ﬁeld of educational

policy in New Jersey had its own hierarchical structure, with social agents who occupied

18

positions that differed in roles, prestige, and potential impact on educational policy.
Several questions are considered. First, I use the media coverage of the Newark Star-
Ledger to identify and describe the hierarchical structure of the ﬁeld. Who were the
agents that were portrayed in the news as the most or least prominent? Which policies
received the most attention in the news? In order to verify the reliability of the media
coverage for evaluating the relative prominence of different social agents in the ﬁeld, I
also offer a mapping of every policy proposal covered in the news or discussed in
archival material, the relevant social agents who supported or opposed it. and whether it
was successfully implemented or removed from the policy agenda.

The mass media is an important stage where on which struggles over educational
policy are played out. For most people who have no direct channels to political elites or
alternative sources of information, newspapers serve an important role of conveying
processed information, one that was edited and constructed to ﬁt the numerous
constraints under which the media is operating. Nevertheless, media coverage is an
invaluable source of historical data which may reﬂect signiﬁcant portions of the power
relations in a ﬁeld.

Finally, many have argued in the past that during the 19805 the politics of
educational policy in many states were taken over by state ofﬁcials. In this study,
however, I offer a new theoretical approach to conceptualize and empirically record and
evaluate these political developments, in a way that portrays a more complex picture of
the events. According to my analysis, state agents indeed became major agents who
initiated most educational policy in the ﬁeld, and appeared as the most prominent agents

in the news. But they were operating, especially in some occasions, under serious

19

constraints of teacher unions and legislatures, agents who continued to hold powerful
positions in the ﬁeld.
Chapter 5

The struggle of social agents over educational policy and the values and visions
related to it stand in the core of this work. I use New Jersey as a microcosm to understand
how educational policy became a battleﬁeld for state bureaucrats. teachers. and teacher
educators.

I start by revisiting the main ﬁndings ofthis work. Second, I consider the
contributions of this work to educational policy researchers. the teacher education
community, and sociologists who are interested in Bourdieu’s political sociology. Third, I
discuss the future trajectories of this work for New Jersey is but one case. Finally. I
reﬂect on the main limitations ofthis work relating to data collection. design. and

analysis.

20

Chapter 2

THEORIZING THE POLITICS OF EDUCATIONAL REFORM:
THE CASE OF NEW JERSY’S ALTERNATE ROUTE TO TEACHER
CERTIFICATION

The oldest and most established states offer the most prolific alternate routes in terms of
production of new teachers — per year, as well as total. They are: California. New Jersey.
and Texas. New Jersey reports that about 40 percent of its new hires come through
alternate routes. For Texas and California, about one-third of their states ' new hires
come through alternate routes (F eistritzer, 2006)

Americans have always been engaged in attempts to reform public education (Ravitch.
2000). In the most recent round of discussions, teacher quality has been a central theme,
and has been nominated as the single most important factor in narrowing the student
achievement gap (Darling-Hammond, 1999). This increased sensitivity to teacher quality
today echoes very similar debates which emerged in the 19805, compounded with -- what
was then new — the demand for greater accountability in public education.

One important response to these concerns, which has become gradually more
popular among federal and state actors, was the introduction of market-based educational
policies. An example ofthis response (that will be the topic of our inquiry) can be found
in teacher preparation and certiﬁcation programs that were controlled for years by
colleges and schools of education, but since the 19805 were heavily challenged by
dissatisﬁed public committees and state ofﬁcials who proposed policies like “alternate
routes” to ﬁx the system’s ﬂaws. Since their inception in the early 19805, alternate route
programs and policies, which vary considerably in aim, form, content, and thus in quality

(F Ioden & Stoddart. 1995), have been gradually adopted in most states. According to the

21

latest data, 48 out of 51 states (including the District of Columbia) operate at least one
type of alternate route program (Feistritzer, 2006).

This study focuses on the ﬁrst “successful“ high proﬁle attempt to propose an
alternate route on a large scale, which took place in New Jersey. The alternate route story
in New Jersey is one full of hurdles and struggles. The analysis that follows show how
elected state ofﬁcials and senior appointed bureaucrats were promoting and pushing for
full and quick implementation of the policy, while groups within the educational
establishment4 like teacher unions and teacher educators were arguing for a more
cautious approach that might be interpreted as an argument for minor changes. However,
instead of describing the struggle over the policy as others have already done (Carlson.
1985; I990; Klagholz, 2000) or evaluating the policy outcomes (e.g., Klagholz, 2000;
Natriello & Zumwalt, 1993), I will analyze the struggle that took place and illuminate the
ways in which different theories can inform our understanding of the politics and power
struggle that underlie these kinds of educational policy-making processes. Furthermore. I
will argue that the underlying assumptions of the pluralist theory, as can be seen in
Kingdon’s (2003) agenda setting model (e.g., McDermott, 2005), and even through
historical modeling (Rotherham & Mead, 2004), have shaped the way researchers have
studied and interpreted struggles over US. educational policy. This theoretical outlook.

which understands educational policy-making as a democratic process of establishing ad-

 

’ This term will serve as a general category that includes teachers. teachers unions, and professors of
teacher education (i.e.. those individuals and groups involved in the professional structure of the teaching
profession). This deﬁnition excludes those who are involved in administrating and managing the profession
(i.e. educational administrators, politicians. and state department of education bureaucrats whose practice
and professional identities are different). While in the past. Bestor (1953) used this term in a more inclusive
way, (referring to all whose occupation deals with K-12 education) I will use the concept to describe a
smaller group. The reasons for this will become apparent. In the past few years the term has been
increasingly charged with negative meanings by several critics of educational institutions and practices.
The usage of the term in this work, however, does not refer to any of these negative meanings; it is simply
used as shorthand for a subset of interested parties.

22

hoe coalitions among interest groups and political actors, disregards patterns of struggle
that have led many states to obtain powerful positions over their teacher certiﬁcation and
preparation systems, since the 19805, and the institutionalized hierarchical pattern of
social interaction that characterizes the way in which different actors communicate about
political issues concerning education. Thus, though Kingdon’s model has provided a
strong, empirically veriﬁed, conceptual framework, it may be important for the ﬁeld of
educational policy to consider a new theoretical model that provides at least the same
coherence and logic of analysis. but brings to the fore alternative explanations.

Alternate routes are formed to address two major problems: teacher quality and/or
acute shortage of teachers (Zumwalt, 1991). Economists might argue that, in the case of
acute shortage, state agencies simply respond to the pressures of demand and create new
passages for teachers to enter the system. I believe that even when this is the case there
are several pathways for the policy to follow which are decided through a political
struggle. In the case of New Jersey, the shortage of teachers in urban areas was only part
of a larger story of state ofﬁcials who had an elaborate agenda for improving teacher
quality in the state (Klagholz, 2000; Zumwalt, 1991). This is also one reason why the
New Jersey’s alternate route was established as a comprehensive state policy in contrast
to the Los Angeles case where the acute problem of teachers’ shortage was addressed in
the limited setting ofa single school district. Thus. overall, I believe that the reasons for
establishing the alternate route policy of New Jersey would be illuminated best through a
political, rather than economic perspective.

I begin by brieﬂy describing the data and methods used in this study. Then I

introduce two theories: Kingdon’s (2003) agenda setting model and Bourdieu’s (I984:

23

I985; I992; I993) theory of ﬁelds, followed by a two-part discussion that considers the
explanations of the two theories and their applicability to the case of New Jersey. I
conclude by pointing out three merits of this work. First, juxtaposing and considering
several theories in one study provides a more fruitful and challenging way to understand
the social character of a policy-making process. Second, using Bourdieu’s theory
provides an explanation that shifts the discussion from a pluralist focus on policy players
to an analysis that sets policy players within the larger hierarchical socio-political
context. Third, in the case of New Jersey, Bourdieu’s ( l 985; I991) theory helps
illuminate the process in which teacher preparation and certiﬁcation have been
subordinated to the power of the state during the 19805.
Methods and Data

The research that informs this analysis entailed a single case study of policy-
making in New Jersey; two methods of data collection were central. First, semi-structured
interviews were conducted with key players who were actively involved in the debate
over the implementation of the alternate route policy. The individuals belonged to three
groups: state ofﬁcials, teacher union leaders, and education professors. Interviewees were
asked to talk about their perceptions of the alternate route policy, both broadly (i.e., in
terms of ideological stances) and speciﬁcally (what they believe has worked and has not
worked, and why).

Second, a signiﬁcant number of primary sources were collected from the New
Jersey State archives and analyzed. In searching for relevant data, I used a written index
the archive holds for each ﬁle’s content. The data were drawn primarily from the records

of high-level ofﬁcials, including the governor, the education commissioner. the state

24

policy director, and the govemor’s education assistants. The documents include internal
correspondences, minutes from meetings, speeches, and analyses of policy proposals.
Overall, 50 boxes of paperwork were reviewed, each containing on average 6-20 ﬁles
holding around 1500 pages, totaling 75,000 pages. In addition, I collected newspaper
items discussing the policy and the debate around it, mainly published in the Newark
Star-Ledger, the largest and most prominent newspaper of New Jersey.
Conceptualizing the Struggle over Educational Policy-Making

This work seeks to illuminate questions of power, authority, and ideology as
reﬂected in struggles over educational policy. Educational policy tends to be highly
contested, since it provides the direction for one of our major social institutions -- schools
-- that are seen as holding the key to an individual’s future economic and social success.
Given this signiﬁcance of education, it is important to understand who govems, directs.
and controls processes of educational policy. How? Under what terms? In this study. I
address these questions in the speciﬁc context of teacher certiﬁcation reform in New
Jersey. I begin by describing the theoretical underpinnings of my work. There are
several theoretical approaches that have been developed in public policy. sociology. and
political science to address these questions and can be applied to educational policy. In
general, they fall within two major traditions. The ﬁrst conceptualizes the policy-making
process as an integral part of a democratic structure where political power is divided
among many participants and, most importantly, is temporary in nature. In this structure.
elected representatives hold most of the power, but they are fully accountable to the
public and replaceable. These pluralist theories (e.g., Dahl, I961; Lindblom. 1977) have

been -- by far -- the most popular approach to studying political processes at the local and

25

national level among political scientists and continue to be so (Manely, 1983). In this
paper, I use Kingdon (2003) as a representative of this line of thinking.

The second tradition is conﬂictual in nature. Scholars working in this tradition are
interested in understanding political outcomes as the product of a constant struggle
among groups and individuals over the means of production (Marx, 1967). or over larger
sets of resources including economic means, social status. political clout (Weber. 1952).
and symbolic capital (Bourdieu, 1994). Educational policies. according to this approach
are political mechanisms that manifest the constant attempts of social agents (groups and
individuals) to reconstruct the social reality of the educational ﬁeld, that is. to alter the
way in which the various resources of the ﬁeld are being valued, allocated, and
consumed.5 These struggles tend to produce winners and losers. Winners work to fortify
their position by institutionalizing the social consequences of their victory. If they are
successful, their hold of power will gradually be perceived less as a privilege that can be
contested and more as something well deserved, legitimate, almost second nature. and
thus can be easily perpetuated over time. Here I use Bourdieu‘s ( 1984; 1985: 1992; 1993)
theory of ﬁelds as representative of this theoretical frame.

The attempt to apply Bourdieu's political sociology concepts to education policy-
making might remind some of the four I’s work of Carol Weiss (1995). Weiss argued
that perceptions of school teachers and administrators who are responsible for
educational policy-making can be explained by four I’s: Interests. ideology, information,
and institution. Her main argument is that even when teachers are given the power to

participate in school policy-making (shared decisionmaking — SDM) they are more likely

 

5 Resources can be any sort of good that is in demand by the agents and can shape or contribute to the
allocation of power, for example, monetary goods, prestige. important institutional positions, educational
attainments, political power, etc.

26

than principals to the value status quo and less likely to engage in comprehensive and
substantial attempts of school reform. The key to understanding these behaviors is
grounded in the unique interaction ofthe actors’ “I’sz”

[Teachers] were constrained by the ground rules that had solidiﬁed in the school

over the years. Teachers worked out their beliefs and activated their knowledge in

terms of the concrete social relations of the organization in which they worked.

(Weiss, 1995, p. 586)

School as an institution was less relevant for principals who had their interests.
ideology, and information shaped primarily out of school and in relation to the
superintendent and/or school board, as well as other professional afﬁliations. These
ﬁndings echo to some extent Bourdicu’s emphasis on the social structure, and the ways in
which it frames and shapes individuals’ ideologies, interests, and knowledge. There are.
however, also signiﬁcant differences between the two. First. the units of analysis differ.
While Weiss analyzed individual schools as the institutional venue for the struggle over
policy-making, Bourdieu put his emphasis on a larger unit he called a ﬁeld (which in the
case of education would refer to all the individuals, groups, and institutions that have a
stake in education). This is also the primary reason why Bourdieu’s framework is more
applicable for the study of state-level debates over educational policy-making. Second. it
is important to note that Weiss’s conceptual framework is functionalist in nature, and in
this respect, closer to Kingdon’s model. She explored how schools worked after the roles
of actors have been already set by outsiders (policy-makers). Actors -- teachers and
administrators -- were then expected only to follow. slightly adjust, and internalize their

roles. Thus. it was only policy-makers who could restructure or "correct” the system’s

27

ﬂaws, as Weiss proposed to do. Bourdieu worked with a very different premise in mind.
one which put everybody in the game (ﬁeld), including policy-makers. The latter’s power
is not taken for granted, or seen as natural; it is rather the outcome of a constant struggle
and imposition of symbolic power by state bureaucrats that is aimed at providing the
legitimacy to obtain and maintain state control over the ﬁeld.
Agendas, A lternatives, and Policy-Making

In many ways, Kingdon’s (2003) work suggests a revised reading of American
politics, which broadens the boundaries of policy analysis and adopts the irrationality (of
policy-making) assumption from the garbage-can decision making theory. At the same
time, however, his theory does not break through the basic pluralist assumptions.
Kingdon’s popular approach focuses on the roles different players hold at the ﬁrst stages
of policy-making (processes of agenda setting and forming policy alternatives). One of
his major theoretical assumptions is that politics is a venue of “organized anarchy” (p.
86) where policy-makers are not involved in an organized process of considering the pros
and cons of all possible offers as the classic decision making model suggests. Instead,
Kingdon argues that a policy proposal makes its way to the table when three distinct
process streams -- problems, solutions, and politics -- converge through the efforts of a
policy entrepreneur.

Let us consider the pieces of this theoretical puzzle. Each ﬁeld has its problems.
The question is: Which problems draw the attention of ofﬁcials and why? A problem can
be seen as too complex or irrelevant and thus would not be dealt through educational
policy. A good example for a problem which seems too complex to cope with is

economic inequality. Problems that do get onto the agenda are articulated in clear and

28

simple wording, like teacher quality, or the "achievement gap.” The stream of policy
solutions works to a large degree in separation from the stream of problems. It is
constantly occupied by challenging ideas that stem from research or interest groups. Thus
some groups may promote very distinct solutions like professional autonomy of teachers.
or charter schools, that later can be attached to various kinds of problems. What usually
happens is that certain sets of solutions are attached to a problem. For instance, when
policy-makers raise the problem of teacher quality, they may couple it with solutions like
increasing teacher autonomy and raising minimum salaries. or standardizing teachers’
practice and introducing differential compensation for teachers. The third stream of
politics consists of presidential and congressional election results -- “vagaries ofpublic
opinion” -- and ideological trends. This component acts separately from the previous two
and it adds the political context into the formula. A good example of a vagary during the
19805 was President Reagan’s victory on national election. Reagan had been an
outspoken critic of the educational establishment and proposed eliminating the newly
established Department of Education.

Kingdon argues that these streams come along when a window of opportunity is
opened for a short period of time creating favorable conditions for a speciﬁc problem to
emerge and meet a solution under a supportive political and ideological environment
which ”allows” representatives to pursue certain kind of initiatives.

Through a comprehensive empirical study of American federal politics. Kingdon
reafﬁrmed Dahl’s (1961) claim that the most important center of power is the one held by
elected representatives, which at the national level would be the president and the

members of senate and Congress. However, Kingdon also offered a detailed analysis of

29

other political actors, noting that they too might have different degrees of power at
different times in the policy process. For instance, the President and his appointed
ofﬁcials enjoy a dominant role in setting the overall agenda, while Congress has more
control in setting the policy alternatives. On the other hand, non elected bureaucrats enjoy
very limited power in setting the agenda and forming the alternatives, but are essential to
the process of policy implementation. F inally, interest groups are important, especially
when the issues are remote from the public eye: “Generally, then, the lower the
partisanship, ideological cast, and campaign visibility of the issues in a policy domain.
the greater the importance of interest groups” (Kingdon, 2003, p. 47).
Bourdieu '5 Theory of Fields

Bourdieu’s (1985; 1992; 1993) theory of ﬁelds attempts to understand concepts of
power using a broad outlook. one that acknowledges the complexity of the social space
and provides a practical framework for analyzing relationships between various players
in it. Let us begin with the notion of ﬁeld:

A network, or conﬁguration, of objective relations between positions. These

positions are objectively deﬁned, in their existence and in the determinations they

impose upon their occupants, agents or institutions. by their present and potential

situation (situs) in the structure of the distribution of species of power (or capital)

whose possession commands access to the speciﬁc proﬁts that are at stake in the

ﬁeld, as well as by their objective relations to other positions (domination,

subordination, homology, etc.). (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992. p. 97)

In other words, a ﬁeld is a space where individuals and groups (social agents)

interact, work. produce. and struggle over power. based on a shared set of

30

J ‘
IIIIMI

for L7:

MC .11

SUE-E

[mm

lib

ll¢Ir

understandings, beliefs, values, and norms, that constitute the logic and rules of the game
for that ﬁeld (Bourdieu, 1985). A major assumption Bourdieu makes is that individuals
are always motivated to maximize their gains based on and constrained by their unique
set of dispositions, beliefs, and understanding of the ﬁelds within which they live and
work. This does not mean that social agents seek monetary gains alone. While this might
be true to a larger degree in the economic ﬁeld, other fields might vary (in fact. the field
of French poetry is deﬁned by its disinterestedness and clear aversion to monetary
attainments and popular appraisal). These different rationales constitute a unique logic of
action for social agents in every ﬁeld. The ability of social agents to preserve, more or
less, the spirit of these unique characteristics of their ﬁeld over time, while resisting
attempts of other ﬁelds to change them is what many understand as a ﬁeld’s relative
autonomy, which Bourdieu & Passeron (I977) explain as the “autonomy [of ﬁelds] from
political and economic power, [and capability to] gain in symbolic power, that is. in their
capacity to legitimate existing social arrangements” (as cited in Swartz, 1997, p. 126).
Another component that deﬁnes the actions of social agents is their habitus. Put in
simple terms, habitus is the set of behaviors, beliefs. and norms that one acquires through
life. These are affected by one’s origin, education, and other features of the environment
in which one grows. The habitus conditions one’s understanding of the ﬁeld, or as
Bourdieu put it, one’s “feel for the game.” Thus, the habitus is not simply equivalent to
what many call “individual agency.” The habitus is constrained and deﬁned by a ﬁeld’s
social structure, not the other way around. Furthermore. an individual action is rarely
rationally planned and exercised -- as many economists believe is the case -- since social

actors are constrained by so many factors. This. of course, does not mean that agents do

31

IlOl Jt‘l

trait

‘. ..
11".)rﬂ
'ur\l\

trust.

I991}

l, ..
JAN),
atlas

I
aﬂdft.

e:act
”“fclc
11:15.11] 1
and fit“.

1:1,,“9‘
\M rr‘. I
c .

not act rationally; they often do. But their rationality is bound and defined by their
habitus and the ﬁeld(s) in which they operate.

The social ﬁeld is primarily stratiﬁed by the degrees ofcultural and economic
capital that social agents enjoy, and -- at the same time -- by the relative capital each field
exerts vis-a-vis the other ﬁelds (Bourdieu, 1985). For Bourdieu; “the greater the
difference in assets structure of these two types of capital, the more likely it is that
individuals and groups will be opposed in their power struggle for domination” (Swartz.
1997, p. 140). In other words, a ﬁeld’s relative autonomy is critically related to its
members’ possession of economic and cultural capital. For instance, in his book
Distinctions, Bourdieu (1984) analyzes various ﬁelds by their relative hold of economic
and cultural capital. Some ﬁelds, like art or higher education enjoy high cultural capital
and relatively low economic capital; some enjoy both, like medicine and law; and others.
like agriculture and ﬁshery, are low on both. The hierarchical differences among the
ﬁelds and their pursuit of relative autonomy and greater impact on society constantly
create tensions as powerful ﬁelds attempt to subordinate or limit the autonomy of other
“weaker” ﬁelds (Bourdieu, 1984). These tensions between ﬁelds are often played out
within the ﬁelds as well. Here Bourdieu’s (1988; 2005) use of the concepts of orthodoxy
and heterodoxy is very helpful. The “orthodoxy” of a ﬁeld usually consists of the social
agents who occupy the positions of power. These agents often have much in common.
They tend to share similar concepts, notions, and general perspectives about the nature of
the ﬁeld and its future anticipated developments. They would also have the tendency to
preserve their positions of power by opposing new ideas. or any other suggestion that

might shake the current status quo. The “heterodoxy” consists of the “opposition,” social

32

agents who are not satisﬁed with the current direction of the field, who think that things
should be done differently and that priorities need to be changed. Both the orthodoxy and
the heterodoxy share, however, a deep conviction in the overall importance of the ﬁeld.
they both have a share in the field, but would like to lead it to different directions.

In sum, the two perspectives presented above assume that every policy-making
process draws the attention of various social agents or stakeholders and creates
disagreements among them concerning questions of resource allocation. The pluralist
tradition portrays policy-making as a process in which distinct, transcendental streams of
problems, solutions, and politics converge in the hands of an entrepreneur at a given time.
opening a window of opportunity for a policy proposal to become part of the policy
agenda. This approach views the political struggles between the various players as one
that is not predetermined and that is consistent with democratic values of power sharing
and coalition building. On the other hand, the conﬂictual tradition, as reﬂected in
Bourdieu’s writing. argues that the modern social space is characterized by relatively
autonomous ﬁelds. Fields are arenas of struggle where social agents compete over the
various resources that a ﬁeld has to offer. Concurrently, what happens within a field is
always associated with the struggles among ﬁelds within the meta-space of the field of
power. Numerous studies by Bourdieu (1994) and others (e.g., Apple, 2003; Krause.
I996) demonstrate a historical tendency in France, the US, and other countries toward
the monopolization of power and control by the economic and bureaucratic power of the

state, and the concomitant subordination of weaker ﬁelds to the state.

33

Two Theories -— Two Stories

So, how might these two theories shed light on the New Jersey alternate route
story? A ﬁrst hypothesis (based on Kingdon) will argue that the idea of creating an
alternate route in New Jersey reﬂects a unique convergence of a problem, policy, and
political setting by a policy entrepreneur in a given historical moment. In applying this
approach, one may argue that the New Jersey alternate route to teacher certiﬁcation was a
policy attached to the problem of lack in academic rigor by teacher preparation programs
and the low performance of prospective teachers. Adding to that was the changing
political context during the early 19805 in the US. with Ronald Reagan as president. and
in New Jersey, with a new Republican Governor -- Thomas Kean -- in ofﬁce. The
convergence of these three streams by determined policy entrepreneurs -- Governor
Kean, and a few high ranked ofﬁcials like Saul Cooperman, New Jersey’s Commissioner
of Education, and Leo Klagholz, the Director of Teacher Certiﬁcation in the New Jersey
Department of Education -- resulted in an alternate route being placed on the policy-
making agenda. Furthermore, this policy survived three years of bitter struggles and

debates and was ﬁnally adopted by New Jersey State Board of Education in 1985.

The second hypothesis. based on Bourdieu’s theory, provides a very different
explanation to consider. The main argument here would contend that the introduction and
successful passage of the alternate route program signiﬁed a considerable loss of
autonomy by the orthodoxy of the ﬁeld of education. This policy did so by officially and
practically denying the orthodoxy from the power to control its gates. and by deciding the
essential pedagogic and academic content of professional teacher education. As a

consequence, teachers and teacher educators, who used to hold important positions of

34

power in the field, were increasingly marginalized by the regulative power of state
ofﬁcials. In other words, the approval of the policy marked a transfer of power from the
hands of the old orthodoxy of teachers and teacher educators (who lost considerable
autonomy) to the hands of state elected and appointed officials seeking to enhance their
stature and extend their ideologies, beliefs, and interests over new fields.

At a ﬁrst glance, the two hypotheses seem to provide very similar explanations.
However, there is a signiﬁcant difference between the two. For Kingdon, the political
reality is a big organized anarchy, where structures of power are ﬂuid and ad hoc
coalitions around issues are successful only when the three independent streams converge
with the help of the entrepreneur at a given moment in time. In other words, the things
that make a difference in what issues get on the agenda are timing. determination. and
talent of the entrepreneur. Bourdieu, on the other hand, does not leave anything to timing
and pure individual agency. The relationships between social agents are framed by their
habitus and position in the ﬁeld. and by the structure and history of the field in which
they operate at large. Thus, when a transfer of power occurs (e.g., approval ofa policy). it
is never by chance, anarchy, or chaos, nor is it due to the pure talent of selected
individuals, as Kingdon has suggested.

The two theories provide viable and different lenses through which we as
researchers can understand political reality. They enable us to construct two stories that
do not necessarily contradict, as they can both illuminate different dimensions of the
phenomena in question. It is true that Kingdon’s model has been widely used in the
literature, overshadowing other models, and thus providing positive signs of paradigmatic

consolidation based on repetitive research design and consistent empirical ﬁndings

35

(Kuhn, 1962). However, in order to claim this prestigious status ofa paradigm, a theory
must provide the best succinct generalized explanation that would withstand shifts of
time and contexts. In this paper, I argue that Kingdon’s model helps draw one story. a
plausible one, but one with some limitations related to its pluralist roots.6 Bourdicu’s
theory of the ﬁeld enables us to develop a different story, shaped by other assumptions
that consequently lead to different understandings of the same reality. I now turn to these
two stories.

Problems, Policy Solutions, and Politics: The Case ofNew Jersey

An alternate route to teacher certiﬁcation had never been proposed as a state
comprehensive policy to deal with problems of teacher quality and shortage before New
Jersey didjust that in 1982. Using Kingdon’s perspective I will explain how this policy
evolved to become part of the political agenda ofNew Jersey, and how alternative
solutions were developed. considered, and chosen. Along the way, I point out the major
players in these ensuing processes and the political context in which those processes took
place.

Kingdon (2003) argues that there is a stream of problems “floating” around
policy-makers. These problems are waiting to be identified and collected into a policy-
making agenda. In areas that are remote from the public eye and considered to be highly
technical, the process of coupling the problems, policies, and politics is relatively

seamless. Policy-making relating to mass public transportation is a good example

 

6 According to the pluralist tradition various groups and players (in democratic societies) are constantly
struggling to get hold of power for short terms oftime. The elusiveness and complexity of power makes it
hard to get and difﬁcult to secure. By emphasizing the anarchic elements ofthe system and the fact that a
lot is actually being decided by chance or key individuals who are associated with a speciﬁc policy,
Kingdon is implying that power is never going to stay too long in the hands of one individual or group. The
key players who do get to hold most of the power are those who get elected and, thus. are assumed to
represent the public interests.

36

(Kingdon, 2003). However, in areas like education, the story is very different. When
issues are divisive and ideologically charged (as they often are in education), defining the
problem becomes a signiﬁcant part of the struggle. In the case of New Jersey’s alternate
route, the “problem” — inadequate teacher preparation -- was ﬁrst introduced by state
ofﬁcials and publicized in front page articles by the education editor of the Newark Star-
Ledger. Other major stakeholders -- teacher unions, teacher educators. and some
politicians -- never accepted this deﬁnition of the problem. Though they might have
acknowledged that urban districts had some problems of recruiting adequate and highly
prepared teachers, they thought that overall New Jersey had adequate system of teacher
preparation. Further, the problem — if it did exist in some form -- certainly did not call for
a radical change of the status quo.

In addition to the struggle over who defines a problem, there is the issue of the
development of accepted indicators to measure the problem. There are many ways to
measure a problem, assuming that the deﬁnition of a problem is accepted. The framing of
indicators reﬂects a second struggle over what components of the problem will get on the
agenda. In many ways, the indicators can redeﬁne the scope of the problem. Thus, for
instance, the indicators of teacher quality that were pushed forth by the New Jersey state
ofﬁcials included SAT scores. They argued that “high school graduates who planned to
major in education” had “lower” achievements “than those of graduates who planned to
major in 22 of 24 ﬁelds of study at the college level” (Cooperman & Klagholz, 1985. p.
692). They concluded that if teacher preparation programs recruit, admit. and certify all
these low achieving individuals, then those teacher preparation programs have a problem

— one of quality: program quality and the quality of program graduates. Teacher unions

37

at It:

'L . r
lllC.t.1.
Tllt \l

7353031.
imam.
an Mr

5erth

and teacher educators vehemently opposed both the problem definition and the use of this

indicator.

Setting the Agenda and Developing Policy Alternatives

The stream ofproblems

Policy-makers have many problems and problem sponsors awaiting consideration.
The question then is what kind ofproblem is more likely to be singled out by
policymakers. Sometimes it is enough that important people “feel” (instinctually if you
will) the urgency to deal with a problem that ﬂoats around them. At other times,
policymakers need a “focusing event” (e.g. a big scandal or disaster) to help them
respond to a problem. Personal experiences can also help policymakers grasp a problem’s
importance. New Jersey’s Director of Teacher Certiﬁcation, Leo Klagholz might serve as
an example. He who spent his entire career in the Catholic education system (as a
student, teacher, and principal) might have grown to be more respectful of uncertiﬁed
teachers and thus an advocate for alternate route policy believing it would enhance the
average quality of teachers.7 On the other hand, having problems articulated using a
“scientiﬁc objective” method (through academic research or periodic analytic reports)
usually yields a more convincing policy tool that quantiﬁes the problem and helps
making sensible interpretations of the problem. So, for instance in the case of New
Jersey, when the Congressional Commission to Study Teacher Preparation Programs
(CSTPP) issued its report (1981) on the poor quality of teacher colleges. their report was
based on a systematic review (doubtful as it may be), that was seen by some as

Comprehensive and convincing.

‘

'I . . . . . .
This example was kindly provrded to me by Kenneth Carlson In response to a prevrous draft ofthis
manuscript.

38

\cil .Icrs
llallftl it
illumina:
press I

arises i;

.ll

Ills} dim
source Ila
commit
connectiur
turn in on
Ilia we
firmer l I
fill .".\'.':;.
ample. l
arguzng III.
attention 1'»

Kit
pmmi v '

t W

ICSII’PI 1r.

New Jersey’s alternate route policy was coupled with a rather familiar problem that
waited for many years to become relevant. Support for this claim is found in a short
illuminating essay by Cooperman and Klagholz (1985). In this essay, they portray the
process by which they identiﬁed the teacher quality problem and decided to respond to it,

acknowledging that the problem of teacher quality is not new. They write:

This alternate route to certiﬁcation is the outcome of more than two years of study
and discussion of teacher preparation and certiﬁcation in New Jersey. But, in
another way, this alternate route reﬂects 20 years of thinking about the need to

reform teacher education in the US. (p. 692)

They also cite James Koerner’s (I963) The Miseducation ofA merican Teachers, as a
source that articulated the very same problem: “the low level of teaching that many
communities now get with fully certiﬁed and licensed teachers [and] the tenuous
connection between the training that teachers are exposed to and the performance they
turn in on the job” (Koerner, 1963 as cited in Cooperman & Klagholtz, 1985, p. 692).
They were not alone. During the 19805, many reports echoed the concerns raised by
Koemer (1963), Conant (1963), and Bestor (1953) in the 19505 and 19605. A Nation at
Risk (National Commission of Excellence in Education, 1983) is but one prominent
example, where the authors bemoan the teacher quality problems faced nationally,
arguing that the international supremacy of the US. is in jeopardy. The report caught the

attention of the media and policymakers alike.

Klagholz (2000) tracks the roots of the teacher quality problems in New Jersey.
pointing to the establishment of the Commission to Study Teacher Preparation Programs

(CSTPP) in the 19705. The Commission’s mandate was to “conduct a study of teacher

39

preparation programs at New Jersey colleges. . .because of dissatisfaction with the quality
and scope of the programs for the education of teachers in this state and the requirements
for licensing” (CSTPP, Final Report, June 1981 as cited in Klagholz 2000, p. 1). Note
that, although teacher quality was identiﬁed as “the problem,” here a transition is made to
the problem residing in teacher preparation. Thus, policy-makers involved in the C STPP
investigation decided not to deal with teachers as the source of the problem, but to frame
the problem as one that concerns the teacher training process and those who are in charge

of it — teacher educators.8
The stream ofpolicies

Policy solutions can evolve from various groups (e.g., interest groups, researchers
in academia, and policy analysts) and are largely independent of the problems (Kingdon.
2003). Policy solutions advocated by those groups look to secure or promote certain
interests and ideologies; at other times policy solutions are used by their sponsoring
groups as a mean to expand their power or jurisdiction. Sometimes providing a solution
involves coupling several solutions together. At other times, solutions are imported from
different arenas and periods of time. In the case of New Jersey, all of these features were
present. The development of the alternate route policy for college graduates to get into
teaching quickly, which replaced most traditional education courses with disciplinary
courses as a requirement to receive a teaching certiﬁcate, and established training centers
at the school district level for those prospective alternate route teachers, where they could

get their pedagogical preparation in abbreviated forms. was a multifaceted product ofa

 

8 Other optional ways of articulating the ‘quality’ problem of public education is to argue that the real
problem is insufﬁcient academic rigor or the achievement gap and that the blame for these should be
ascribed to the failing students for not trying harder, to students’ parents for being “bad” role models. or to
school districts for not providing minimum support to teachers.

40

careful collection of ideas, values, and solutions, many of which had been ﬂoating around

in some social circles for years.

In the case of New Jersey, one prominent source of solutions came from the very
same literature that helped specify the problem. Koemer (1963), a major opponent ofthe
teacher establishment who was cited earlier as a source, from which the problem evolved.
also supplied a policy solution. Cooperman & Klagholz (1985) enthusiastically embraced
Koemer’s solution of “giving local boards complete freedom in stafﬁng their schools
[through] some system of qualifying examinations whereby teachers. in order to be
licensed, would demonstrate their mastery of the subject they propose to teach” (Koerner,
1963 as cited in Cooperman & Klagholtz 1985, p. 692). Koemer, then. in laying out this

proposal offered alternate route architects the rough outline of a plan.9

Other factors were probably also at play in the outskirts of the process. One was a
Master of Arts in Teaching (MAT) program that was established at Princeton University
in 1969. The program’s rationale, one of many that were established in elite universities
across the US. by the Ford Foundation, was to recruit the best of the best —
undergraduates who had majored in disciplines in elite schools -- and prepare them
during the summer after their graduation to become schoolteachers the following fall
(Sykes, 1984). These programs involved an intensive summer experience in pedagogy. a
year’s worth of teaching (with courses after school and sometimes on weekends offered
during the school year), and then — sometimes — another summer of coursework.

Graduates received an MAT. Indeed, it’s hard not to observe the rationale of the MAT

 

9 It should be noted that though being supportive of Koemer’s free market type of solution Cooperman and
Klagholz added to their plan a requirement of having a major in the subject intended to be taught in class.

41

initiative taking place a decade later in the alternate route ofNew Jersey and later in other
kinds of alternate route proposals like Teach for America -- all assuming students from
elite schools with sound liberal art knowledge would make a great contribution to the

lagging teaching work- force.

The stream of politics

The stream of politics is independent of the former two and consists of any
change in the political arena. That can be election results. ideological shifts, changes in
the composition and/or impact of interest groups on certain policy issues. and
appointment of high officials. There are ﬁve major political shifts that were generated
through this stream and are associated with the New Jersey alternate route program; three
are on the national level and two in the local level; I) Reagan wins presidency; 2) spread
ofNeo-Liberal and Libertarian ideologies; 3) increased criticism of public education by
national committees; 4) Republican Thomas Kean becomes governor ofNew Jersey: and
5) new appointments to top ofﬁcial positions in New Jersey takes place.

State politics and the opportunities of certain issues to prosper are to a certain
extent conditioned by political and ideological shifts in the national level. The
overwhelming victory of Reagan on January 20, 1981, was a deﬁning moment that
shifted the political arena. The president as the one holding the most powerful office in
terms of its capacity to set the agenda (Kingdon, 2003) used his power to redeﬁne the
relationship of the state with public education. Teacher unions and the Department of

Education (that was perceived by Republicans as a union branch) were the ﬁrst to take

42

{.51

ll:

the hit.l0 The Reagan administration helped revive libertarian notions of the supremacy of
markets and their capacity to be self-sustained with minimum state intervention. State run
institutions like public education were perceived as inefficient and in a need ofoverhaul.
These notions were so powerful that they partly reframed the arena in terms of what
counts as problems and policy solutions both on the national and state level. Times
definitely changed, bringing with them new opportunities for problems and policies to
couple. Indeed, Cooperman and Klagholz (1985) write on the New Jersey alternate route

that:

If anything has changed since 1963, it is the possibility of implementing such a
plan. At the time Koemer wrote about an alternate system of certiﬁcation. he
rejected his own proposal as politically impossible. ‘A free market for local
boards in hiring teachers might on balance be a great gain for public education. he
said. Of course, no such thing is going to happen.’ (Koerner, 1963, p. 252, as cited

in Cooperman and Klagholz 1985. p. 692)

The reconsideration and revival of these kinds of solutions was made possible. at
least to some extent, by a growing number of Conservative Think Tanks that started
operating at the 19705. These private institutions like the Cato Institute at Washington
DC. (established in 1977) and the notable Heritage Foundation, have intellectually and
practically framed the ideological shift ofthe 19805 by crafting policy solutions to social
and economic “problems.” They promoted public policy research with libertarian and

nee-liberal oriented solutions. which paved the way to academic notions like “public

 

'0 For a complete description of the struggle between the Reagan administration and the teacher unions.
see: Blackboard Unions: The AF'I‘ and the NEA, 1900-1980. by Marjorie Murphy, Cornell University
Press.

choice”ll to become a popular mainstream tool that would be used to construct practical

policy solutions.

The establishment ofa new political and ideological context was also partly
responsible for the great and sudden concern over the quality of public education. As a
result, the early 19805 saw a considerable rise of special reports concerning the crisis in
American education (National Commission of Excellence in Education 1983; Task Force
on Education for Economic Growth, 1983; and Twentieth Century Fund Task Force on
Federal Elementary and Secondary Education, 1983). The main theme that these reports
seem to raise is the notion of"back to basics," back to the traditional teaching and values
with a rigorous structured curriculum, longer in hours and better in quality. These steps
were portrayed as the only way out for the deteriorated public school system. Education
was viewed mainly as a mechanism of economic advancement for individuals and for the
country overall. This approach was echoed in President Reagan’s message to the national
PTA, in which he “linked back to basics with US. accomplishments in space
exploration” (Besser, 1993). These concerns from Washington reverberatcd in
discussions at the state level and framed their content. When Cooperman wrote his policy
he was responding in part to the larger political context. In his writing he cites
Feistritzer’s report, The Making of a Teacher: A Report on Teacher Education and

Certification. and from the Task Force on Education for Economic Growth. A ction/or

 

" Nee-liberal thought is usually associated with the writings of Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek.
Their ideas inspired public choice writers who focus on the reduced productivity of public systems due to
the inefﬁciencies associated with systems that do not follow free market rationale (Tullock, Seldon. &
Brady, 2002). From this perspective teaching -- as a public profession -- pushes to implement policies that
on the surface argue to beneﬁt society, but in essence serve ﬁrst and foremost to preserve and secure
privileges of the profession and its members. Many recent critics of the educational establishment (e.g..
Ballou & Podgursky, 2000b; Firm, 2001; Hess, 2003: 2005) have adopted this perspective arguing that the
solution to the inherent failures of public education is privatization through the introduction of market-
based mechanisms.

44

Excellence: A Comprehensive Plan to Improve Our Nation 's Schools, sponsored by the

Education Commission of the States (Cooperman & Klagholz, 1985).

In New Jersey, as in other states. the political and ideological shifts at the national
level were coupled with similar trends at the state level. The tenure of Republican
Thomas Kean as governor signiﬁed a turning point in education politics in New Jersey
and probably had signiﬁcant effects on many other states as well. Kean, unlike many
other governors at the time, placed education at the top of his agenda. He was a firm
believer that the K-12 education system had some serious weaknesses. and he believed
that it was the role of the state both to regulate and innovate in order to improve schools’
performance. Kean and his top aides vigorously campaigned for a teacher quality reform
titled “program to enhance the teaching profession in New Jersey.“ The program in its
advanced stage consisted of 14 policies.l2 These policies mainly included the minimum
starting salary for all teachers ($18,500), grant programs to attract minorities and high
achievers from high schools and elite universities to teaching, recognition awards to top
teachers, academy for the advancement of teaching and management, and alternate route
program to teacher certiﬁcation. One of Kean’s top aides, Mills (1985) put the rationale
that underlies this tremendous effort in education in a simple way: “But the fact remains
that the states that are moving have education governors — moving educationally as well
as economically.”

Few top professional appointees helped Kean frame and implement his
comprehensive and challenging agenda for public education. C oopcrman, as the

Commissioner of Education, and Klagholz. as Director of Teacher Certiﬁcation, soon

 

'2 Program to enhance the teaching profession in New Jersey. Document taken from: “special assistant to
the governor” (1987-88, Box 4), nj_ﬁle10. New Jersey State Archive.

45

assumed a major role in planning, directing, and implementing one of the most
comprehensive reforms in teaching preparation and practice that a state has attempted to
achieve. They directed the policy-making process for the teacher alternate route and
college standards for teacher education programs with enthusiasm and conviction. Their
determination and involvement in planning, writing, and negotiating the policy or. in
Kingdon’s terms, being those who coupled the three streams together in the right moment

make them key policy entrepreneurs of the alternate route.
Converging the Three Streams

Kingdon (2003) argues that in order to be considered seriously a policy must have
an inﬂuential sponsor who strongly believes in the policy and is willing to expend any
effort needed to promote it. This player or players are the policy entrepreneurs. In our
case Kean as governor, Cooperman and Klagholz in the Department of Education,
Hollander in the Department of Higher Education, Gary Stein -- Kean’s Policy and
Planning Director. as well as other top ofﬁcials. like Richard Mills, the Education
Assistant of the Governor, served as the alternate route entrepreneurs. They worked
diligently on the program, revised it, established coalitions and agreements. and
mobilized political power to support it. When Cooperman felt that one of the program's
components was not “ready,” needed broader sources of legitimacy. or that it was
potentially divisive, he would dismantle the threat by setting up “independent
professional” committee to discuss the issue and provide conclusions for the Department
of Education to consider. Cooperman did not take part in those discussions, but was able
to a large extent to determine the direction of their conclusions by carefully selecting

their members and delimiting their charge. Through careful work Cooperman and Kean

46

were able to convince many that the alternate route was an important part ofa
comprehensive plan to enhance the teaching profession. Opponents lost ground, as they
were divided among themselves and could not provide an agreeable viable alternative to
the state proposal. As a result, each group provided its own plan. but found it hard to
convince others of its professional vigorousness, objectivity. and value to the public
good. The general political and ideological shifts that we described above served to
further provide a favorable context for the state to push its program. Kingdon would
argue that the window of opportunity for this plan to succeed was wide open at this
moment, and so it did.

On September 5. 1984 the New Jersey State Board of Education. the body that
holds the legislative authority on certification procedures. voted unanimously to approve
the alternate route policy. which had been slightly modiﬁed from C oopcrrnan’s original
proposal.

The Battle over Education Reform

According to Bourdieu and Wacquant (1992) the analysis of a social field should
involve three components. First, one must position the ﬁeld of inquiry vis-a-vis the ﬁeld
of power. Here one speciﬁcally focuses on locating the ﬁeld within the social space
matrix of economic and cultural capital. Second. “one must map out the objective
structure of the relations between the positions occupied by the agents or institutions who
compete for the legitimate form of speciﬁc authority” (p. 105). In other words. one must
understand who are the social agents in the ﬁeld? What are the local resources in the ﬁeld
that agents compete for? What constitutes the hierarchy of positions within the ﬁeld?

Third, one should understand the habitus of the social agents that operate in a given field.

47

Here the focus is on the way social agents work and act in the ﬁeld and how specific
types of dispositions within the habitus associate with certain positions in the ﬁeld.

Mapping the entire ﬁeld of power in New Jersey, or fully understanding the
habitus of the social agents within it is beyond the scope of this work. Instead, this study
will focus on describing the ﬁerce struggle between state ofﬁcials, teacher educators, and
teacher unions in the ﬁeld of education, while emphasizing the historical context in which
the claims for power of the various agents were developed. By doing so, I hope to
achieve two goals: ﬁrst, show how Bourdieu’s perspective can offer a viable alternative
for understanding the ways in which educational reform was decided and processed in
New Jersey. And second, emphasize the advantages of using this theoretical framework
in general for understanding the politics surrounding educational policy.

A General account on State - Education Relationshipsfrom the l 960s to the 1980s

I will begin with a brief account on the relations between state'3 and the major
agents of the field of education, teacher unions. and teacher educators. in America. By
doing so, I hope to establish the necessary context needed for understanding the struggles
that have taken place in New Jersey.

If we accept the implicit assumption of Bourdieu’s work that social agents - no
matter their position in the social space - are inherently and to a large degree
unconsciously interested in maximizing the economic power, cultural clout. and social
prestige that a given ﬁeld can provide them, the question is who gets these returns and

what factors determine the outcome of the struggle among the various agents. While it is

 

'3 I use the term state here in referring both to the federal and state government. This does not mean that I
view them as a single agent. Most of the time, however, the term refers to the State of New Jersey. In the
future. especially in light of the increasing role and involvement of the federal government, I might use two
distinct terms.

48

true that different social agents and fields share many similarities, they do differ in the
type and volume of capital they possess (e.g., economic, cultural, social, etc.), and in their
capacity to subordinate competitors or become dominated by them. Basically, when a
field enjoys relatively high degrees of cultural and/or economic capital it will become
part of the ﬁeld of power. The ﬁeld of power is the social sphere where the most
powerful ﬁelds in the social space are located. There is also an internal hierarchy within
the ﬁeld of power, which places on top the ﬁelds with the highest degrees of economic
power. For instance, when Bourdieu (1984) analyzed the French society be identified K-
12 teachers as a relatively subordinated group belonging to a subordinated ﬁeld within
the ﬁeld of power that enjoys relatively high degrees ofcultural capital with low degrees
of economic capital.

When one considers the case of American teachers, there are good reasons to
assume they would be positioned differently within the American social space, perhaps
even lower than the arbitrary borders that would deﬁne the ﬁeld of power. especially
since the 19805.'4 This, however, has not always been the case. For instance, some
general features of the period between the 19605 and 19705 may suggest a different
positioning of the ﬁeld of education vis-a-vis the ﬁeld of state bureaucracy. Why is that?
During the 19605 and 19705, by and large, teachers in America improved their
occupational position (in terms of economic returns and working conditions) by steadily
raising the requirements for teacher certification (Sedlak & Schlossman, 1986) and by
organizing through teacher unions which granted them the power of collective bargaining

(power they have effectively used to secure salary and beneﬁt increases). Together these

 

'4 This is a hypothetical assumption that calls for further empirical inquiry. one focused on measuring and
comparing the relative volume of cultural and economic capital or any other signiﬁcant capital that the
various ﬁelds consist in a given era.

49

developments have provided teachers with the lever needed for creating restricted
autonomy over their ﬁeld. But autonomy is not simply the story of the struggle for
economic returns and political power. Bourdieu (1992) defines the autonomy ofa field as
the power of a given ﬁeld to resist rules, practices, ideologies, and demands of other
ﬁelds, while keeping its own norms and being able to carry on its agenda. In other words,
every ﬁeld, as a direct result of being somewhat autonomous creates its own distinct
conceptual framework of ideas, preconceptions, and ways of “doing things” that reflect,
inform, and constrain, the habitus of social agents Operating within it.

In the case of education, many have argued, progressivism has been the major
ideological engine that has framed the intellectual scope of the ﬁeld since the late 19‘"
century. It is also widely accepted that teacher educators in colleges and universities have
been the major creators and carriers of this ideology (e.g., Bestor, 1953; Labaree, 2005;
Ravitch, 2000). Despite some resistance from various groups and individuals (e.g., Arthur
Bestor or William Chandler Bagley) which resulted in weakening of progressive notions
during the 19505 this approach came back in the 19605 to guide teacher preparation in
colleges, and went very deeply to frame the whole popular and professional discourse
around issues of teaching and learning (Ravitch, 2000). Having this ideological
conception has helped create the motivation among members to ﬁght and defend their
ﬁeld from external attempts of intervention. Then, once power has been achieved and
used to consolidate the ﬁeld’s autonomy. it was also directed to block outsiders from
trying to inﬂuence the ﬁeld’s logic of action.

To sum up then, in the 19605 and 19705, we have been witnessing a consolidation

ofa few crucial components in the ﬁeld of education -- mainly the toughening of entry

50

requirements into the profession, the adoption of collective bargaining and union
aggressive strategies, and the return to progressivism as a core ideology that helped
developing teachers’ professional identity -- that would translate in a relatively more
robust and autonomous ﬁeld of education vis-a-vis the ﬁeld of state bureaucracy.

During the 19805, however, things have changed and old boundaries collapsed.
As the criticism toward public education mounted, state ofﬁcials in many states felt that
this could be a good opportunity to step in and take more control. Gittell and McKenna
(1999) write that this tendency has strengthened considerably. as governors started
identifying the education ﬁeld as a promising site for intervention. Indeed,

State governors became more activist participants in state education policy

regimes in the 19905. Our study of state regimes in nine states revealed that most

governors were inﬂuential in steering the direction of educational reform in their

states. despite resistance from the legislature and the unions. (p. 268)
As we shell argue, New Jersey set the tone to this process in the early 19805.

Mapping the Field '3 of Education Orthodoxy in New Jersey

In New Jersey as in some other states, educators worked during the 19605 and
19705 to establish and fortify a relatively autonomous ﬁeld by exploiting two distinct
strategies -- some believe to be contradictory in nature: 1) unionism, i.e., using the lever
of mass membership for maximizing collective bargaining returns; and 2)
professionalism, i.e., promoting the idea of teaching as a profession that should govern
and regulate important aspects of its members (e.g., training and practice).

During these years teacher educators and teacher unions were relatively close to

the Department of Education, sharing all a progressive vision and professional goals. One

51

important aspect of the field’s autonomy was related to the unofficial control it held over
teacher preparation and certiﬁcation. This control meant that prospective public school
teachers studied only in education preparation programs with a curricula guided by
teacher educators. Teacher educators were also those who made the recommendations
concerning teacher certiﬁcation (which were then approved by the Department of
Education). This have been the case for years, although the legal official power over
teacher preparation and certiﬁcation in New Jersey was placed in the hands of the State
Board of Education and in practice in the hands of the Department of Education. The
reason for that. as many have indicated in the past (e.g., Bestor, 1953). was largely
related to the ideological and professional alignment of the Department’s of Education
staff to teacher educators and teachers, making them all important parts of the teacher
education establishment (the ﬁeld’s of education orthodoxy).

When problems. like teacher shortage aroused and teacher preparation programs
could not provide a solution, the state responded by allowing districts to hire individuals
and grant them emergency certiﬁcates. Practically, this arrangement enabled districts to
hire uncertiﬁed personnel as teacher substitutes whenever they faced staffing problems.
While it is true that this arrangement did not contribute for improved teacher quality. it
also did not challenge the authoritative power of teacher education programs to offer the
only legitimate route to becoming a certiﬁed teacher. As a result. teacher educators were
able to continue and preserve some important professional boundaries around teacher

certiﬁcation (with the help of the Department of Education) that enabled them to continue

52

and socialize new teachers transforming them into members of a relatively cohesive
professional community. I 5

All the while, the field has suffered from some chronic problems that positioned
its members at the outskirts of academia and professional practice. There are several
classic explanations to this weakness of the education ﬁeld. One relates to the disciplines
knowledge that was among the last to join Academia, and thus has been considered by
some to be a pseudo-science at best. Another explanation links the weakness of the ﬁeld
to being traditionally identiﬁed as feminine in nature. As a result, teachers and teacher
educators have been subjected to waves of criticism accusing them of unsubstantiated
practices that have led to the deterioration of public education. These arguments have
also played a part in the growing criticism toward education during the 19805. However.
this time there have been several components that elevated the critique to a place never
reached before. One reason for that might be related to the fact the ﬁeld of education
became "contaminated” with politics. The price for being invested politically only in one
side (i.e., Democratic Party) has been painful and devastating, since in addition for losing
political power, teacher unions were also gradually loosing the public legitimacy of being
a supposedly objective professional independent voice. This growing weakness of the
ﬁeld was accompanied by many real unsettled social problems that were unjustiﬁably
associated with the ﬁeld (e.g., low performance, increased violence, and a staggering
racial gap). Though many argue these problems are not primarily the responsibility of
educators but are part of the ill arrangements of an unequal society (Rothstein, 2004),

Americans in general and many educators among them believe that high quality

 

'5 The degree of this cohesiveness depends on the quality and quantity of time students spend together with
faculty discussing core issues related to subject matter. pedagogy. and ethics of the profession.

53

education provided by trained professional teachers can indeed make a difference in
students’ lives, bridge the initial gaps, and provide every citizen a fair chance to thrive.
While it is true that for many years, as indicated above, the Department of
Education willingly shared its responsibility over teacher preparation and certiﬁcation
with teacher educators and trusted teacher preparation programs in colleges and
universities, one also needs to consider the relative weakness of the state in the ﬁeld of
education, when evaluating the relative power of social agents like teacher unions.
Historically, the state of New Jersey has been governed by local boards of education that
represented the needs of their communities. Until the 19705 public education was
primarily supported by local tax. The state having no general income tax was in many
senses a marginal player in the game. This relative weakness of the state provided other
agents the opportunity to hold more power in the ﬁeld of education. In particular, local
boards and teacher unions — New Jersey Education Association (NJ EA) and to a
signiﬁcantly lesser extent New Jersey Federation of Teachers (NJ FT) — were very
powerful agents in the ﬁeld. For example, during the 19505 and 19605, NJ EA leaders
used to have close ties with Education Commissioner, Frederick Raubinger (1952-1967).
who met with them at a Princeton inn every few months to discuss "tactics, general
strategy, and intelligence on the political climate” (Pack. 1974, p. 260 in Salmore &
Salmore, 1992). Salmore and Salmore (1992) add that “among the participants. NJ EA.
with its large membership and research capacity, ranked second in inﬂuence to the
commissioner” (p. 260). Two decades later, during the 19805, NJ EA representative

would plead for months to meet for lunch with low level aides of the Governor. '6

 

'6 Details taken from a correspondence between NJEA ofﬁcial and one of the Commissioner aides (1984.
Box 12), nj_file03. New Jersey State Archive.

54

While it is true that the ideological alliance of the Department of Education and
the teacher education establishment in New Jersey deteriorated during the 19705. it is
clear that Governor’s Kean election signaled a clear turning point. Loyal to the
professional and moderate union type tradition of the National Education Association
(NEA) (Murphy, 1990), NJ EA opposed the state alternate route initiative, arguing it
would lead to professional deterioration (Fulton, 1983). However, after the state inserted
minor changes in the alternate route plan, and added the teacher minimum salary
proposal, NJEA decided to support the alternate route (Jaroslaw, 1984; Klagholz, 2000).
The American Federation of Teachers (AFT) afﬁliate organization in New Jersey, NJF'I’,
which represented the teachers of Newark and those of few small districts. opposed the
alternate route much more forcefully (Carlson, 1990). In addition. the same union
represented most teacher educators of New Jersey colleges (Carlson, 1990; 2004).l7 The
different constituents, as one may surely suspect, were an important factor in the
positions both unions developed toward the alternate route and other educational reforms
of the Kean administration. Thus, once the alternate route proposal started to gravitate
and deal directly with teacher preparation programs as the reason for the current
mediocre system, NJ F T stepped in and took the lead of resisting the proposal. Other
teacher educators afﬁliated organizations like the New Jersey Association of Teachers
Colleges (NJACTE) also resisted the reform. These state level organizations were later

backed by the AFT, and the American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education

 

'7 Except of Rutgers’ University faculty.

55

(AACTE) when the struggle over the teacher alternate route reform went on to become a
national controversy. '8

NJEA, on the other hand, had much less at stake. While it may have been hoping
to get the academic training component of the alternate route program (Carlson. 1990:
2004)'9 it became even more content (and as a result less likely to pose challenges) after
the governor added the minimum salary proposal to his teacher quality reform package.
Thus the NJ EA decided to support the reform after some minor correction had been
made.

This reality also reveals the implicit divide between teachers and teacher
educators. Though the two groups have formed the loosely coupled orthodoxy of the field
and shared many interests. they occupied rather different positions in the field. Generally
speaking, teachers have long occupied a rather dominated position in the field of
education (in terms of their cultural capital). They work in stark separation from each
other, subjected to the power of school administrators. district, and state administration.
but at the same time, during the 19605 and 19705, led by a militant leadership were able
to exercise power and gain signiﬁcant economic returns through their union membership
(Angus, 2001). The dominated position of teachers is also vis-a-vis the ‘creators of
educational knowledge’ - teacher educators in academic institutions. Historically. the
latter have worked their way up from local training facilities and normal schools to the
status of university professors. This continuous process of ‘position taking’ by teacher

educators has been carried out sometimes on the backs of school teachers as Labaree

 

”I See Carlson (1990) for the involvement ofthe NJACTE and AACTE in opposing New Jersey
educational reform.

'9 In my interview with NJEA President. Edith Fulton (2004). there was no mentioning ofthis issue. My
other sources do not support or refute this important point.

56

(1992) pointed out in his genealogy of the ‘Holmes Group’ project of teacher
professionalism. It is clear, then, that the two groups have different positions and interests
in the ﬁeld that could align or collide depending on the circumstances they encounter. In
the case of New J ersey, the state proposal severely threatened to limit the power of
teacher educators to control teacher preparation. Teachers. on the other hand, had less to
loose. It’s true that if entry to teaching is made easier, the ﬁeld might face over supply of
teachers, which in turn might hamper teachers’ bargaining power. However, the raise in
teachers’ minimum salary was able to take care of these concerns. Another issue that was
potentially divisive for teachers was how they were portrayed in the reform. State
ofﬁcials were cautious here too. Although teachers were criticized in the policy, most
criticism was indirect in nature, arguing that teachers were the victims of an inadequate
preparation system. Therefore, NJ EA, opportunistic as it may sound, understood that
teachers would gain only further hostility from state ofﬁcials and the public if they
decided to carry the burden of struggle together with teacher educators.

This story may suggest the struggle over teacher quality reform should be first
understood from within the ﬁeld as a struggle between various social agents located in
different sites of the ﬁeld with different types and degrees of economic, symbolic and
cultural capital, thus having different interests, ideas, and beliefs to promote. The struggle
between these agents (primarily teacher unions and teacher educators) is about the right
to survive, occupy, control, and direct the vision and future of the ﬁeld. Those who
occupy these leadership positions have then the legitimacy to shape the normative agenda
on behalf of the ﬁeld, i.e., having practically an open access to establish their ideological

order.

57

So far we have identified teacher educators, which have usually grown internally
out of the teaching ranks and the teacher unions as the major agents of the educational
field. Interestingly, educational administrators who hold no doubt a very prominent
position in the daily lives ofthe ﬁeld have shown very little active involvement in the
alternate route program. Though the administrators’ association has basically backed the
state, their marks on the issue were hardly noticed (Carlson, 1985; 1990). It is not the aim
of this paper to discus the reasons for this, but one can assume that since the aggressive
move of the state was not aimed at educational administrators’ professional turf, and
since their power was not threatened, it seems completely logical on their part to stay out
of the conﬂict. Later this strategy has proven to be mistaken for educational
administrators themselves, when state bureaucrats introduced the alternate route for
administrators. Those who helped state bureaucrats to gain legitimacy and become too
powerful have paid the price too.

Mapping the Emerging lleterodoxy ofState Officials in New Jersey

The high end of the bureaucratic ﬁeld enjoys a favorable position (compared to
those of teachers) in the social space and the ﬁeld of power. Elected governors are paid
well, highly respected, and hold enormous political power that enables them to play an
important part in setting the political agenda of their state and implement it. New Jersey
governors in particular are considered to be the most powerful of all governors in
America (Salmore & Salmore, 1993). Senior appointed ofﬁcials in the administration and

state departments hold considerable power too. In 1988 Thomas Kean declared in his

book:

58

I have almost total control over the policy — making apparatus in the state. I am

not unhappy about it. A good governor should absolutely dominate the political

debate in the state and set its agenda. (p. 63)

T raditionally, however, this has not been the case in New Jersey. In a state that
was considered for years as no more than a passage between New York City and
Philadelphia, where local corrupt bosses have controlled politics, and where even its
elected governors used to reside out of their state (preferably in New York City). central
government was almost irrelevant. The approval of New Jersey‘s constitution in 1947
and above all the establishment ofa signiﬁcant state income tax in 1976 have been the
major political milestones that triggered the shift toward state governed politics (Salmore
& Salmore, 1993). The tenure of Governor Kean should be understood in this context as
one that has built heavily on the emerging signs of state’s consolidation of authority.

The New Jersey Department of Education also has been marginalized for years
from the core issues of education. With minimal resources at hand and a strong local
tradition of school governance the department had relatively small impact on educational
matters. The commissioner who heads the department brings all major decisions to the
State Board of Education for approval. The 1973 Supreme Court ruling in Robinson v.
Cahill signaled a shift in the department’s role in public education. The ruling demanded
the State to create measures that would provide a thorough and efficient school system to
all school children to replace the heavy ﬁnancial reliance of schools on local tax
arrangements (Prabhu, 1992, pp. 78-9). As a result, the department was forced to step and
exercise authority to make sure local school districts provide thorough and efﬁcient

education.

59

The historical passage of New Jersey demonstrates a larger process that happened
in other states as well. This process can be well traced in the history of teacher
preparation and certiﬁcation regulation. As federal reports and studies suggest, states
have struggled successfully with districts, teachers, and teachers colleges to assume more
control over certiﬁcation issues (Frazier, I938). Historically, teachers have sometimes
backed the state on this issue. when they wanted to dismantle the power ofdistricts and
local politics, while later theyjoined teachers colleges in calling to keep certification
within the hands ofcolleges and professional organizations like the National Council for
the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) (Angus, 2001; Sedlak & Schlossman,
1986). As we shall see below the case of New Jersey's alternate route illustrates a
historical shift where the state started pushing to exercise its formal authority on teacher
certiﬁcation, a process that started many years before, but became a joint operation of the
Department of Education and teacher educators under the umbrella of the education
establishment. During the 19805, New Jersey’s state ofﬁcials. including the Department
of Education staff and the governor, collaborated aggressively to reshape the balance of
power in the ﬁeld of education and exercise more control over teacher certification. The
interesting question is what can explain this phenomenon?

When Governor Kean was elected as New Jersey governor he was part of a new
generation of (Republican) leaders in America, who believed governors should control
the education system and not vice versa.20 This notion has developed partly along

libertarian thought and partly on the ground as a backlash to the increased political

 

2” For detailed account of Kean’s (1988) perception ofthe relationship ofthe state and public education see:
The politics of inclusion. An interesting account on the role of governors in education can be seen in a
presentation for the New Jersey Association of Federal Program Administrators (NJAFPA) titled “the
govemor’s role in providing quality education” prepared by a close aide of Kean. Richard Mills (I985).

60

activity of teacher unions in the service of Democrat candidates.2| Kean himself faced
this sort of political activism, when the NJ EA openly and vigorously supported his rival
Democrat James Florio as their choice for the state’s top ofﬁce.22 From this angle then,
one could understand the struggle in New Jersey, as one that was shaped by ideological
beliefs (mainly neo-liberal thought that embraces policies based on the principles of free
market and competition), and by a political struggle over interests and power. The reality.
however, is more complicated. The motivation of Kean to push for changes in the
education system was stemmed also by his belief that excellent public education would
drive economic prosperity for the state. Therefore, during election time he put education
reform on the top of his agenda. In his position paper “The Importance of Quality
Education to a Vibrant New Jersey” he notes, that:

if our state is to regain the competitive edge it once enjoyed over the states that

surround us, it is imperative that it do all it can to equip its schools and

institutions of higher education to turn out the skilled workers and capable

managers those industries need. (Kean 1981. p. 4)

Kean demonstrated a libertarian concern that pushed for dismantling of barriers
that kept certiﬁcation preparation in the control of teacher education programs and

stopped qualiﬁed professionals from moving smoothly into schools. Kean also identified

 

2' This tendency became pronounced as the NEA openly and enthusiastically supported the Democrat
nominee for presidency, Jimmy Carter. Many believe that the upgrading of education to a department level
in Carter’s administration came as a reward to the union support during election time. Since then teacher
union support of a nominee (usually Democrat) on state or federal level became a norm. For a general
discussion on this topic, see: Urban J. Wayne, (2000). Gender race and the NEA: Professionalism and its
limitations (chapter 7). For an interesting account of Pennsylvania and Michigan, two states that used to be
strongholds of teacher unions but ceased to be such during the 19905, see: Boyd, Plank & Sykes, (2000)
Teacher unions in hard times (Chapter 6) in: T. Loveless (Ed.) Conﬂicting missions? Teachers unions and
educational reform.

22 Robert Braun (1982) the educational columnist ofthe Newark Star-Ledger writes: “The NJEA actively

opposed Kean’s election and just as actively worked for. and contributed to. the campaign of Kean’s rival,
democrat James Florio.”

61

himself as one who believed in providing high quality education by teachers with strong
subject matter knowledge no matter if they graduated from a teacher preparation program
or arrived through an alternate route program. This meant that the state should be
tightening its hold of the teacher preparation system to assure preparation aligned with
the govemor’s ideas (i.e., a preparation with a signiﬁcant component of a subject matter
with minimal required emphasis on pedagogical input). In many ways this could also be
characterized as an attempt by the state to create a “new teacher”, a teacher, which has a
broad disciplinary background with a very thin fraction of required education courses. As
we can clearly see. there were several processes that worked inseparably to reinvent state
teacher education relationships. The political struggle over power and resources (between
the profession and the state) was coupled with a deep ideological divide on how the
system should work, who would teach in it, and what kind of teacher preparation should
be valued?

In addition, there was of course the broad historical and political context, which is
an important factor affecting the scope of possible strategies available for Kean’s
administration to rely on. The climate of a deep crisis and the rising concerns over the
quality of education, together with the political rivalry between Republican governors
and teacher unions, were not unique to New Jersey; they were felt around the nation. But
Kean unlike others identiﬁed and understood these developments as an opportunity for
the state to step in, promote alternative solutions for long-standing problems, and take
more control over public education from locals and professionals whenever possible. To

do so, he took advantage of the political climate and the abundance of state and national

62

reports that undermined the professional stature of teacher unions and teacher educators.
arguing they are incapable of assuring the production of high quality teachers.

Though it is beyond the scope of this study it’s important to brieﬂy mention here
the importance of the concept of habitus. When pioneering actions take place in the social
space one can easily drift into explaining them by the exceptional skills or character of
the individuals who claim responsibility over them. The habitus provides an elegant way
to deal with this explanatory problem by ascribing the actions of individuals to the way
social structure has been externally and internally inscribed into the lives of these
individuals -- social agents.23 In this respect it would be important to consider the life
experiences of Thomas Kean and other powerful ofﬁcials in his administration. A
glimpse into Kcan’s biography is illuminating. Kean is the son ofa U.S. congressman
and the grandson ofa US. senator. His uncle was also a US. senator and his ancestor.
“John Kean represented his state in the Continental Congress. . ." (Kean, 1988. p. 131).
He had his undergraduate education at Princeton and M. Ed. from Teachers College.
Columbia University. In his early career he worked a few years at his alma-mater high
school as a teacher and for many years directed a summer school for disadvantaged teen-
agers from urban New Jersey. Later he went back and forth from his small business into

local and state politics. These general details that are taken from Kean’s autobiography

 

2" The notion of habitus as illustrated in my discussion of Kean provides a very different explanation to
individuals’ action than the one provided by Kingdon (2003). Kingdom argues that only a policy
entrepreneur through his persistence and conviction in the importance ofa cause can carry a policy
proposal into the agenda. While Kingdon failed to explain why people would take leadership position and
act as thety do. Bourdieu developed an elaborate explanation based on the notions of ﬁeld. habitus. and
capital. Individuals, according to Bourdieu, adopt modes of behavior and action in response to the capitals
they possess, their position in the ﬁeld and the expectations attached to it. In other words, instead of
arguing that Kean was a policy entrepreneur. because he appeared in the right time to converge the three
streams. Bourdieu’ would provide the how — how Kean’s dispositions, beliefs. perspectives, and behaviors
(or put simply, his habitus) are explained and embedded in his background, social networks, education,
economic wealth, and privileges. These are intertwined with larger currents of power that are part ofthe
social ﬁeld that shape and constrain the kinds of position available to every social agent.

63

(1988) suggest that Kean’s interest in education as a governor was genuine, and
developed over a long period of time. In short, while his unique background as an
educator who graduated from elite universities contributed to the way he conceived the
problems of education and to his motivation to get involved in changing them, his
political standpoint and policy solutions are aligned with his background as a
businessman who grew up in a wealthy well connected family.

The governor was not alone. He was surrounded by a group of loyal officials who
eagerly carried out what might have been initially his vision but no doubt became theirs
too. During the ﬁrst few months in ofﬁce Kean directed his close aide and deputy chicfof
staff, Christopher Daggett, to take charge of the search for a new education
commissioner, “whose ﬁrst credential for the job — according to the governor himself—-
must be compatibility with Kean’s educational philosophy” (Braun, 1982). The name
eventually chosen for the lucrative position — Cooperman — came as a surprise for many,
since his candidacy was not supported by any signiﬁcant group of educators, and his
name was not mentioned along with other candidates on the news.24

Commissioner Cooperman had lean experience as a superintendent, but his lack
of previous loyalties within the educational establishment turned out to be an important
asset for his new job. Another key ofﬁcial for passing educational reform - the
Chancellor of Higher Education, Hollander — was reappointed by Kean for a second term,

since his views were understood as compatible with those of the governor. These two

ofﬁcials had to cooperate closely to plan and promote the certification reform, but the

 

2’ Cooperman, it should be noted, was not the ﬁrst preference of the governor and his aides. He became the
commissioner only after the ﬁrst nomination needed to withdraw after he was accused to have plagiarized
most of his doctoral dissertation.

64

It'-

-.
'9.
rr

.-
‘2 '. -"
4».

J . ‘
We; ‘1

details of the program got entangled within a jurisdiction that could be claimed by both.25
This forced cooperation, however, did not go without hurdles as the two department
heads seemed to agree on the general plan, but differed on its details. An example to the
tension between the two is well illustrated in a letter sent by C ooperman to Hollander. In
the letter Cooperman accuses Hollander of having double standards and of trying to
appear nice in the public eye while having his concealed interest carried out by
Cooperman. Hollander, according to Cooperman, supported the plan to reduce teacher
education courses for prospective teachers. since it would force many teacher educators
to leave universities and enable colleges to replace them with faculty from more
“productive” in demand disciplines. While keeping this plan in secrecy, Hollander has
publicly backed some critical assertions made by Cooperman’s worst opponents -- the
teacher educators ofNew Jersey (C arlson, 1990). This dispute, probably more than
anything else, reﬂects an interdepartmental struggle over turf, rather than ideological
differences. Moreover, in terms of the overall struggle, these internal differences did not
crack the solid front built by the state to further the certiﬁcation reform. The
correspondences between state ofﬁcials during the policy-making process illustrate this
solid front of the state. Both the NJ EA and NJ FT were perceived as a threat to the plan
and hence were singled out and barred from participating on key committees (e.g.. social
agents from the ﬁeld’s orthodoxy had no representatives sitting on the search committee
for the commissioner position, and none of them was sitting on the ﬁrst committees
which decided on the structure and content of the alternate route — the Boyer

Commission). Archival documents also reveal that state ofﬁcials felt confident and

 

2’ The teacher certiﬁcation was authorized by the department of education and provided to graduates who
went through approved education programs. At the same time the authority over colleges was assigned to
department of higher education. This situation meant that any change had to be agreed by both sides.

65

powerful enough to dismiss and delay even minor requests for meetings made by senior
ofﬁcials of the NJ EA. Eventually, representatives of the two unions were invited to
attend only the last committee (Jaroslaw, 1984) where they formed a small insignificant
minority. Teacher educators, the vocal opponents of the program, were never invited by
state ofﬁcials to participate, and had no representation at any part of the process (Carlson.
1990). Numerous letters, memos, and alternative plans, where teacher educators
attempted to challenge the state’s plan, were dismissed as being driven by narrow self-
serving interests of professors who were looking to secure their positions (e.g., Klagholz.
2000)

Final Remarks on the Nature of the Struggle in New Jersey

The ﬁeld of education or more speciﬁcally the ﬁeld of educational policy has
various features that made it relatively resistant to changes for many years. We have seen
how teacher educators and teacher unions with cooperation of the Department of
Education were able to build the orthodoxy of the teacher education establishment that
governed the ﬁeld for years. especially relating to aspects of preparation and certification.
No matter how one look at it, the state had a relatively minor role in education before the
19805.

During the 19805 state elected and appointed ofﬁcials refused to accept this
reality. They came with different sets of ideas, interests, and ways of perceiving reality,
but at the same time argued that they have a stake in the ﬁeld and share the vision of
educators concerning the importance of having well qualiﬁed teachers that can lead
students for better future. They gave these ideas a different interpretation that was aligned

with their past experience, structure of capital, and positions in the ﬁeld.

66

We have seen, how according to Bourdieu’s theory, this struggle over ideas and
vision unfolded in the case of New Jersey, when state ofﬁcials inﬁltrated into the
resourceful arena of teacher education. We have also seen how these kinds of attempts
have developed in speciﬁc historical, sociological. and political contexts that enabled
them to evolve the way they did.

The policy itself. which was designed as a political masterwork, sent two clear
messages. The ﬁrst message for teacher unions was that times have changed and the state
is going to be much more involved in what used to be an area under their control — teacher
education policy. The second message was directed to New Jersey's teacher educators
claiming they have so far proved incompetent at producing the quality teachers students
deserve to have, and thus should prepare to give up the monopoly over teacher
preparation they used to occupy. While teacher unions were warned, they also benefited
from series of new policies that were launched simultaneously with the alternate route
(especially from the minimum starting salary for teachers that was enacted in 1985).
Teacher educators who did not enjoy as much political clout as teacher unions did within
the ﬁeld of education, and were considered to have the lowest prestige among their
fellow university professors. were those who took the hardest blow from the alternate
route policy. The state indeed identiﬁed them as the weakest brick in the wall of
autonomy surrounding the orthodoxy of the ﬁeld of education and used it in order to
assume more control in the ﬁeld.

Summary
This study has traced back the historical roots of the ﬁrst alternate route for

teaching in the nation. which is also among the ﬁrst initiatives to implement market based

67

politic
kvnl
author.
unxcﬂl
drills
plicy4
cmphas
Bourdic

are} r

pvpular
I’illltW ls
milllrlsl.
Connect‘
poic§.l

'1“
r’UFItni

policies into K—12 public education in America. I argue that this process could be
described and analyzed in various ways depending on the theoretical standing of the
author, and since in educational policy theory tends to be quite implicit, it is important to
unveil these theoretical notions that underlie it. Moreover, since only one theory — the
pluralist theory - tends to lead most popular and academic interpretations of educational
policy-making process, it is essential to consider other theoretical alternatives too. To
emphasize this point, this study considered two theories -- Kingdon’s agenda setting and
Bourdieu’s theory of social ﬁelds. The two provided different explanations to the same
policy process.

In the last two decades Kingdon’s model of agenda setting (2003) became very
popular among policy researchers and analysts. It provides a rigorous account of the way
policy is negotiated and decided among the various policy players in Washington, and it
emphasizes the importance of both timing, and the capacity of certain individuals to
connect together the stream of problems, policies solutions. and politics into a successful
policy. However the model of Kingdon provides an explanation that rests on the
problematic assumptions of the pluralist tradition.

According to Bourdieu’s approach the ﬁeld of education is an arena contested by
educational agents, like, state ofﬁcials, teacher unions, and teacher educators who all
have stakes in the ﬁeld. These agents struggle over power and use a wide array of means
to achieve it. I argue that the teacher alternate route initiative in New Jersey could be
used to mirror the attempt of state agents to break the status quo in which the state had
only modest means to affect the educational training and recruitment of teachers. The

findings. according to a Bourdieuan interpretation, suggests that in the struggle over

68

teacher certiﬁcation and preparation in New Jersey, the orthodoxy of the field (in
particular, teacher educators) have experienced a signiﬁcant loss of power and autonomy
to state agents. This shift of power had an effect on the structure and positioning of other
agents in the ﬁeld, favoring state agents. In making this argument I do not mean to
suggest that the state was necessarily successful in shifting and reshaping the whole
hierarchical structure of the ﬁeld of education (in other areas other than certification and
preparation). This could not be determined accurately by analyzing just one struggle over
one policy. The overall picture can be different. Thus the direction that I have pursued in
this study should be further clariﬁed and extended by an analysis of the entire ﬁeld of
educational policy in New Jersey (see Chapter 4 for details of this kind of analysis).
Furthermore, even in the area of teacher certiﬁcation and preparation the process of
subordination should not be understood as deterministic trend that have carved
irreversible state of affairs. On the contrary, the social ﬁeld of Bourdieu is dynamic and
subject to changes that are the result of the constant power struggle between agents in the
ﬁeld. Interestingly, three years ago (2003) in New Jersey. for example. a struggle over the
alternate route has ruptured again, this time with a move aimed at restoring the stature of
traditional teacher preparation programs.

About 20 years ago, the state of New Jersey created the nation’s first alternate

route to teacher certiﬁcation. The program has served as arguably the best model

in the country. But next month, the New Jersey State Board will be asked to

approve revisions to the program, perhaps taking the “alt” out of “alt cert.”

The creators of the original landmark program, former New Jersey education

commissioner Saul Cooperman and Leo Klagholz (an NCTQ Advisory Board

69

Member) have come out of retirement to vigorously challenge the changes that
they would restore monopolistic control to the colleges of teacher education. They
were particulary distressed by a provision requiring 27 to 36 credits in pedagogy.
arguing that the coursework is roughly comparable to what is required for
traditional teacher preparation and prevents teachers from pursuing subject matter
expertise. The current administration denies that this will negatively effect
alternative certiﬁcation... (National Council on Teacher Quality, 2003. p.3)
While it is important to acknowledge the contribution of Kingdon’s model and
consider it seriously, this work wishes to open the discussion for other theoretical
alternatives such as the one of Bourdieu, which has been rarely used in the study of
policy-making. Juxtaposing the two theories as we did in this work illuminates the
complexity of conducting any policy analysis. The New Jersey alternate route can be
understood from Kingdon’s model as a case study where the window of opportunity
opened for talented educational entrepreneurs to carry out the tedious unpredicted work
of policy-making. Or we can add another outlook, the one of Bourdieu that is dealing
with power relationships from the neo-Weberian tradition. This perspective looks for the
hierarchical patterns by which ﬁelds are organized and the politics of domination and
subordination within and between ﬁelds. Using this perspective allows us to better
understand political patterns that are not carried only by chance, timing, and the
determination of individuals. Studying the alternate route policy in New Jersey
illuminates this point. Governor Kean, Commissioner Cooperman. and other senior
ofﬁcials were talented policy entrepreneurs, no doubt, but their actions were also framed

by their habitus and powerful positions in the ﬁeld of state bureaucracy. Teachers and

70

teacher educators, on the other hand, were both occupying relatively subordinated
positions within the ﬁeld of power. This positioning of the different ﬁelds vis-a-vis each
other framed the nature of their relationship, as did the political. historical. and
sociological context in which they have evolved.

Both theories identify the state agents as the winners of this particular struggle.
The differences however lay elsewhere especially in the nature of the assumptions that
underlie the theories and the perspectives and ideologies that they are aligned with.
Educational agents, policy-makers, and scholars should be aware of these differences and
the opportunities they open. Having a limited conception of social reality is blinding and
a recipe for failure. Good creative solutions, on the other hand, are the product of critical
thinking and diversity of ideas. Following this reasoning, I believe that considering New
Jersey’s alternate route in light of the two theories can help us reconsider the roles and
positions of the different agents in the ﬁeld of education as they continue their struggles

along the new/old issues of teacher quality.

71

Chapter 3

THE FOUR C’S OF EDUCATIONAL POLITICS:
THE CASE OF NEW JERSEY ALTERNATE ROUTE TO TEACHER
CERTIFICATION
Introduction

Education policy-making tends to draw much attention from various stakeholders who
bring different ideas, interests, and visions to the table. Stakeholders’ ideas, interests, and
visions are constructed within social contexts, which usually reflect the positions of their
holders in the social sphere. In this essay, I explore -- using an analysis ofthe New Jersey
alternate route policy and the teacher preparation reform -- how social, cultural. and
economic factors shaped the positions of different stakeholders in the struggle over

educational policy.

Throughout the analysis. I extend the application of Bourdieu’s (1985; 1992:
1994; 2005) theory that I began in Chapter 2. I will argue that state officials in New
Jersey led by the newly elected Republican Governor, Thomas H. Kean (1981-1989).
took advantage of a growing wave ofconcern, distrust. and criticism aimed at what was
seen as the deteriorating quality of US. public education and teachers26 to reshape
substantial parts of the ﬁeld of education. In particular. I focus here on the state agents’
initiative to reform teacher preparation27 and create the ﬁrst U .S. state-sponsored

alternate route into teaching (Carlson, 1985; Cooperman & Klagholz, 1985: I990;

 

2" As expressed, for example, in one report on teacher preparation compiled by the Congressional
Commission to Study Teacher Preparation Programs (CSTPP, I981 ), as well as documents like A Nation at
Risk (National Commission of Excellence in Education, 1983).

27 The reform in teacher preparation called for a complete abolition of BA. degrees in education. and a cap
of 30 total credits that a student could take in New Jersey’s teacher education programs (10 ofthese credits
were to be taken as a guided internship) for initial teacher preparation.

72

Klagholz, 2000). The attempt to create this broad, revolutionary reform met major
resistance, especially among teacher educators and to a lesser extent among teacher
unions. The struggle that developed over these policies provides us with the opportunity
not only to analyze retrospectively the outcomes of the struggle, but also to conceptualize
the process as a whole, including how and why state agents were able to make claims for
power.

The formation of educational policy is a socio-political endeavor carried out by
various stakeholders who are interested in education and struggle to re-shape the reality
in which they live, in a way that will be aligned with their interests and ideological
stances. Bourdieu’s (e.g.. 1985) concept of “social ﬁeld” can be helpful here. because it
provides a general framework for understanding struggles between different agents over
power and resources. Education and education policy more speciﬁcally can be
conceptualized in this way, as social agents ﬁercely struggle to shape schools in
accordance to their interests. beliefs, and ideologies. In the case of education, one major
lever for exercising substantial control is through educational policy and its reform.
Social agents frequently use policy tools to try and re-deﬁne, shape, and regulate every
aspect of the daily operation of public education. They invest any available capital they
possess in this endeavor to occupy positions of power in the ﬁeld, which, if they are
successful, provide them the necessary power to inscribe their beliefs, vision, and
interests in the social and institutional fabric of the ﬁeld. Therefore, the types and volume
of capital that agents possess are crucial features in the struggle between agents.

In the analysis to follow, I deﬁne capital as a type of asset or good held by

individuals or collectives (e.g., group, community. institution. or state) that may be used

73

35

for

L‘Ol‘

par

is
r

as a form of power or as an investment to enhance/empower the proﬁts of its holder in
the social space (now or in the future). Using the notions of social ﬁeld and different
forms of capital, 1 will show how various agents (individuals, groups, or institutions)
competed for power and control in the field of educational policy in New Jersey. In
particular, I examine how four different forms of capital -- economic, social, cultural, and
bureaucratic -- were used by various social agents in the field ofeducational policy to
maximize their power and control over educational policy. I will then argue that, by both
activating and accumulating capital, state agents were able to take leading positions of
power in the area of teacher preparation and certiﬁcation.

I begin with a short historical review concerning the alternate route and
educational politics in New Jersey prior to and after the 19805. Second, I review the
literature on capital and identify the major types of capital that are considered important
for claims of power and control in different social ﬁelds. Third, I describe the research
approach and methods used in this analysis. I then present my results, describing each
source of capital that various social agents had access to and demonstrating how access to
capital played a role in the struggle over the alternate route to teacher certiﬁcation and in
the undergraduate teacher preparation reform. I conclude by discussing the impact of the
struggle on the exchange value of the different types of capital and what we might learn
about the politics of educational policy-making from this kind of analysis.

A Brief Historical Account
State-sponsored alternate route programs — a common feature of today’s educational
system -- were ﬁrst established in New Jersey. The initial policy was developed by then-

New Jersey Commissioner of Education, Saul Cooperman. and the State Director of

74

Teacher Certiﬁcation, Leo Klagholz, with the active support of Governor Kean and his
staff. The alternate route was a clear attempt by the state to regulate closely the required
contents of initial teacher certiﬁcation. This policy was coupled with a series of
regulations (which I will refer to as the reform of undergraduate teacher preparation) put
by the Commissioner to reshape the curriculum and structure of undergraduate teacher
preparation programs operating in New Jersey. These two policies were perceived by
many as an unprecedented and unjustiﬁed intrusion of the state into the internal arena of
the teacher education profession.

What caused and enabled the state to act in such an aggressive way? This is a
complicated question; we might best consider several explanations. One approach to
answering the question would involve exploring the socio-political and historical context
in which social agents in the ﬁeld of teacher education had operated and where their ideas
and interests became consolidated. Since I have already discussed these issues in detail in
chapter two, I will only brieﬂy explore them here. Another approach to answering the
question involves considering the social agents and their possession of capital. Here the
emphasis is on understanding the types of capital that certain agents came to possess.
how they increased the volume of their capital, and how they used it in their pursuit for
the most lucrative positions that controlled the distribution of goods in the ﬁeld of
educational policy. I will focus primarily on this approach in this essay.

New Jersey has a long historical tradition (like other New England states) ofa
weak central government and strong localities. The special history and geography ofNew
Jersey supported this trend in particular. Located between the two urban centers of New

York City and Philadelphia, most people thought of New Jersey as nothing more than a

75

passing zone for the railroad system, and later as a characterless suburb area for the two
big cities. The lack of identity, the appeal of the big cities to the north and south, and the
power of local governments put the central government in a weak position to further any
speciﬁc state agenda. For many years "the constitution speciﬁed only that the legislature
should ‘elect some ﬁt person within the colony to be a governor for one year. . .the
governor was given the ‘supreme executive power,’ but that power was nowhere deﬁned"
(Salmore & Salmore, 1993, p. 127). Thus, New Jersey’s governors were traditionally
seen as relatively weak. This has gradually changed from the 19405. as several important
events (e.g., the amendment of a new state constitution) helped to transform those
governors into the most powerful public ﬁgures in the state (Salmore & Salmore, 1993).

Thomas Kean was the ﬁrst governor in New Jersey who was able to use his
fonnal authority to take an active role in the ﬁeld of education, a ﬁeld that had
historically been regulated by many social agents, including members of the New Jersey
Education Association (NJEA), the legislature, the commissioner of education, and the
local boards of education (Kean, I988; Salmore & Salmore, 1993).

With respect to teacher certiﬁcation and preparation, the Department of Education
had the legal jurisdiction (through the State Board of Education) to direct the ﬁeld. In
practice, however, department ofﬁcials who usually graduated from education programs
shared progressive notions with teacher preparation programs and embraced teacher
educators’ recommendations for certiﬁcation. This leﬁ teacher educators with signiﬁcant
autonomy and as the actual gatekeepers of the profession.

In the late 19705 and the beginning of the 19805, the power of the NJ liA seemed

to be declining. as a result of increasing public hostility toward unions. the increasing

76

r"

llt‘

Ft,
:4

10

SU:

bu

ins

power of the Republican Party (both at the federal and state level) (Salmore & Salmore.
1993; Urban, 2000), and the growing concerns and criticism regarding what many
perceived as the “deteriorating” quality of US. public education (Cooperman &
Klagholz, 1985; National Commission of Excellence in Education, 1983). Given these
shifts in power and growing concerns, department and state ofﬁcials gradually departed
from their alliance with educators and began to consider possible solutions for enhancing
teacher quality, like the alternate route policy that was seen as an important policy crafted
to speciﬁcally address these concerns.
The policy plan proposed two major solutions to the problem of teacher quality:
1. Transforming teachers’ knowledge, that is. increase teachers’ subject matter
instead of their pedagogical knowledge;
2. Fostering competition, which in turn, would increase quality in education by
establishing a vigorous alternative to the traditional teacher preparation programs.
There might be some disagreement about this second point, for some might
suggest that, based on their actions, state ofﬁcials were not trying to foster competition.
but rather to simply replace the old system with a new one. According to this view.
instead of having teachers from traditional programs, state ofﬁcials wanted to have a new
type of teacher who would have a broad liberal arts background, disciplinary knowledge
of the subject matters he or she was teaching, and on-the-job training enhanced with
practical knowledge on class management and student Ieaming. To this end, and as part
of the policy proposed, the state established and maintained regional study centers where

new teachers would be inducted into teaching and kept out of teacher educators’ grip.

77

COT

llllt

Illa
fill.
illt'
M

in:

the

Ct‘l'

Whether they planned to abolish all teacher education or not, state ofﬁcials were
concerned that -- in the short run — something needed to be done also about traditional
undergraduate preparation in education programs. As part of this vision, the state
Department of Education approved regulations (which I refer to as the undergraduate
teacher preparation reform) that reduced signiﬁcantly the number of credits that any
prospective teacher could take in education programs/departments/colleges, abolished the
education major (replacing it with an education minor). and limited the type of courses
that education professors could teach. So, for example, all social foundations of education
courses (e.g., sociology of education, history of education, philosophy of education) were
dropped unless the professor who taught them held a graduate degree in the discipline (in
sociology, not in educational sociology, for instance) or if the professor in question held a
joint position in education and a social science discipline.

Within this ambitious twofold program, the alternate route quickly expanded,
preparing 26% of New Jersey‘s new teachers within six years (Klagholz, 2000). Although
traditional programs continued to prepare most teachers, it is also clear that the state
managed to become a dominant player in the ﬁeld of education with a strong control over
the content of teacher education, and therefore, over the kind of people who were
certiﬁed to teach. The state did this through requirements of college majors and minors.
approved coursework for teaching. and a state certiﬁcation test (which became a
requirement for teacher certiﬁcation in 1985 for either alternate or traditional route
teachers). The old days of granting certiﬁcation uncritically to all graduates of teacher

education programs were over.

78

It is my argument that this structural change in the power and roles of social
agents was neither a natural evolution from previous policies and practices nor a
functionalist adaptation of the system to external pressures. Rather. I will argue in the
analysis to come, that this shift in power and roles was the outcome ofa struggle over
power among social agents. Understanding the struggle that erupted around the alternate
route proposal and implementation may help illustrate this point by illuminating how
social agents used their different forms ofcapital to further their positions.

The Four C '5

Educational policy is a political maneuver carried out by social agents who are
attempting to reshape the educational environment in which they operate. As many
sociologists point out, social changes reflect conflicts between various groups on the
distribution of resources. This means that whenever a change occurs. it will always be a
consequence of the use of power; and it always involves winners and losers (e. g., Abbott.
1988; Collins, 1979; Karabel, 1977; Labaree, 2004). Bourdieu (1985; 1988; 1992) used
this argument as the basis for his concept of the social ﬁeld, contending that the ﬁeld is a
dynamic social space where social agents constantly struggle for power. All the while. a
ﬁeld also has structural features that affect that struggle. Agents who operate in a ﬁeld.
that is, have a fundamental interest in the viability and continuity of the ﬁeld, but they
also differ from one other. Some occupy signiﬁcant positions of power (e.g., control
valuable knowledge, economic resources, and intellectual capacity, organizational /
bureaucratic positions), while others hold minor, narrow, or marginalized positions. often
(but not exclusively) subordinate in nature, which have relatively little power associated

with them. Social agents constantly chafe at the extant structure of positions (for those

79

without power are constantly struggling to attain it), but at the same time, this structure is
relatively stable and institutionalized as a consequence of an intentional effort made by
those agents in power to preserve the status quo.

So, how do agents struggle to create a change or preserve the current social
arrangements in their ﬁeld? Or, more speciﬁcally, how can educational agents reshape
the agenda of educational policy and take control over the positions of power in the ﬁeld
of educational policy? The simple answer: They need more power. So the next question
should be, how can social agents collect, create, or reestablish the power needed to
support their claims or intentions for the perpetuation or transformation of the social
structure?

Let us now consider the concept of capital as it will be used in this analysis. The
term capital in its different versions has been widely used in the social sciences. In the
19503 and 19605, economists Becker (1976) and Schulz (1977) were the ﬁrst to
incorporate the term human capital into classic economics, arguing that as times have
changed, the type of capital relevant for economic growth has shifted as well. Modern
post industrialized societies, they argued, need the knowledge, skills. and experience of
workers, not simply their labor power, and those societies are willing to generously
compensate workers who have desired skills. Thus. it is essential both for individuals to
acquire high levels of practical education and for society at large to encourage individuals
to do so. This theory has become, by far, the popular mainstream approach for
understanding the value of formal education and its relationship to individual prosperity
and economic growth. Like most other economic theory, this view rests on several

assumptions related to the rational choice theory (e.g., the emphasis on the individual and

80

his or her ability to make thoughtful balanced rational decisions). These concepts had
important effects on many sociologists, including Bourdieu (1985; 1992) (who heavily
criticized them) and Coleman (1988) (who was more favorable toward them).
In almost all of its various versions, capital denotes a type of asset or good held by
individuals or collectives (e.g.. group, community, institution, or state) that may be
used as a form of power or as an investment to enhance/empower the proﬁts of its
holder in the social space (now or in the future). Therefore, an agent's investments (or
agent’s family’s investments) in developing his or her capital can be seen as a

strategy of building one’s basis of power in the ﬁeld, or as Bourdieu put it:

We can picture each player as having in front ofher a pile of tokens ofdifferent
colors. each color corresponding to a given species ofcapital she holds. so that
her relative/owe in the game. her position in the space of play, and also her
strategic orientation toward the game. what we call in French her "game." the
moves that she makes, more or less risky or cautious, subversive or conservative.
depend both on the total number of tokens and on the composition of the piles of
tokens she retains, that is. on the volume and structure of her capital. Two
individuals endowed with an equivalent overall capital can differ, in their position
as well as in their stances (“position takings"). in that one holds a lot of economic
capital and little cultural capital while the other has little economic capital and
large cultural assets (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992. pp. 98-99).
However, having a certain kind/volume ofcapital does not guarantee power or
control, as the value of the capital itselfis frequently the subject of political struggles.

Bourdieu elaborated this point arguing that:

81

players can play to increase or to conserve their capital, their number of tokens. in
conformity with the tacit rules of the game and the prerequisites of the
reproduction of the game and its stakes; but they can also get in it to transform,
partially or completely, the immanent rules of the game. They can, for instance,
work to change the relative value of tokens of different colors, the exchange rate
between various species of capital, through strategies aimed at discrediting the
form of capital upon which the force of their opponents rests (e. g economic
capital) and to valorize the species of capital they preferentially possess
(“juridical capital”). (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992, p. 99)
Before further complicating the picture, I would like to ﬁrst start with a brief introduction
of the main sources of capital as identiﬁed in the literature. I will primarily focus on the
sociological literature, but will also introduce a few interesting applications of the term in
economics and political science as they have relevance to the New Jersey case that is the
focus of this chapter.
Economic Capital
It is widely agreed among sociologists and economists that economic capital is the
single most powerful asset that may yield the best opportunities for those who possess it.
Some, like Marx, went so far as to argue that economic capital (the means of production)
is the only factor that deﬁnes our social life, from arts to music, from politics to scientific
knowledge. According to Marx, society has been always divided along material lines:
those who possess the means of production versus those who lack them. From this
viewpoint, social structures and institutional arrangements (the bureaucratic apparatus of

the state, the judicial system, public education, religious. and marriage as any other social

82

arrangement) are all exploitative means aimed at legitimating the unequal division of
power in the eyes of the impoverished masses. In many ways, Marx‘s approach is the
mirror image of liberal economists (e.g., Smith, 1950) who have always put primary
emphasis on the monetary transactions of the homo economic-us. Weber (e. g., 1952) was
the ﬁrst to depart from this monolithic view, arguing for a more balanced approach, one
that fully acknowledges the pivotal position of monetary goods, while asserting that other
sources of power -- like status groups and political parties -- play an important role in
deﬁning the structures of social reality.

Bourdieu, working with the ideas and arguments offered by Marx, Weber. and
Durkheim, developed a conceptual understanding that took the macro theories ofhis
predecessors to the more micro level. in order to generate a practical line of research
using smaller units of analysis. These smaller units he called “social ﬁelds." In
Distinctions, Bourdieu (1984) argued that, in principal, the social space is occupied by
social agents — individuals, groups, and institutions — who possess (primarily) economic
and cultural capital. In his F arms of Capital, Bourdieu (l 986) provides perhaps his most
coherent and cogent discussion of the three fundamental types of capital he believed to be
instrumental in understanding the distribution of power in the social space and the ways
in which structures of power were reproduced in it. Bourdieu argued that:

Depending on the ﬁeld in which it functions, and at the cost of the more or less

expensive transformations which are the precondition for its efficacy in the field

in question, capital can present itselfin three fundamental guises; as economic

capital, which is immediately and directly convertible into money and may be

83

institutionalized in the form of property rights; as cultural capital; and as social

capital. (p. 243)

Bourdieu considered economic capital to be the most direct, effective, and
dominant form of capital. It could relatively easily be transformed into cultural and social
capital, both of which provide a more legitimate guise to the prestige and rights enjoyed
by the elite in a given ﬁeld. In some ﬁelds, like those involving business and trade.
economic capital clearly plays a dominant role in shaping the rules of the ﬁeld. The
criterion for success in these ﬁelds is the accumulation of material assets. Cultural capital
-- in the form of credentials and certain kind of educational preparation -- is usually
important at the entry level, but signiﬁcantly less so at the top executive level or for
major capitalist entrepreneurs who occupy the elite positions of the ﬁeld. Sam Walton,
who never went to college created the Wal-Mart Empire, which controls 2% of the US.
economy, is a good example. as is Bill Gates who may be the world’s richest college
dropout.

In other fields, however, success and power have been defined by a clear aversion
to monetary gains and popular success. Bourdieu was most interested in those ﬁelds,

(e. g., French poetry and arts) which sometimes seemed to establish themselves in
opposition to monetary proﬁts. Most ﬁelds, however, like the ﬁeld of educational policy,
which is the t0pic of this study, probably fall in the middle. Very little educational policy
can be proposed and implemented without ﬁnancial support. Thus the social agents who
can gamer and control the funds needed for a speciﬁc policy to take place will deﬁnitely
enjoy high degrees of power. However, as I argue below, social agents need other sources

of capital as well in order to be successful.

84

Social capital

Of the different types of capital discussed by social scientists, social capital seems
to have drawn the most attention, from sociologists in particular. Bourdieu (1986)
provided the ﬁrst contemporary deﬁnition to the term, one which is tightly aligned with
his broad political economic theory. Social capital, he argued, is:

the aggregate ofthe actual or potential resources which are linked to possessions

ofa durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual

acquaintance and recognition - or on other words. to membership in a group ,_

which provides, each of its members with the backing of the collectivity - owned

capital, a “credential” which entitles them to credit, in the various senses of the

word. (p. 248)
Like other forms of capital, social capital can be accumulated based on the size of social
networks and the agent’s capacity to effectively mobilize those networks. This capacity is
preconditioned by the agent’s own volume of cultural and economic capital and the
position that capital entitles him to in the social space. Outside of France, this aspect of
Bourdieu’s conception of social capital did not get much attention, which was
unfortunate. Portes (1998) noted that “this lack ofvisibility is lamentable because
Bourdieu’s analysis is arguably the most theoretically reﬁned among those that

introduced the term in contemporary sociological discourse” (p. 3).

In addition to being more conceptually complex than it is typically constructed,
Bourdieu’s deﬁnition of social capital is also noteworthy for its clarity and precision. For

Bourdieu, social capital consists of two major elements: ﬁrst, the relationship with others

85

that provides the access to resources held by them and second, the volume of those

resources (Portes, 1998).

This analytic distinction — between access to resources and the quality of those
resources -- is helpful, for it draws a delicate line between the potential gains that can be
achieved from a social relationship and the actual resources that eventually become the
outcome of this relationship.

For sociologists, social capital is primarily a resource that is located within the
social networks of individuals and groups. Political scientists adapted the concept to think
about larger groups like communities and states. In this context, social capital is a
resource that can be generated from positive characteristics that a state or community

possesses as a collective. The work of Putnam (1993) is the most notable in this area.
Putnam (1993) considered social capital to be “features of social organizations.
such as networks, norms, and trust, which facilitate action and cooperation for mutual
beneﬁt" (p. 35). Furthermore, he argued that a “healthy” and “productive” society needs a
Sense of togetherness and coherent community, where most members are active,
parti cipating, and trusting of both their networks and the government. When these

if e at ures of social capital are intact, the community is likely to reap other beneﬁts,

1 “C l uding economic growth and low rates of crimes.

Cultural Capital
Cultural capital holds a dominant place in Bourdieu’s sociology, where it usually
re re rs to the codes of behavior, normative practices, and speech and writing skills that are
leal‘t‘led throughout the life span of an individual in his or her family, community.

edu(:ational institutions. and relevant social circles (e.g., peer groups in school). Bourdieu

86

divided cultural capital into three states: I) embodied, 2) objectified, and 3)
institutionalized.
The embodied form ofcultural capital is very similar to the general definition I
propose above. This relates primarily to the practices. norms. and codes of behavior
that one experiences and assimilates throughout one’s life. Bourdieu elaborated:
"embodied capital [is] external wealth converted into an integral part ofthe person...
[which] cannot be transmitted instantaneously (unlike money, property rights, or even

titles of nobility) by gift or bequest, purchase or exchange” (Bourdieu. 1986, p. 244).

The long periods of preparation and investment in oneself make cultural capital
hard to imitate. That is, those who grow up in rich networks of individuals and
associations possess a capital not easily purchased by those who do not. This has been a

great source of concern for Bourdieu and many other sociologists of education, who
argue that these characteristics ofcultural capital might pose major unfair and unjustiﬁed
Obstacles for agents of disadvantaged groups who ﬁnd the main legitimate avenues for
SOC ial mobility blocked. For example, writing skills is a form of embodied capital
dcVeloped through years oftraining. as are skills of mingling and interacting with others.
netWorking, and public speaking. Those who do not have training at early ages

SOrTletimes ﬁnd these skills difﬁcult to acquire.

The objecti/ied form of cultural capital is deﬁned in relation to the prior form. It
Inc] udes objects like books, music, electronic/hi-tech equipment, and art. The legal
Ovvtletship of these objects does not necessarily mean that the agent who owns them has

the (embodied) cultural capital needed to consume them “properly.” Therefore Bourdieu

( l 986) argued that,

87

cultural goods can be appropriated both materially — which presupposes economic
capital — and symbolically — which presupposes cultural capital. . . . To possess the
machines, he [the agent] only needs economic capital; to appropriate them and use

them in accordance with their speciﬁc purpose . . . he must have access to embodied

cultural capital, either in person or by proxy. (p. 247)

Overall, cultural objects have a role in the symbolic presence of an agent and
allow him to optimize the power assets that may be associated with his position in the
social space. For example, having a real Picasso hanging in one’s office sends a
powerful message to those who come in. The message may suggest that they happen to
meet a person who has a good taste in art, appreciates esthetics, and is willing to invest in
it.

The institutionalized form of cultural capital mainly refers to the independent
power of credentials and academic certiﬁcates as objects of cultural capital that an agent
can possess:

with the academic qualiﬁcation, a certiﬁcate of cultural competence which confers on
its holder a conventional, constant, legally guaranteed value with respect to culture.
social alchemy produces a form of cultural capital which has a relative autonomy vis-
a-vis its bearer and even vis-a-vis the cultural capital he effectively possesses at a

given moment in time. (Bourdieu. 1986. p. 248)

F r(3m this perspective, academic credentials are important aspects ofcultural capital. one
that often takes a long-term investment, but provide -- in return -- enormous stature.

In sum, cultural capital is an agent’s capacity to translate and transform into actual

FOWer the long-term investment of the agent (and the agent’s family and friends) into

88

knowledge, norms, values. modes of behavior. and understandings that allow the agent
access to power and status.

I use this concept ofcultural capital below to show how it may have played a role
in the struggle over the alternate route by senior state ofﬁcials and educators, assuming
that the ﬁrst arguably possessed relatively more cultural capital than their counterparts in
the “education establishment." I return to that analysis shortly.

Bureaucratic Capital
Bureaucratic capital is different from the previous three. First. it relates only to
one agent — the state. Second, it is a unique consolidation of other forms of capital.
Bourdieu (1994) discussed this capital when he conceptualized the notion of the state:
”T he state is the culmination of a process of concentration of different species of capital:
capital of physical force or instruments of coercion (army, police), economic capital.
cultural or (better) informational capital, and symbolic capital” (p. 4). Given our interest
in the ﬁeld of education and the prior discussion of economic capital, it might be helpful
tO elaborate on informational and symbolic capital, while leaving aside the component of
Physical (which has less relevance to the case of the alternative route).

Informational capital refers mainly to the state’s obsession with the collection of
data and the use of data as a means of power and control. Large data sets of information
are used by the state to standardize, unify, and totalize arbitrarily a fragmented complex
SOC i a1 reality. Bourdieu (1994) argued that in:

Taking the vantage point of the Whole, of society in its totality, the state claims

responsibility for all operations of totalization (especially thanks to census taking

and statistics or national accounting) and of oh/ectivation. through cartography . .

89

. or more simply through writing as an instrument of accumulation of knowledge

(e.g., archives). (p. 7)

This state’s claim for “responsibility” is critical in understanding the special status
that the state enjoys. A state becomes not so much a social and political construction. but
ﬁrst and foremost, a geographic “fact” that consumes every aspect within its imagined
borders. Thus, often when the state tries to extend its control to other ﬁelds, it will use the
argument that doing so is simply its basic responsibility, common sense if you will.

The flip side of making a claim is accepting it. This brings me to the idea of
symbolic capital, which means “any property (any form of capital whether physical,
economic, cultural or social) when it is perceived by social agents endowed with
categories of perception which cause them to know it and to recognize it, to give it value"

(Bourdieu, 1994, p. 8). For example, when people buy a Rolex watch or any other
“valuable” commodity, they are making an intentional effort to persuade others to accept
them as members of a distinct group, an economic elite in this case. The same goes for

abstract concepts that are part of the bureaucratic jargon of state ofﬁcials. For instance,
the establishment ofa professional committee can be seen as an attempt to inscribe
authority into a policy proposal, making it look better in the eyes of the public,
“professional” so to speak. In both examples, the value of the watch or the policy is
dcitermined by the social agents who respond to it. They can endow the watch or the

po 1 i cy with low or high symbolic capital according to their “categories of perception . . .

9O

the product of the embodiment of divisions or of oppositions inscribed in the structure of

the distribution of this species of capital” (Bourdieu, 1994. p. 9).28
The state. according to Bourdieu, builds it power and control through getting

other social agents in the ﬁeld to endow it with high symbolic capital. The state is able to
do so because it “possesses the means of imposition and inculcation [through the
totalization of culture, language, etc.] of the durable principles of vision and division that
conform to its own structure, is the site par excellence of the concentration and exercise
of symbolic power” (p. 9).

While each of these forms of capital contributes to the state’s power, it is the
unique consolidation of capitals, according to Bourdieu (1994), which makes the state so
powerful vis-a-vis other social ﬁelds:

It is this concentration as such which constitutes the state as the holder ofa sort of

meta—capital granting power over other species of capital and over their holders.

Concentration of the different species of capital (which proceeds hand in hand

with the construction of the corresponding ﬁelds) leads indeed to the emergence

of a speciﬁc, properly statist capital (capital e‘tatique) which enables the state to
exercise power over the different ﬁelds and over the different particular species of
capital, and especially over the rates of conversion between them (and thereby

over the relations of force between their respective holders). (p. 4)

This discussion of Bourdieu, concerning the relationship between the modern

nati on state, its growing bureaucratic power and its power over society, is not new. In

Weber’s (1952) view, the bureaucratic apparatus of the modern state was invasive and

\

23
Bourdieu and Wacquant (1992) argue that a good example to symbolic capital can be found in the
Gloucept of honor as it was used in rural Algeria. See Bourdieu’s (I979) “The sense of honor," in Algeria

960.

91

powerful. Modern bureaucracies, according to Weber, gradually embraced instrumental
rationality (which is closely associated with the growth and acceptance of the scientific
project as a leading power in modern Western thought) and universalistic approaches as
practical tools for effective control of large populations. All the while, bureaucracy also
has positive features, including economic growth and increased efficiency in large scale
projects in unprecedented ways. This historical consolidation of power in the hands of
bureaucracies led Weber to conceptualize bureaucracy as an “iron cage,” which has been
responsible both for prosperity and the improved welfare of millions (by taking care of
acute problems like famine and disease), and for intensiﬁed control over all aspects of
individuals’ daily lives. Bourdieu, and in a more radical way, Foucault (1965), built on
Weber’s ideas when each highlighted the oppressive character of post-modern/post~
structural social environments. Bourdieu (1994) argued that the nation state had, over
time, developed sophisticated methods of control and intervention that threaten the
autonomy and viability of other ﬁelds. This argument is extremely relevant to our
discussion about the relationship of the state ofNew Jersey and the teacher education
fi e l d.
It is important to note here that the American concept ofa federation of states is
Very different from the uniﬁed nation state of France. The French central government
ho lds the authority over issues like education, which in the US. are dealt with across
1()Clal, regional, and federal levels. This also means that the concept of bureaucratic capital
in the US. needs to be conceptualized perhaps differently than the ways in which

B()urdieu used it to explain French society. Every state (in our case, New Jersey). for

92

example, has its own history and thus, as an agent, may hold different types and volumes
of capitals.
Negotiating the exchange value ofthe various capitals
Capital does not have an objective, stable value, which makes it independent of
time and speciﬁc social context, and allows easy transferability to other forms of capital.
Consider, for example, cultural capital in its art, craft, intellectual writing, taste, and
aesthetic forms. These forms of capital are all highly conditioned by the speciﬁcs of the
social context in which they are developed. So are some forms of human capital, like
professional knowledge and education. Economic capital (e. g., monetary resources) is the
most stable and transferable capital, but even economic capital has its limits (material
resources may enable the possessor to acquire a work of art, but are signiﬁcantly less
6 ffective in enabling the possessor have (or develop) the skill and craft to produce it
herself). Indeed, economic capital cannot be transferred into power without going
through some process of adaptation/conversion.29 This process is common because ﬁelds
tend to have their own power positions occupied by agents who operated in the ﬁeld for
years and are respected for their knowledge, experience, and connections. Moreover,
agents who operate in a ﬁeld develop interests, passions, and visions that make them all
an integral part of the ﬁeld. These agents have a vested interest in making sure their ﬁeld

thrives. These special characteristics are those that make social ﬁelds idiosyncratic and

\

29 Most relevant to demonstrating this point is the aversion and contempt that Bourdieu (1993) found in the
aVant-garde ﬁelds of art and literature to any form of popularity and monetary gains. Power and respect in
these ﬁelds were distributed to those who alienated themselves from the larger public. and communicated
through a set of perspectives that were shared by very few agents who held positions of power in the ﬁeld.
Bourdieu, nevertheless. points out that even in this ﬁeld, high stature of an agent usually reﬂected a
Concealed layer of economic capital, as those artists whose background was in bourgeois families were
more likely to follow this kind of impoverished life, because in many ways their families' economic capital
“enabled” them to do so.

93

relatively autonomous, which mean that their elites (orthodoxies) are hard to replace or
overthrow.

So for those who try to occupy the positions of power or at least create changes in
power in a field, simply trying to accumulate more of the same kind of capital currently
in use by those in power does not usually prove beneﬁcial. Instead, according to
Bourdieu (2005), agents who challenge the status quo (heterodoxy) usually try to develop
strategies that undermine the legitimacy of the orthodoxy, in large part by criticizing the

validity of its capital. Simultaneously, the heterodoxy also praises the special value of
alternative forms of capital that they consider legitimate alternatives.30
Method

The purpose of this analysis is to examine the ways in which capital was used. by
both the orthodoxy and heterodoxy in the social ﬁeld of educational policy in New Jersey
through attempts to install or resist an alternative route to teaching and an undergraduate
teacher preparation reform. Thus, I chose to collect data that reflected the positions that
Were held by the different groups in the struggle.

Data collection

This research is based on data that were collected from New Jersey state archives.
Several semi-structured interviews with key participants in the ﬁeld of educational policy,
and research documents published by teacher educators of New Jersey.

In my archival search, I reviewed approximately 75,000 pages of ﬁles concerning
education from the governor’s ofﬁce. the special assistant of education. the policy

director, and the governor’s chief of staff ; the ﬁles concerning alternate route to teacher

‘

30 Many times the heterodoxy tries to present its capital and arguments as those which truly represent the
core ideas of the ﬁeld’s glorious times in the past, before it was taken over by the current orthodoxy. This is
also a common revisited theme in the history of struggles over education reform (Tyack & Cuban. I996).

94

certiﬁcation and the undergraduate teacher education reform were of particular interest to
me. Documents included policy proposals, meeting memos, and internal correspondence.
They documented the policy-making process from its inception (as a one sentence note
from the chief of staff to the governor), going through the ﬁrst drafts of the alternate
route policy, the committee’s work and recommendations, meetings and correspondence
regarding the struggle, numerous announcements to the media, and -- at last -- the policy
as it was approved by the state board of education.

I conducted several semi-structured interviews to clarify details and issues
concerning the perspectives that different groups have advocated during the struggle.
Among those I interviewed were the NJ EA President, Edithe Fulton, a professor at
Rutgers University, Kenneth Carlson (a leading ﬁgure among the teacher educators of
New Jersey), and Governor Kean’s education speech writer, Chris Riemann.

Last. I reviewed research that was written about the creation of the program, as
well as several manuscripts and documents that were written by teacher educators and
reflected their perspective of the policies.

Data analysis

I began by immersing myself in the data, familiarizing myselfwith what was
there. In the back ofmy mind, I intended to focus the analysis on three forms of capitals
-- economic, social, and cultural -- which Bourdieu ( 1986) deﬁned as the most
comprehensive and important in his seminal The Forms of Capital. Then I added a fourth
form, bureaucratic, which drew substantially on Bourdieu’s (1994) work on the genesis
of the bureaucratic ﬁeld. After I had a clear picture on the content of my data. I went back

to the data and tried to sort it conceptually in terms of these four notions of capital. I

95

used the various sources of data to clarify questions: Who were the main players
involved in the policy-making process? What issues were raised in the discussions over
the policies and how were they related to the different forms of capital? How did these
policies evolve over time? How could the four forms of capital explain their ﬁnal shape?
The narratives compiled from the different sources were then used to shed light on the
distribution of capital among the various agents of the ﬁeld.

The “results” of this analysis do not take the form of a traditional empirical
analysis in social science, but are much more like a historical analysis in which I use both
evidence that I found in the archives, the interviews that I conducted. and other
scholarship on education politics, politics in New Jersey, and teacher education in order
to ﬂesh out an argument about the different forms of capital used by the various agents
during this battle.

Capital, Power and the Struggle over Teacher Certification

In order to better understand power struggles between social agents, one has to
focus on the forms of capital that are possessed and activated by the social agents who
occupy the positions of power in the ﬁeld, the orthodoxy, vis-a-vis the capital that is
owned and used by their challengers, the heterodoxy (Bourdieu, 2005). Thus, when those
two groups collide, part of their struggle is over what capital matters. I propose then to
understand the debate over teacher alternate route and the teacher preparation reform in
New Jersey as one that was infonned primarily by the types and volume of capital that
were held by the agents in the ﬁeld of educational policy.

One major strategy used by state ofﬁcials as they attempted to overthrow the

orthodoxy was to devalue the special capital possessed by teacher educators, which

96

consisted mainly of the “scientiﬁc/academic” knowledge of teaching that prospective
teachers were expected to acquire in teacher education programs, which included both
pedagogical knowledge and knowledge of educational foundations. Instead, state officials
proposed an alternative model for teacher preparation and recruitment that built on ideas
of Bestor (1953) and Koemer (1963) concerning the—importance of broad liberal
education and speciﬁc disciplinary background for the preparation of teachers
(Cooperman & Klagholz, 1985). But how was the state to become an active agent in the
teacher education field — using old ideas (from the 19505 and 19605) -- after years of
looking on from the sidelines?

To answer this question -- and the more general question from which it emerged
(How do social agents achieve capital and/or transform its value (“rate of exchange”) to
gain power and legitimacy that enable them to shape educational policy?) — I will use the
theoretical modeling of four major forms of capital, demonstrating how those forms of
capital were employed by the social agents to establish power and legitimacy in the ﬁeld
of educational policy. After considering each form of capital alone, I conclude with a
discussion showing how the various forms of capital interacted in terms of their relative
value; this will provide a more holistic picture of the struggle.

Who Makes More Money? Economic Capital and Education Reform

Economic capital is the most powerful and effective capital (Bourdieu, 1986;

Swartz 1997). Nevertheless, in most ﬁelds, the social transactions of economic capital are

camouﬂaged by sophisticated cultural practices.3 ’ This is probably also true in the case

 

 

3’ Bourdieu (1979) ﬁrst studied this issue in his ethnographic work on gift exchange practices in Algeria.
He showed how gift exchanges were used to as a cultural ceremony that reflected economic hierarchies
among social agents (agents who possessed high economic wealth provided generous gifts in exchange for
social recognition in their position).

97

of the struggle over educational policy in New Jersey. In other words, economic capital
had an important impact -- behind the scenes -- by providing the state agents with the
resources to build a counter argument to the cultural capital that was used by teacher
educators.

F irst, as already mentioned, it was only in 1968 that the first general substantial
state tax was introduced in New Jersey. According to Salmore and Salmore (1993). “by
the mid-19503, 31 states had a state income tax, 33 states had a general state tax, and only
three — including New Jersey — had neither” (p. 244). A more detailed account ofNew
Jersey’s tax revenue system reveals that, during the period of 1962 to 1987, local
govemments' tax revenues in New Jersey fell by half, while state revenues doubled (p.
248). Thus, during the 19705, the state signiﬁcantly increased its economic resources.
This is illuminating, especially when considering Bourdieu’s (1994) discussion of the rise
of the state and the bureaucratic capital in which he argued that the European nation-state
evolved as a power in accordance to its capacity to collect tax from a certain populace
(the citizens). When most tax is collected and spent at the local level, as has been the case
of New Jersey before the 19705, the central government had very limited tools to assert
its power vis-a-vis other social agents.

When Governor Kean was elected in 1981, substantial tax revenues were ﬂowing
in. During his two terms in office, this revenue stream increased to a record high, as New
Jersey’s economy was booming (Kean, 1988). What to do with all that revenue? One area
where Kean decided to invest this economic capital was in public education. The focus
Was on reframing discussions concerning teacher quality by proposing and implementing

new policies that would be backed by state funds. For instance. the decision to establish

98

regional state-sponsored centers to induct new alternate route teachers, as the new policy
of alternate route required, needed substantial ﬁnancial backup. Moreover, the whole
state agenda of the alternate route for teacher certiﬁcation can be understood from this
perspective as a monetary investment in (a) collecting data (through initiatives of the
Department of Education), and (b) establishing alternative infrastructure to support a new
approach for teacher preparation. In sum, the state used its economic capital to directly
create and support the program ﬁnancially.

On a different level, the state (like any other agent) invested economic capital to
lobby and promote its policy proposals. Indeed, state ofﬁcials (the governor, high ranking
Department of Education ofﬁcials) traveled across the state giving hundreds of talks
emphasizing the importance of reforming teacher certiﬁcation, one that would improve
the quality of the profession from within and open it to young talented adults from other
professions (Kean, 1988). These efforts intended to mobilize political support for these
educational reforms. One of the governor’s assistants characterized the executive branch
as one that put enormous emphasis on informing the public. To this end, several state
employees spent all of their time writing talks for the governor. In addition, these
assistants were sometimes writing responses and articles in the name of the governor to
local and national media (Riemann, 2006). While for some readers this may well sound
like the ordinary work that governments should do, it should also be acknowledged that
the time and work invested by state ofﬁcials in building the capacity and carrying out the
actions in support of their policy agenda cost money and was. therefore, dependent on

economic capital.

99

Opponents of the reform included the NJ EA, which had enjoyed the support of
most New Jersey teachers and was considered, for years, to be one of the most powerful
political actors in the state (Salmore & Salmore, 1992). During the 19805, the union
experienced some decline in power, but continued to be considered a prominent agent in
the ﬁeld of educational policy, as articulated in the caricature below. One source of the
NJ EA’s power was the union’s membership dues, which helped establish substantial
economic capital for the union. At ﬁrst, the NJEA leaders perceived the alternate route
proposal as an attack on the profession, since they feared it would create an oversupply of
teachers that would drive down the salary level and occupational prestige of teachers. To
communicate their concerns to the large public, union leaders put paid advertisements in
the media (e. g., Fulton, 1983), supporting the current system of teacher preparation,
proposing a substantial salary raise for teachers as a way for attracting young bright

students into the profession, and attacking the states ”irresponsible” actions.

100

‘- ‘Flrsr of all let’s find out [who ’3 BOSSI'

- —‘ .. -~ In“:

; - \ﬁ- F_V_

\ . TopAv's 4:550“,
‘ TEWNTROL
-(uRRIcuLu~\

‘ TESTS
‘ JOBS -
- Cth‘ SIZE

 

 

 

 

Figure 3.1 Caricature ofthe NJEA. Newark Star-Ledger. (June 15. 1983)

According to Carlson (1990), it was also economic capital -- the state offered the
NJ EA a large stake in the operation (and revenues) ofthe alternate route training centers -
- that convinced the NJEA to cease its criticism and start to support the policy. Ifthat is
true,32 this might teach us that social agents are sometimes willing to lose on one front in
exchange for winning in another.

Other opponents to the alternate route and undergraduate teacher preparation
reforms were teacher educators and the union that organized most of them. New Jersey

Federation of Teachers (NJ FT). For teacher educators, the two proposed policies were a

 

32 . .
l Was not able to ﬁnd any other sources that were able support this claim.

101

direct attack on their cultural (their knowledge of how to prepare teachers) and economic
(employment prospects as university faculty) capital. Indeed, there were other agents
supporting these reforms for the very same reasons. Top state officials like the chancellor
ofhigher education and university presidents thought that there were too many teacher
educators in the system and were looking to use the diminishing demand for education
courses (recall the cap that was put on the number of education courses allowed to be
taken by students aspiring to become teachers as part of the new alternate route
regulation) as an excuse to close down Departments of Educations, wipe out faculty
positions in education, and transfer those lines to more prestigious and proﬁtable fields
like engineering, computer sciences (Carlson, 1985; 1990).

Teacher educators, who had a clear interest in stopping these proposals, did not
possess sufﬁcient economic capital to back their resistance. The NJFT was a very small
organization with no capacity to fund a large, visible public campaign in support of the
status quo. Other organizations. like the American Association of Colleges of Teacher
Education (AACTE). offered small monetary support to organize a call in support of the
resistance of New Jersey’s teacher educators to the state’s initiatives. As a result, teacher
educators were unorganized and unfunded , which compromised their capacity to be
heard or listened to (Carlson, 1985; 1990).

Who Has More Connections? Social Capital and Education Reform

Social capital can be an important asset in political processes like educational
policy-making. When social agents (either individuals or groups) value and trust each
other, their relationships can be beneﬁcial for both sides. Coleman (1988) argued this

point with the example of the Jewish community of diamond dealers in New York. This

102

community, he suggested, is a close collective of members who use their trust in each
other and the fear from severe sanctions (in case of deviance) as a catalyst for developing
effective business ties. The closest concept that may demonstrate, more or less. this
principle in politics is the idea of a coalition. Coalitions can be built on shared. short- or
long-term interests, and sometimes -- if two agents also trust each other -- their
partnership can become even more beneﬁcial, optimizing their capacity to hold power.
The same notion, however, goes the other way around: if agents cannot agree on shared
interests and do not trust each other, their chances to build a beneficial
partnership/coalition are low and the potential for rewards in terms of power are minimal.
In other words, while it is important to analyze instances where social capital helps
agents gain power. it is also revealing to understand situations in which the potential for
power is not realized.

This last notion is helpful in conceptualizing the relationships among the social
agents of the teacher education establishment in New Jersey (the loosely coupled alliance
of teacher unions, educational administrators, and teacher educators that constituted the
orthodoxy of the ﬁeld for many years). Indeed, the state initiative that proposed the
alternate route and teacher preparation reforms demonstrated how fragile that alliance or
orthodoxy was in New Jersey. When the state challenge was posed, every social agent in
the orthodoxy tried to ﬁnd the best way to preserve his or her power, independent from
the coalition that he or her was part of. The NJ EA, which opposed the reforms at the
beginning, changed its mind and supported the plan after realizing that the reforms would
not be all that harmful. The governor’s support of a minimum salary for teachers. and a

possible agreement on rewards for the teacher union should it support the reforms.

103

probably acted as an incentive for the NJ EA to withdraw from the struggle (Carlson.
1990; 2004). The educational administrators supported the state reforms as well. They did
not see the state policies as a threat, but rather as a vehicle that would help them achieve
more ﬂexibility and control in the teacher recruitment process (Carlson, 1985). On the
other side of the aisle, the NJ FT and the teacher educators were left alone without much
economic or social capital.

This stream of events is not surprising. The teacher education establishment was
never really successful in consolidating a classic profession, like in medicine or law. The
most notable attempt to achieve this goal was during the l950s and 19605 when teacher
educators and teachers worked together to develop an inclusive and cohesive professional
network through the National Commission on Teacher Education and Professional
Standards (TEPS) and the establishment of the National Council for the Accreditation of
Teacher Education (NCATE). But even this attempt, as Angus (2001) noted, never
matured into a teaching profession. In light of the potential beneﬁts (in terms of power)
that are associated with social capital, the struggle over educational policy in New Jersey
resonates with the historical pattern of chronic fragmentation among the teacher
education establishment, a pattern that has led to a loss of social capital which, in turn,
made teacher educators more vulnerable to challenges of agents like the state.33 Later.
the same fragmentation allowed the state to propose and implement an alternate route for
educational administrators as well (Carlson, 2004). This time, not surprisingly, the
educational administrators stood alone trying to make their case against the reform, but

failed to do so. One might imagine, in the tradition of the objective possibilities raised by

 

’3 It is important to note here that this is a conceptual analysis of the findings. not a normative judgment or
suggestion of the author.

104

Max Weber that a coherent alliance between the social agents of the orthodoxy could
change of the ﬁeld’s development. It is feasible that a coherent alliance among the agents
would yield substantial social capital, which could have been used to resist the state’s
intervention or — at the very least -- block some parts of it.

Who Knows Better? Cultural Capital and Education Re/brm

Cultural capital played a significant role in the struggle of state ofﬁcials and
teacher educators over the alternate route and the refonn of undergraduate teacher
preparation. Here I consider the differences in the volume of cultural capital that was
possessed by the two groups, state officials and teacher educators.”

Social agents in the ﬁeld of education are endowed with different volumes of
cultural capital (in this part I will refer mainly to embodied and institutionalized cultural
capital). Prior to the 19805, teacher preparation and certiﬁcation were primarily under the
responsibility of teacher educators. Although holding the formal responsibility, the state
rarely interfered with teacher educators and their work. During the 19803, this balance
was interrupted as state ofﬁcials started to claim a say. But how were they able to do
that?

One crucial component in the state ofﬁcials’ claim for power was based on the
premise that they identiﬁed themselves as educators, not simply as people who cared
about education. The three major ﬁgures that led the state initiatives in teacher
preparation and certiﬁcation reform, Governor Kean, Commissioner of Cooperman. and
the Director of Teacher Certiﬁcation Klagholz, were teachers, and had been graduate

students of education (Klagholz even served as a distinguished professor of education

 

34 As I have indicated above, most ofthe actual ﬁght over the policies that are the subject ofthis study was
limited to teacher educators and state ofﬁcials. Therefore, here I focus on these two groups.

105

after leaving the commissioner’s office). However, their professional trajectories never
positioned them in the mainstream of the teacher education establishment. Much of that
can be explained by their embodied and institutionalized cultural capital.

Consider Governor Kean, who taught for several years in the same private
boarding school that his father attended and where he spent six years from the age of 12.
A Princeton graduate and a son of a wealthy US. Congressman, Kean left his teaching
position to work on his Ph.D. at Teachers College, Columbia University. He did not
complete his studies and went on into politics. For a while, he owned a real-estate
business, but his political instincts drew him into the political arena of New Jersey where
he became an active legislator and the governor who was elected with the smallest
margin in the history ofNew Jersey. As what would be called today a moderate
Republican Kean believed

in limited government and a reverence for ﬁscal discipline. [He believed that] the

private sector, in almost every instance, can do things better than the public

sector... [And] in general, [his] political philosophy is that government ought to

stay out of people’s lives as much as possible. (Kean, 1988, p. 40)

Talk about small public bureaucracies and support of privatization never settled
well with the teacher education establishment (teacher unions, teacher educators. and
educational administrators). Indeed, ideas like these were seen as radical and dangerous.
Kean, however, did not fall into the trap of positioning himself against the teacher
education establishment. Instead he kept reminding everyone ofhis own background as

an educator:

106

I have been part of the reform movement, viewing the problems as a member of
the most distinguished policy commissions, and getting another perspective in
countless hours spent with teachers and students. Because ofmy background as a
teacher, I had thought about education for twenty years before I became governor.

So when I assumed ofﬁce, the issue naturally became my top priority. (Kean.

I988,p.209)

Although being governor positioned him well to push the reforms, it was not
enough. It is rather the claim, I argue, of being part of the ﬁeld and having a stake in it
that provided Kean the motivation and legitimacy that were needed in order to embark on
his struggle to re-shape public education, for his background meant that Kean had certain
embodied and institutionalized cultural capital. Without that capital, Kean might have
been dismissed by the teacher unions and teacher educators and remained an insigniﬁcant
challenger to the orthodoxy. His distinguished family, his wealth, his elite education in a
small boarding school, and his academic credentials from a top Ivy League school (not to
mention the Ivy League school in New Jersey) made Kean a tough competitor. This
meant that the orthodoxy had to face somebody from its own ﬁeld who was raised and
socialized in a way that endowed him with the highest embodied and institutionalized
cultural capital. The elite boarding school was tough:

all of us lived in spartan manner. Boys lived in alcoves, which consisted of

basically two walls, one bureau, and a bed... This was our world. Three years

passed before I was allowed to leave school for a weekend. Discipline was
strict... Seniority was a large part of the St. Mark’s tradition... The curriculum

was grounded in the classics. Three or four years of Latin and French were

107

required... Study halls were mandatory during any free period and from 5:00 to

6:00 and 7:00 to 9:15 at night. During study hall, you sat at your desk under the

watchful eye of a member of the faculty and did your homework. Daydreaming

was a disciplinary offence. (Kean, 1988, p. 210-212)

As a result, the ideas, perspectives, and standards that Kean embraced were
different from those held by the teacher education establishment. Kean’s description of
his term as the chairman of the assembly’s education committee reveals much of this
disjuncture between the governor and the establishment:

educators were calling for a move a way from the basic curriculum and for new

programs to allow students to realize what was regarded as more of their innate

creativity. “Access” and “equality” were the big words, as colleges and
universities lowered standards to allow in more students. High school students
were given almost unlimited choice in curriculum, which naturally included frill
courses. Homework assignments became less frequent. And in some schools.

walls between classrooms were torn down, to create what was thought to be a

more open and relaxed learning environment. It was a time of grand and good

intentions and big mistakes...

By 1981 [he concludes] disillusionment with the schools was
widespread... Our country had made great progress politically, economically. and
technologically. The suggestion that education, the underpinning of all of the
improvement, had gone backwards really made me wonder how long the advance

in other areas could continue. (p. 216)

108

Kean’s criticism and resistance to the progressive tide of the 19603, which, in his
mind, led New Jersey’s schools backwards, were ultimately reflected in his reform
agenda. which was shaped along his embodied and institutionalized cultural capital.

The govemor’s plans to reform the undergraduate teacher preparation programs
and set up a state sponsored alternate route caught teacher educators by surprise (C arlson.
1990). Teacher educators were not used to acting collectively and had no serious
organization that would support any collective operation in their part. Nevertheless. their
fundamental problem was the relatively low cultural capital that they possessed. Since
they themselves did not have a strong, public leader, I will dedicate this part ofthe
discussion to focus on their institutionalized cultural capital as a group.

Teacher educators were able to maintain control over teacher preparation and
certification for years because they were able to claim they had the knowledge to do that
and were not faced by any serious organized opposition. Historically. this “professional”
knowledge had shielded them during the 19503 and 19603 when they were criticized by
serious academics like Bestor (1953) or Conant (1963) and during the public outcry after
the launch of the Sputnik.35 However, twenty years later in New Jersey, this very
professional knowledge, what Bourdieu would call embodied cultural capital and
economists, like Becker and Schulz would call “human capital,” was seriously challenged
by state ofﬁcials. Teacher educators understood this point, as one of their proponents.
llendrik Gideonse (1984), former president ofthe AACTE, articulated well in a detailed

testimony before the New Jersey State Board of Education: “in a curious way. the very

 

"5 By shielding, I mean that teacher educators were able to maintain their relative autonomy compared to
the developments during the 19803, which are discussed here. This does not mean that 1 am not aware to
the fact that teacher education -- compared to other academic units in higher education -- was always
considered a relatively subordinated discipline that was subjected to various demands put by state
departments of education (e.g., Goodlad. 1990).

109

concept of expertise and the way in which it is held is a fundamental issue in the policy
debate now unfolding” (p. 2). This understanding, however, came too late in the process,
considering the fact that cultural capital (embodied and institutionalized)36 is obtained
over long periods of time. As a result, teacher educators were forced to play with the
cultural capital that they already had (which had served them satisfactorily along the
years). But what was the existing cultural capital held by teacher educators and how did it
compare to that of individuals with elite backgrounds like that of Kean?
David Labaree’s work, The Trouble with Ed Schools. is very helpful in clarifying
the larger context of this issue. In his introduction Labaree (2004) argues that
Institutionally, the ed school is the Rodney Dangerfield of the higher education: it
don’t get no respect. The ed school is the butt of jokes in the university, where
professors portray it as an intellectual wasteland; it is the object of scorn in
schools, where teachers decry its programs as impractical and its research as
irrelevant; and it is a convenient scapegoat in the world of educational policy.
where policymakers portray it as a root cause of bad teaching and learning. Even
ed school professors and students express embarrassment about their association
with it. For academics and the general public alike, ed school bashing has long
been a pleasant pastime. It is so much a part of ordinary conversation that, like
talking about the weather. you can bring it up anywhere without fear that you will
offend anyone. (p. 2)
In other words, not only did education schools and their professors occupy the

lowest position in the academic hierarchy in the eyes of outsiders, but even most teacher

 

3" The third. objectiﬁed. is related directly to the availability of at least economic resources, which were

also not an option for teacher educators in New Jersey.

110

educators had accepted this premise as a sad truth. There are a few common explanations
given: 1) the background of teacher educators and their students (Lanier with Little,
1986), 2) the non-academic nature of their work and their poor research capacity
(Labaree, 2004; Lanier with Little, 1986), and 3) teacher educators’ ideological
dogmatism and refusal to accept criticism (e.g., Conant 1963; Hirsch 1996; Ravitch 2000;
Tamir & Wilson 2005). These three elements work separately and together, constructing
teacher educators a3 a unique breed among academics with inferior cultural capital in the
institutional context of the academia. Let us consider each of these elements brieﬂy.

Lanier and Little (1986) illuminate the ﬁrst point. Research ﬁndings, they argue.
have suggested that teacher educators are likely to be men from low socio-economic
background, who join the university ranks after holding a faculty position as K-12
teachers, who have earned their Ph.D. at a relatively short period of time while keeping
their full time job.37

Teacher educators are also known for their non-academic nature of work and poor
research capacity. Part of this problem is associated with the ﬁrst element, namely the
kind of graduate students who populate schools of educations and the kind of programs
that host them. These graduate students, most of them former teachers, are used to
generating their understandings and knowledge through their work with small groups of
students. The concept of“3cientiﬁc” research demands the opposite of what their
professional identity became used to. As teachers, they cared for students, monitored and
evaluated their development, and tried to respond to the needs of each child. The

professional culture of universities is different, demanding a signiﬁcant change and focus

 

“’7 While the ﬁndings of this review may not accurately represent the demographics of the ﬁeld today. they
are well suited to describe the reality of the 19803, which is exactly the time when the struggle in New
Jersey took place.

111

on empirical work backed by theory that lead to generalizations. That kind of work can
not be achieved without having a serious preparation that consists of research method
training and broad disciplinary background. Since this has been rarely the case even in
the best schools of education, educational research is not considered vigorous and
continues to suffer from a low status (Labaree, 2004).

Another aspect that plays a role in the nonacademic nature of work and research
conducted by teacher educators is associated with the built in tension that exist in every
academic profession between the demand to do practical, down-to—earth research that will
inform practitioners and a more traditional and theoretical approach to research that will
produce better understandings of the problems and realities faced by the ﬁeld, but does
not necessarily hold any clear practical beneﬁts for practitioners (Labaree. 2004)."8 In
addition, teacher educators are also expected and pressed to provide service to their field.
This kind of practical service, whether it is close mentoring of interns or other time spent
in K-12 schools that is intended to support practitioners’ work, stands in stark contrast to
the work of traditional academics in the liberal arts and natural sciences who rarely. if
ever, spend their professional time in the ﬁeld.

Many have written about the tendency of teacher educators to think of their
pedagogical knowledge as a closed “thought world,” a sort of a stable unchallenged and
irrefutable truth, an ideology (Hirsch, 1996; Ravitch, 2000). Instead of valuing internal

and external criticism and diversity of opinions. teacher educators seek to maintain an

 

"8 The same tension exists. for example. in the medical profession. where doctors (who hold the MD.
degree) can be successful practitioners, but ifthey want to move into the scientiﬁc arena. need to work on
their research methods and completely change the ways in which they used to acquire their understandings.
The history of higher education is full of stories of disciplinary departments in which the scholars have. as
Cuban (XXXX) writes, “trumped” the teachers. Psychology departments are no longer unilaterally
interested in having practicing clinicians on the faculty. for instance.

112

internal consensus that closes ranks and silences criticism.39 And then, if one still dares
to disagree with the establishment, one can expect to be condemned and portrayed as one
who does not care about the future of America’s children. This approach is seen, by
others in academia or others who have a stake in the ﬁeld of education but do not belong
to its orthodoxy, as immature, unprofessional, and suspicious, something that one would
not expect to see in a university environment (e.g. Bestor, 1953; Conant, 1963; Koemer.
1963; Ravitch, 2000).

All together, teacher educators on average come from working class families. they
are relatively unprepared to conduct high quality research, and they refuse to consider
criticism on their knowledge and practice. As a result, the teacher education
establishment has low cultural capital, for it does not demonstrate the embodied
dispositions of the cultural or intellectual elite.

To conclude, I would like to use one important ﬁnding by Lanier and Little
(1986) that takes all the three elements and argues there is a correlation between cultural
background (which is very similar to our cultural capital) and the likelihood of working
with theoretical concepts vs. applied work. and being creative vs. locked in an
indoctrinaire state of mind:

Drawing upon related work showing a disproportionate representation ofmiddle

and upper middle classes in particular academic ﬁelds, these researchers’

theoretical basis is tied to cultural background. Supposedly, middle- and upper-
class backgrounds emphasize an intellectual atmosphere, emotional control,

functional organization of concepts in thinking. use of fantasy in problem solving.

 

’9 For an example along these lines that is aimed at the teacher education establishment (where teacher
educators hold an important part) see Tamir and Wilson’s (2005) response to Wise (2005).

113

and a lack of indoctrination in cultural concepts. Using this theoretical perspective

and their own ﬁndings, Prichard and his colleagues [1971] argue that these

cultural characteristics ‘contribute to the making of research oriented people.’ and

‘just as the opposite occurs of incumbents in such applied areas as college

teaching of education where conative-affective models of behavior are of value’

(p. 224). (Lanier with Little, 1986, p. 532)

The low cultural status of teacher educators in academia has remained a constant
obstacle in their attempts to claim a professional authority, which they failed to achieve
time and time again (Labaree, 2004). In their ﬁeld vis-a-vis teachers and educational
administrators, their status remained relatively high, although teachers always
complained about the irrelevancy of teacher education courses and scholarship. Thus. as
long as the ﬁeld of education consisted mainly of the latter agents, the jurisdiction of
teacher educators remained unchallenged.

Things started to change only when a new powerful agent entered the field. In the
case of New Jersey, this agent was the state led by a governor that claimed he had a stake
in the ﬁeld of education (a situation that rarely if ever happened in the US. prior to the
tenure of Governor Kean). Further, the governor enjoyed a relatively high volume of
cultural capital compared to that held by teacher educators; this meant that he could argue
authoritatively that the professional knowledge of teacher educators regarding issues of
certiﬁcation and preparation should be subject to serious consideration and revision.

All the while, the governor and his commissioner of education were cautious not
to appear as acting in an unprofessional way. They established two major professional

committees to study the issues and recommend for ways to establish a more effective and

114

high quality teacher preparation system. These recommendations that were used as the
platform for the reform were portrayed by state ofﬁcials as uninterested, objective, and
professional, raised and endorsed by the best minds of the nation (e.g., Cooperman, 1984;
Klagholz, 1984). This strategy added considerable weight and authority to the cultural
capital that the state already had. For the capacity of the state to rely not only on its own
cultural capital, but also on that of respected scholars added substantially to the overall
stature of the policies proposed by the state (I elaborate this point further in the following
section).

Teacher educators in New Jersey tried to resist the state’s intervention. First, they
tried to organize and respond through their major union, the NJ FT, and through their
professional associations, New Jersey Association of Colleges for Teacher Education
(NJACTE), and AACTE (Carlson, 1990; Klagholz, 2000). They also tried to approach
their universities and colleagues hoping to receive their support, which -- if not driven by
a sense of collegiality —- would grow out of a concern from a potential similar overriding
of academic freedom by the state that may occur to them in the future. For example, in a
letter to Chancellor Hollander, the state’s highest ofﬁcer of higher education, Carlson
(1983), the associate dean of Rutgers School of Education and a prominent voice among
teacher educators who sought to block the state initiative, wrote relatively early in the
process to warn the Chancellor of the “anti-intellectual” nature and “disingenuity” of the
policy. Carlson (2004) himself admitted later that these attempts were not successful vis-
a-vis the state machinery. In public, senior higher education ofﬁcials paid lip service to
the notion of academic freedom, saying that changes in the curriculum of teacher

education training programs should be decided by the university (and under the higher

115

education department mandate) and that proposed centers for the training of alternate
route teachers should be maintained by university faculty.’ All the while, in private,
higher education ofﬁcials supported the reform, because they were looking to replace
unneeded education professors with faculty in high demand areas. This fact was revealed
in a bitter letter sent by Commissioner Cooperman (1984) to Chancellor Hollander,
where Cooperman expressed his disappointment with the Chancellor’s disingenuousness:

In our discussions with you [Hollander] and your staff, other issues have

consistently came up which do not relate to certiﬁcation. For example, over and

over again you have described the problem of the number of tenured faculty
members in education programs which have low enrollments. These faculty
members, you have said, tie up the resources of the college without generating
tuition revenues and therefore prevent the institutions from hiring new faculty in

‘growth’ areas. (p. 12)

Though these thoughts and plans of the higher education department never went
public, one may suspect that they probably relied on some support of university
professors from other disciplines who were not concerned about the fate of their
disdained colleagues. The failure of teacher educators to mobilize support from the
higher education community (their biggest potential source of social and cultural capital)
has been one of their great losses. If they could have won the support of other professors
(who, on average, held more cultural capital), everything might have looked different for

them.40

 

’0 Here I do not mean to imply that teacher educators are the only low status segment in academia. They are

certainly joined by other faculty like those from nursing and social work. The faculty in these semi-
professions has always enjoyed lower status compared to their colleagues in the ﬁelds of mathematics,
science, or philosophy.

116

In professional circles of teacher educators, the alternate route proposal was
condemned by the AACTE in the organization’s professional journal, Journal of Teacher
Education (1984). Nationally prominent ﬁgures in the teacher education establishment
like Gideonse (1984) publicly condemned the plan and actively participated in the
struggle against it. A group of teacher educators from Rutgers Graduate School of
Education compiled and published a detailed document, titled An Analysis of the
Proposal by the New Jersey Education Department for an Alternative Route to Teacher
Certiﬁcation, in which they laid out a detailed analysis of the potential pitfalls of the
state’s plan (Carlson et. al., 1983). Teacher educators tried desperately to block the
reform also by appealing to the public at large through columns that they sent to New
Jersey’s prominent newspaper, the Newark Star-Ledger.4| While these attempts were
important, they provided “more of the same,” that is, they reiterated and emphasized the
negative portrayal of teacher educators a3 a small interest group trying to defend its turf
vis-a-vis the altruistic, even if to some extent uninfonned, attempt of the state to improve
teacher’s quality. Teacher educators were not willing or able to introduce anything new
that would challenge the legitimacy of the new cultural capital that supported the state
proposals, and thus were not able to relatively elevate and strengthen their own lowly
cultural capital.

Who Consolidates Different Forms of Capital? The Establishment of Bureaucratic
Capital in New Jersey '3 Field of Educational Policy

As I have noted earlier. the ﬁeld of education in the US. and New Jersey in
particular has not been controlled historically by the state, as has been the case for

Europe. Over the years, however. much has been changed, as state officials have come to

 

" See for example. the columns of Carlson (1985) and. Soyka (1985).

117

take a greater role especially in the regulation of teacher certification. Angus (2001)
describes this as a move that was largely initiated and supported by educators who
wanted to prevent local nepotism and increase their overall stature. The winners of this
struggle were teachers, teacher educators, and the state. The losers were local ofﬁcials
and administrators.

Along the same lines. the struggle over teacher education certification and
preparation of the 19803 should be understood as a struggle over control and power
between the state, teachers, and teacher educators. The relatively light grip of the state of
New Jersey on education and the relatively high autonomy of teacher educators meant
that, in order to create a change, the state needed to consolidate a fair amount of capital to
tip the scale in its favor. So far, we have seen how the state as an actor was able to do so
in terms of economic and cultural capital (while, less so in terms of social capital) vis-a-

vis the other agents. The bureaucratic capital of the state that, in our case, consists of the
consolidation of economic and symbolic capital (as well as other less signiﬁcant forms of
capital) adds another important component to the formula. Moreover, particularly in the
context of educational policy, the discussion of symbolic capital raises questions and
issues of legitimacy. control, and accountability. For example, it opens the question of
who are the audiences of educational reform? Professional educators, policy-makers, or
maybe the large public? And is their value/judgment of an agent’s capital important?

In a state like France where state tax goes back to the 13th century, and where
national identity, in which education plays a major role, has been steered for centuries
from above, it is almost “natural” for the state to maintain unchallenged control over

teacher certiﬁcation without the need to explain. justify or be accountable to any other

118

agent in the ﬁeld. In New Jersey, however, where the state has stayed out of education
for years, getting into the ﬁeld of education and assuming more control over it was not
perceived by anyone as “natural.” The state needed to ﬁght its way in by using every kind
of capital possible to make a sensible legitimized argument. This contrast is helpful
because it clariﬁes how much investment of capital is actually needed for changing the
current orthodoxy of the ﬁeld, let alone institutionalizing this new rule over time into a
“natural” order.

The state strategy ofestablishing two committees that would work on the details
and elaborate the policy proposal demonstrates how cautious and thoughtful state
ofﬁcials were regarding to their initial position and hold of capital in the ﬁeld. Generally
speaking. the aim of these committees was to enhance the state’s bureaucratic capital in
the ﬁeld of teacher certiﬁcation. But before we get into analyzing the work and value of
these committees, it is worth mentioning that even only by establishing and fostering
their work, the state was able to make an important step toward winning the battle. For as
Bourdieu (1994) noted, states’ most invasive strategies are those which seem the most
“natural,” but in fact are supported by deeply concealed assumptions that we have grown
to accept. Consider, for example, the state’s “natural” rights to be responsible and take
care of its citizens. Indeed, this expanding capacity of becoming responsible for more and
more issues in the social space is one of the best characteristics of the modern nation
state.

This characteristic of the state as an agent that takes charge of things is very
apparent in the New Jersey case. Also apparent is its tendency to try and dictate. and

break the social sphere into small. more manageable pieces. So, for example, when the

119

state established the ﬁrst professional committee, the Boyer Commission. it provided it
with a narrow mandate to discuss and answer only two questions:

I. What is essential for beginning teachers to know about the profession?

2. How do effective teachers teach? (Boyer, 1984, p. 15)

The members of the Commission agreed not to comment on the proposal to
establish an alternate route, although it was clear that their work would inform the policy.
In this way, the state could use the Commission’s work as a “pure” professional artifact
without risking politicizing it. With some creativity and cynicism, one may even argue
that the Commission’s work, considering the prestige of its members (which I describe
below), was partly used by the state as an objectiﬁed cultural capital.

The other aim of the state was to build a credible and thoughtful alternative path
into teaching to the one that has been used by teacher educators for years. The work of
the Commission was intended to lay out the infrastructure and core content for this
alternative. For such an ambitious plan, the state needed to rely on the most credible
professional knowledge (cultural capital) of the ﬁeld. Thus, the individuals who were
asked to be part of the Commission were described by state ofﬁcials as the leading
education professionals in the nation. It was lead by the distinguished president of the
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Ernest Boyer, and included the
following additional nine members: David Berliner (University of Arizona), Frank
Brown (University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill), Edgar Epps (University of Chicago).
Emily Feistritzer (National Center for Education Information), Jay Gottlieb (New York

University). Lawrence Lezotte (Michigan State University). Archie Lapointe (National

120

Assessment Office, Educational Programs), Kathryn Maddox (Kanawha County
Schools), and Barak Rosenshine (University of Illinois).

This list of names raises a few interesting issues to consider. First, if the list
indeed represented the best minds in the nation, it is clear that the teacher education
community of New Jersey did not have much to offer the Commission, as none of them
was invited to participate. Another interesting aspect concerns the internal hierarchies of
prestige within the teacher education establishment. Teacher practitioners and teacher
educators did not have any representation in the Commission, while educational
psychologists and educational administrators comprised the majority. In other words. by
extending these invitations to serve on the Commission, Cooperman made clear that the
state was unwilling to continue having the current preparation of teacher education in
place. Since the state was not in the position to develop alone an alternative to the current
knowledge of teacher educators, it used nationally prestigious professionals to do it in its
name. And most importantly, this strategy allowed the state to draw on the symbolic
capital that these professionals had. Klagholz (1984) explained the strategy to the State
Board of Education:

[The Commission’s report] authors provide a sound base of research credibility

and authority lacking in previous deﬁnitions. The fact that the Boyer report

represents the consensus of some of the most respected educators and behavioral
scientists in the country has contributed to its universal acceptance in all segments
of the professional community. Some professional organizations have cited it as
the best effort in recent years and they, along with other states, are using it as the

foundation for their own standards. (p. 6)

121

Probably unaware of Bourdieu, Klagholz expresses here the importance of
symbolic capital and why social agents are so eager to have more of it. One can also see
here how social agents tried to stretch and maximize the capital that they possessed in
order to gain additional beneﬁts. Here, for example, the state official talks about a
“consensus” and “universal acceptance in all segments of the professional community,”
while it is clear that, by stating so, he is deliberately excluding many other “respected
educators” from the debate. Klagholz (1984) used this strategy because he was trying to
convince the State Board of Education (which usually supported the state
enthusiastically) to use the Boyer report as a general framework for reforming the teacher
education curriculum in New Jersey’s colleges.

Because the Boyer topics are essential ones recommended by those familiar with

research, it is a necessary that they be incorporated into our standards for colleges.

In addition. the number of credits hours now required should be re-examined in

light of the Boyer topics to determine a reasonable minimum. (p. 6)

This is only one example of the way in which the state has decontextualized and
appropriated, skillfully, the cultural and symbolic capital of respected professionals to
further its agenda in a highly contested arena.

Discussion and Summary

In sum, the consolidation of bureaucratic capital in the hands of state officials
during the 19803 should be understood in light of the historical weakness of New Jersey’s
central government. During the 19803, the State of New Jersey was able to generate, for
the ﬁrst time, substantial economic resources, which for many reasons were funneled into

education (I have emphasized the governor’s interest in education as the major reason for

122

that, but more generally, one should also keep in mind the very active courts rulings on
issues of resource allocation and educational inequality that forced the government to
intervene in order to equalize funding for poor areas in New Jersey) (Salmore & Salmore.
1993). This sudden inﬂux of economic resources was also probably an important
stimulator for the increasing state intervention in the ﬁeld of teacher education.
Nevertheless, in the area of teacher certiﬁcation and preparation, after so many years of
minimum involvement the state suffered from a relative absence of cultural and symbolic
capital. Governor Kean, with his education agenda, and genuine interest in the ﬁeld of
education was able to make the ﬁrst move putting the state back into the field. However,
in order to deal with the speciﬁes, the state needed to ﬁnd relatively quick and
sophisticated ways that would enable a signiﬁcant elevation of its symbolic capital. In
other words, the state needed to gain people’s respect and belief that the state owns the
intellectual/professional resources and genuine commitment to create a positive change
that would beneﬁt the general public. Thus. the state appropriated professional
knowledge (embodied cultural capital) of professional educators to enhance its symbolic
capital.

But in this struggle, the state also employed symbolic capital through the variety
of notions that were associated with state’s role and its perceived responsibility to its
citizens. These notions were used by the state as an overarching theme to legitimize its
interest in education, which presumably needed no further explanation, sort of a natural
mission of the state that served the public good. In these notions. the state usually
appeared as a benevolent, disinterested, objective entity, which only looks to secure the

public’s interests. Thus, as a result of having these positive beliefs in the roles and

123

functions of the state, state officials enjoyed more latitude in their struggle to occupy the
positions of power in the ﬁeld of educational policy.
Re-considering the Value of Capital in the Field ofEducational Policy

So far I have discussed the four forms of capital that were employed by the
different agents in the ﬁeld of education. Now I would like to conclude by considering
the changing relationships among the four capitals. This step might be helpful in
clarifying the internal hierarchy among the various capitals in the ﬁeld of education as
reﬂected in each capital’s rate of exchange.

When agents share more or less a similar interpretation of a capital’s value, the
transaction system within the ﬁeld tends to be relatively stable (i.e., there are relatively
clear expectations regarding to the rewards assigned for a given capital volume). This
also means that when agents invest in one type of capital, they have a good chance of
enjoying the rewards they had in mind when they initially invested in it. For example, it
was common for years that those who earned their Ph.D. in education and became teacher
educators in universities enjoyed the highest professional authority regarding issues
concerning the content and character of teacher preparation. It has been the relative
autonomy (and stability) of the ﬁeld of teacher education that was able to preserve this
(relatively high) value of the cultural capital possessed by the teacher educators.

Nevertheless, when some members of the ﬁeld (who share the same basic
interests like other members) feel that there are better ways to achieve the big goals that
they have in mind for the ﬁeld (e.g., improving teacher quality), they might slowly depart
from the old conventions they used to support in the past and adopt, instead, new types of

knowledge. strategies. and solutions to effectively achieve their aims. They become, what

124

Bourdieu called, the heterodoxy. In this kind of environment, the values attached to
certain forms of capital depend on the agents who are evaluating said capital. In New
Jersey, this meant, for example, that the professional knowledge of teacher educators
would be highly praised by the education establishment community. while being held at
the lowest status among state ofﬁcials.

The picture gets even more complicated, sometimes, when new types ofcapital
enter the ﬁeld. In our case, it happened during the 19803 when the state has poured
substantial economic and bureaucratic capital into the ﬁeld of education forcing the
various agents in the ﬁeld to re-consider the values attached to each capital in the ﬁeld.

So how can one make sense of this picture of a seemingly ordered chaos? Which
capital is worth more? And if we have several interpretations regarding to the value ofa
form of capital, which one carries more weight?

I would like to suggest that when the data are considered as a whole (regarding to
the four forms of capital), it was bureaucratic capital for state agents and cultural capital
for teacher educators that seemed to have the most impact on the social positions of their
holders (in the speciﬁc context of New Jersey’s ﬁeld of educational policy). And in the
clash between the two, after considering the outcomes of the battle (i.e., the successful
implementation of the two policies by the state), it was the bureaucratic capital that
enabled the state to acquire the power they sought.

This transformed hierarchy of capitals was shaped by the a) new forms ofcapital
that were pouring into the ﬁeld, in particular economic capital and bureaucratic capital

and b) a process of capital discreditation. Since I already described the new forms of

125

capital pouring into the system, I would like to devote the last part of the discussion to
elaborate on the capital discreditation process.

Bourdieu (1992; 2005) argues that one of the most common strategies ofa
heterodoxy is to discredit the capital held by the orthodoxy to legitimize its rule. The
reasons and advantages for employing such strategy in part of the heterodoxy are clear.
Discrediting provides the heterodoxy a chance to tip the balance of power by rhetorically
establishing a viable alternative to the current version of capital held by the orthodoxy.
Sometimes ideas alone can be enough to establish that altemativc and thus force a change
in the distribution of power in the ﬁeld. In our case, the state of New Jersey worked
fervently on discrediting the major capital (cultural) that was held by their opponents
(teacher educators) and portray it as weak and inconsistent. For example, Cooperman
(1984) wrote

I think that I have made my position on the proliferation of weak education courses

clear. A major thrust of my teacher education initiative has been to make forceful

public statements on the issue. During the past year, [1984] I identiﬁed 120 such
courses and publicly exposed their titles, their inconsistencies, and their

weaknesses. This public assessment was necessary and extremely controversial. (p.

3)

This is but one example of the continuous attacks by state officials aimed at
discrediting teacher educators' knowledge and skills. By discrediting the cultural capital
held by teacher educators and establishing an alternative form of capital (through the
work of the Boyer Commission). the state was able to lower the value of teacher

educators’ cultural capital, destabilize the longstanding structure of power in the field.

126

and redistribute the positions of power in the field. Overall. the fact that the state was
successful in implementing the two policies and keeping them from being revoked
(although their real merits are still questioned today) is the most powerful evidence we
have that the low status of teacher educators has been institutionalized. becoming an

inseparable part of the ﬁeld of educational policy as we know and understand it today.

Chapter 4

THE STRUCTURE OF POWER IN THE FIELD OF EDUCATIONAL POLICY
IN NEW JERSEY:
OPERATIONALIZING BOURDIEU’S CONCEPT OF THE FIELD

Introduction

The 19803 witnessed one ofthe most turbulent times in New Jersey’s educational policy.
The move started with the elections of the former teacher and Republican legislator,
Thomas Kean, to the governor’s ofﬁce. Kean built his campaign on promising to reform
education, and bringing economic growth back to New Jersey. Before the Kean era. most
education matters were dealt at the local level. State interference in education was
minimal and occurred only when supported by the majority of educational stakeholders
(e.g., the extension of free public education by state legislature, and the Department of
Education regulation of teacher certiﬁcation). This tradition of the state’s relative weak
role was apparent not only in education. New Jersey became famous for its local corrupt
barons who operated for years as the rulers of the big urban centers. Business interests. in
particular those of the families who controlled the railway system connecting New York
City and Philadelphia, were also extremely powerful. Moreover, the absence of a general
state tax exacerbated the state’s weakness. as most resources for education were collected
at the local level.

When Kean was elected governor in 1981, a state tax had already been put in
place, and the barons had been gone for quite sometime. Kean, who promised a
comprehensive overhaul in public education, had to face, however, the powerful teacher
unions. in particular, the New Jersey Education Association (NJEA) and a solid

Democratic house majority. Nevertheless. he became a leader in calls for education

128

reform, at the state and national level (as the president of the Education Commission of
the States). He struggled ﬁercely to overturn educators’ resistance to reform and to
implement various educational policies designed to improve teacher quality. As a result.
many have become convinced, including Kean himself, that the State of New Jersey turn
out to be the leading force of education reform in the state (e. g., Kean, 1988; Klagholz,
2000). This essay intends to test this contention and clarify what was the real impact of
state ofﬁcials on educational policy as a whole (i.e., not only on preparation and
certiﬁcation policies. but on other policies as well). And at the same time. I also hope to
illuminate what was the impact of other agents (e. g., teacher unions, teacher educators.
legislatures, etc.) on educational policy.

Using Bourdieu’s theory of ﬁelds, I will identify the players (social agents) who
constituted the ﬁeld of educational policy in New Jersey during 1985. By considering the
powerful and weak agents, and how were they positioned vis-a-vis each other. I hope to
clarify the structure of power in the ﬁeld of education. In addition, because agents’
positions of power were often deﬁned by arguments about education policy, I also
identify the different policies that entered into the agenda, showing how they are
associated with a set of ideas, interests, and beliefs held by the various agents.

For this analysis, I chose to analyze the news coverage in New Jersey’s major
newspaper, Newark Star-Ledger, for the entire year of 1985. Using these data, I mapped
the ﬁeld of education and identiﬁed the positions held by various agents in it who formed
the ﬁeld’s hierarchical structure of power. I also looked for evidence of the power of
agents in the ﬁeld. Two contrasting hypotheses were considered. One hypothesis is that

the ﬁeld of educational policy indeed experienced a transformation of power — moving

129

from the hands of teacher unions, teacher educators, and local boards to the hands of state
ofﬁcials (Carlson, 1985; 1990). Yet a second hypothesis argues that the education
establishment proved relatively resistant to state pressures. thus maintaining considerable
control over the system. I will evaluate the validity of these two hypotheses by analyzing
the prominence and power of different education stakeholders in New Jersey’s field of
educational policy. To do so. I examine the volume of power that agents possessed and
employed to push forward educational policies, ﬁrst, into the agenda and then through to
their implementation.

Overall, this study shows that despite the aggressiveness and eagerness of state
agents to control the ﬁeld, some agents -- especially teacher unions -- have resisted and
preserved signiﬁcant parts of their power. F inally, I argue that understanding what
happened in New Jersey two and a half decades ago is important, because in many ways
it set the tone for educational politics as we know them today. Kean’s tenure in New
Jersey -- its ideological discourse, strategies ofconfrontation, and general concepts of
public education -- paved the way for aggressive Republican governors like those of
Michigan and Pennsylvania (who successfully limited the power of teacher unions) to
reshape public education during the 19903 by using a similar set of strategies and policies
(e.g., free market policies) (Boyd, Plank, & Sykes. 2000). Uncovering the past and
studying the emergence of state intervention in education during the 19803 is essential for
better understanding the political reality of today’s discourse about and practice of public
education and for developing thoughtful, historically informed responses to initiatives

that are proposed for improving the future of public education.

130

Theoretical Context

Public education has been increasingly the subject of ﬁerce debate over the last
few decades. Various groups and individuals have fought over issues like equal
opportunity. the separation of church from state, the content of school curriculum, and
social inequality. An important underlying theme in many of these debates has been the
tension between local and professional mandates and state authority over the schools. In
general, it would not be imprecise to argue that historically there has been a gradual drift
of power in the US. away from the hands of school districts and local boards of
education toward control by professionals. state officials , and more recently -- the
federal government (e.g., Elmore, 1997; Gittell & McKenna, 1999; Ramirez. 2004). This
shift in power also changed the discourse concerning the purpose of public education.
The educational discourse that used to see compulsory education as a means to socialize
individuals to become literate and democratic citizens changed into one that emphasizes
education as the development of human capital for both individual mobility and national
economic well being.

Moving into the center stage of state politics in the 19803, education -- like any
other issue (e.g., health. transportation, etc.) -- became the subject of intense policy
regulation aimed at improvement and reform. However, there are several things which
make the debate over public education unique and more likely to be divisive. Unlike
other services, public education attracts considerable public attention both because it
takes up a large portion of the state’s ﬁnancial resources, and because it holds the formal

authority to socialize new generations of citizens. Because ofthis. it can be a highly

131

contested terrain, as different groups or individuals vie for a say in or control of what and
how children learn in US. public schools.

Who are these groups? What type of governance structure do they create and re-
create? To what extent do they share power. or are able to establish power structures that
push other stakeholders out or to the sidelines of the game? I consider these questions
from the perspective offered by two theories. First is the well known and widely accepted
pluralist paradigm and the second is Bourdieu’s theory of ﬁelds.

The Pluralist Paradigm

The pluralist paradigm is rooted, most notably. in the canonical works of Dahl
(1961) and Lindblom (1977). Pluralists, in general, have argued that American
democracy is gradually opening its politics to all kinds of citizens. including the poor.
immigrants, and African Americans. In many ways, pluralists show how the rhetoric of
democracy (power sharing. mass participation. and equality) is gradually taking form in
American democracy. In his case study of New Ilaven, Connecticut, Dahl (1961)
concludes Who Will Govern? by arguing that wealth and social prestige played a
marginal role in local politics, that social mobility into politics was more available to
minorities and disadvantaged groups than ever before, and that elected politicians who
were directly accountable to the public were the most powerful ﬁgures in the system. For
Dahl, democratic procedures allow individuals to organize into interest groups which
then represent their constituents by promoting policies that are aligned with their beliefs
and interests. The underlying idea here is that democracy provides the opportunities for
citizens to participate and organize to further their agenda. There is no conspiracy;

interest groups clearly articulate their needs. and pursue those in the public domain.

132

The pluralist perspective has enjoyed wide use in both political science and public
policy. Kingdon’s (2003) agenda-setting model -- which has become one of the most
important books in public policy -- is a good example. Kingdon’s model has an immense
global presence in policy research. especially in the area of educational policy. A simple
search in Google Scholar locates 1390 results. Many of the results point to scholarly
books, journal articles. and conference proceedings in the US. and abroad. Kingdon’s
theory is largely based on pluralist notions, including: 1) the US. enjoys a political
system where many interest groups work to push their agenda into the middle of the
public discourse; 2) elected officials have relatively dominant positions in the system.
since they represent the public interests; and 3) other groups -- with narrower interests —-
enhance their power by organizing into ad-hoc coalitions.

Kingdon’s argued that a policy proposal enters the agenda of policy-makers when
three independent streams -- problems. solutions, and politics -- converge through the
efforts of a policy entrepreneur. Let us consider the pieces of this theoretical puzzle.
Each area has its problems. The question is which problems draw the attention of
ofﬁcials and why? Ifa problem is viewed as irrelevant or too complex it would be
marginalized. For example a recent problem that seems too complex to cope with is to
reﬁne measurements of achievement gap in a way that would control for class and
ethnicity. Problems that get on the agenda are articulated in clear and simple wording.
like teacher quality, the achievement gap, etc.

The stream of policy solutions works in separation from the stream of problems. It
is constantly occupied by challenging ideas that stem from research or interest groups.

Thus. some groups may promote very distinct solutions like professional autonomy of

teachers, or charter schools, that later can be attached to various kinds ofproblems. What
happens usually is that certain sets of solutions are attached to a problem. For instance.
when policy-makers raise the problem of teacher quality. they may couple it with
solutions like increased teacher autonomy and raising minimum salaries. or standardizing
teachers’ practice (through common curriculum) and introducing differential
compensation for teachers.

The third stream of politics consists of presidential and Congressional election

results * the “vagaries of public opinion” -- and ideological trends. This stream acts
separately from the previous two and it adds the political context into the formula. A
good example ofan important vagary. during the 19803 in the ﬁeld of education was
President Reagan’s victory and his informal abolition ofthe newly established
Department of Education.
Kingdon argues that these streams come along at critical times -- windows of opportunity
that are open only for short periods of time -- when favoring conditions to a specific
problem emerge, the solution is ready and processed, and the political and ideological
structure ”allows” representatives to support these initiatives.

Through a comprehensive empirical study of American federal politics, Kingdon
reaffirmed Dahl’s (1961) claim that the most important center of power is the one held by
elected representatives — that is, the president and the members of Congress. However.
Kingdon also offers a detailed analysis of other political actors, noting that they too might
have different degrees of power at different times in the policy process. For instance.
Congress enjoys a dominant role in creating alternatives, while the President and his

appointed ofﬁcials set the agenda. On the other hand. public servants tend to enjoy very

134

limited power in setting the agenda and forming the alternatives, but are essential to the
process of policy implementation. Interest groups are important, especially when the
issues are remote from the public eye: “Generally, then, the lower the partisanship,
ideological cast, and campaign visibility of the issues in a policy domain. the greater the
importance ofinterest groups” (Kingdon, 2003, p. 47).

Kingdon’s model, however, has also some limitations that are part of its roots in
the pluralist tradition. Like other pluralists. Kingdon “describes” a constructed political
reality, one that those in power would like everybody to accept as a natural reality (one
that has always been there and will always stay). The “state,” the “president,” the
“interest groups” are all words that are used in the theory as common, clear codes that
allege a set of tight social arrangements and roles, with clear scope, responsibilities.
rights, and duties. Thus, instead of a straightforward theory that intends to analyze the
political reality. Kingdon’s model (like other pluralists) can be conceived as one that is
built on false assumptions that do no question the current structure of power in society.
but simply accept it as a “natural” and common wisdom.

Bourdieu ’3 Theory of'lr’ields

Bourdieu, working with the ideas and arguments offered by Marx, Weber. and
Durkheim, developed a conceptual understanding that took the macro theories of his
predecessors to the more micro level, in order to generate a practical line of research
using smaller units of analysis. Bourdieu’s work on social ﬁelds both drew on this
tradition, and extended it. This theory provides an alternative view to the pluralist

paradigm. I will start by introducing the notion ofthe social ﬁeld and its structural

characteristics. According to Bourdieu (1985: 1992; 1993) the social space is comprised
of:

A network, or configuration, ofobjective relations between positions. These

positions are objectively deﬁned, in their existence and in the determinations they

impose upon their occupants, agents or institutions, by their present and potential
situation (situs) in the structure of the distribution of species of power (or capital)
whose possession commands access to the speciﬁc profits that are at stake in the

field, as well as by their objective relations to other positions (domination.

subordination, homology. etc.). (Bourdieu & Wacquant 1992. p. 97)

In other words. a field is a space where individuals, groups (social agents). and
institutions interact, work, produce, and struggle over power based on a shared set of
understandings, beliefs, values, and norms that constitute the logic and rules of the game
for that ﬁeld (Bourdieu, 1985). On other occasions, Bourdieu argued that the ﬁeld is
simply the space shared by all those who have some stake in it (Bourdieu, 2005).
Education is a social ﬁeld: While teachers, administrators, and state ofﬁcials share the
belief in the importance of education for the public good, they tend to occupy different
positions in the ﬁeld. which means that they vary in their capacity to shape and control
the character of public education. This capacity, Bourdieu argues. is best thought of as
various kinds of capital. In Bourdieu’s scholarship, the notions ofcapital and habitus are
inseparable from the notion of the field (Swartz, 1997). The social space is primarily
stratiﬁed by the degrees of capital that social agents in each ﬁeld enjoy, and -- at the same
time -- by the relative capital each ﬁeld exerts against the others (Bourdieu, 1985). The

habitus is the agent’s “feel for the game,” that is, the ways in which he or she behaves

136

and responds to others. These responses and ways of interaction are constrained and

directed by the agent’s position in the ﬁeld and sorts of capital that he or she possesses.
Though these concepts seem indeed inseparable, Bourdieu and Wacquant (1992) assert
that sometimes for analytic purposes, one needs to separate these concepts. They write:

The main challenge was to try and “linearize” a thought that is indeed recursive

and spiraling without disﬁguring it, to “stretch” it out along intersecting but

separable vectors while respecting its internal articulations. If Bourdieu’s mode of
argumentation is weblike and ramifying, if his key concepts are relational

(habitus, ﬁeld, and capital are all constituted of “bundles” of social ties in

different states, embodied, objectiﬁed, institutionalized. and they all work most

powerfully in relation to each other), it is because the social universe is made that
way. according to him. So we wanted to retain the intrinsic connectivity of social
reality and sociological reasoning while disentangling both enough to enable

readers and users of the book to capture the kernel of Bourdieu’s social ontology.

method and substantive theories. (p. 182)

In this study, for analytic reasons, I will also separate the concept of the field in
order to better understand and analyze the structure and idiosyncrasies ofthe field of
educational policy. Thus, here I will focus on ﬁeld; in Chapter 3 I focused on capital.

One major assumption Bourdieu makes is that. while social agents differ in their
interests and beliefs. they are motivated to maximize their power to shape the ﬁeld in
which they Operate. For example. in a ﬁled like education where state agents. teacher
unions, and teacher educators differ on many issues, each agent tries to garner as much

power as possible. enabling him to shape the arena in accordance with his interests and

137

vision. In education, one such avenue is the creation and implementation of educational
policies.

Each ﬁeld, in its own unique way, is governed in a given moment by agents who
occupy positions of power in the ﬁeld and enjoy some legitimacy, which allows them to
extend and activate their power. Fields vary in the degree and type ofhierarchy that
characterize their structure of power. Some ﬁelds have a small centralized elite that is
relatively resistant to changes (a classic example would be the German socialist party
studied by Robert Michels ( 1949)). Other ﬁelds, at least at some times, are less rigid and
more likely to be torn apart by fierce rivalries (here I believe the example of the ﬁeld of
educational policy in New Jersey during the 19803 is of great relevancy). In this example.
one may argue that the ﬁeld of educational policy, which had more or less been
dominated by agents who shared the belief in the notions of progressivism (Hirsch, 1996;
Ravitch, 2000). was gradually challenged during the 19803, primarily by state agents who
carried new sets of ideas concerning quality, accountability, and openness to market-
based reforms. Bourdieu characterized this kind of struggle as a competition for power
between the old elite (orthodoxy) that tries to preserve its grasp on the ﬁeld and. and
those who challenge it (heterodoxy) (Bourdieu, 1988; 2005).

One last important factor to consider is the growing power of the modern state.
Indeed, as Bourdieu notes, the increasing power of the state bureaucracy has directly
affected many ﬁelds. In some cases, agents and ﬁelds who were highly autonomous in
the past have gradually become regulated by the state (e.g., the increasing regulation of
the professions explored by Krause’s (1996)). When the state decides to become involved

in a certain field. it carries with it the stature, values. roles. power. and legitimacy that

138

states have been identified with in western democracies for the past two centuries.
Bourdieu (1994) calls this kind of power symbolic capital.

Fields react differently to state interventions, depending on their position in the
social space. In general, according to Bourdieu, ﬁelds and agents who possess inferior
positions in terms of their economic, cultural, and social capital are more likely to fail in
their attempts to preserve their autonomy vis-a-vis the state (Swartz, 1997). Though in
this chapter I will not measure the kinds of capital held by different agents, this point is
crucial for understanding why certain agents become powerful in the field while others
are not (see Chapter 3). This also may explain why some ﬁelds like education -- where
agents lack substantial economic and cultural capital, and are sometimes socially
disconnected from the state’s bureaucracy (that is, they may also lack the proper social
capital) -- tend to be more exposed to the power, ideas, interests. and sometimes
imperialistic inclinations of state ofﬁcials (and the think tanks that inform those in
power). At the same time, I would like to note that Bourdieu’s theory is not deterministic.
Reality is complex and this complexity is being reﬂected in the wide possibilities of
interpretation that the theory enables us to consider. Sometimes, fields are extremely
hierarchical, especially when power is distributed radically unevenly. In other occasions.
however, the power structure can be more ﬂuid, and the struggle for power can be more
open for competing agents.

In this chapter, I introduce a new approach to educational policy analysis. by
using Bourdieu’s ideas in mapping and conceptualizing the termfi’eld.42 Up to now,
Bourdieu’s theory has played a marginal role in educational policy research (save for the

increasing interest in issues ofcapital, which are related to Bourdieu’s work but not

 

"2 I will also use a new approach to collect data, which I describe below.

139

exclusively so). I am convinced that developing this theory is important for diversifying
and enriching the current research discourse around educational policy. Thus. in order to
further clarify the merits of Bourdieu’s approach, I will use Kingdon’s model as a point
of reference to the way mainstream research tends to conceptualize policy debates. In
doing so, I hope to show that even though Kingdo’s model has made an enormous
contribution to public policy research. it has also unwittingly helped to institutionalize
some ideological biases. I return to this issue in the conclusion of this chapter.
Operationalizing Bourdieu’s Concept of Field

Since Bourdieu has rarely been used in the ﬁeld of educational policy, I first
propose a research design that will both incorporate past scholarship of Bourdieu and
others. while bringing a new set of practical methods that would hopefully prove useful
for research in the field of educational policy. I discuss these issues below as an
introduction to the data and method used in this chapter.

Bourdieu started incorporating the “ﬁeld” as a leading concept in his writing
from the 19703. Ile first laid out the theoretical principles of the concept and analyzed its
components in The Social Space and the Genesis of/fgents (Bourdieu, 1985; see above
for description). Bourdieu elaborated this notion of ﬁeld in numerous of his works. Some
are fairly modest and include no more than a series of hypotheses based on a rudimentary
and unsystematic inquiry of a given ﬁeld. Many of these works, some of which discuss
the ﬁeld of competitive sport, elite fashion and culture, the origin and development of
music taste, and intellectual role in society, were collected in a book titled Questions in

Sociology (Bourdieu. 2005). The theoretical importance ofthese works stems primarily

140

from the powerful and comprehensive explanatory model that crosses fields, cultures, and
national borders.

Most of Bourdieu’s scholarship (and especially his most ambitious studies).
however, was entrenched in the French society. culture, and history. His major works.
Distinction, Homo-Academicus, and The State Nobility. used large and varied data
sources. some of which contain large data sets from surveys and reports. For example. he
argued in Distinctions that social agents in a given ﬁeld are more likely to share certain
characteristics than agents who are located in other ﬁelds.”3 Bourdieu tried to confirm
this theoretical model through surveys in which individuals were asked to provide details
about their occupation/profession, past education. salary, and their preferred hobbies
(including sports, food. etc.). Based on their responses, individuals were categorized into
various ﬁelds, which enjoyed (on average) different volumes of economic and cultural
capital. Most revealing. however. was the ﬁnding that -- on average -— agents from a
given ﬁeld were more likely to have similar food, sport, and cultural preferences (which
corresponded with their unique position in the social space as a ﬁeld), compared to social
agents from other ﬁelds.

Apart from Bourdieu (1984; 1993; 1994; 1996), the research on fields as socio-
political entities has been relatively scarce (Swartz. 2005). Johannesson (1993) used the
concept of social ﬁeld to study education reform in Iceland using interviews with key
agents and analysis of reports and documents to form a picture of the ﬁeld and its power

structure (i.e., the distribution of power among various agents in the ﬁeld). Others. like

 

”3 These characteristics consist of socio-cultural symbols associated with the structural idiosyncrasies of a
given ﬁeld. which are transformed to social agents through their socialization. The distribution of these
symbols among social agents is mainly, but not solely. determined by their likelihood to hold any sort of
capital which is respected in their ﬁeld.

141

Anheier, Gerhrds, and Romo (1995) who studied the field of poetry in Koln, Germany.
have employed quantitative methods through interviews and surveys which aimed to
deﬁne the structure of power in the ﬁeld and the capital associated with it. In particular.
this research analyzed the hierarchical patterns of the field. that is, what agents were
positioned where (elite, middle. low), and what types of capital were associated with
these kinds of positions (economic, cultural, or social). In both cases, researchers relied
on the agents in the ﬁeld to provide the information for mapping the power relations in
the ﬁeld.

However, this approach can be used only when agents are easy to access. When
they are not, an alternative approach to information gathering has to be used. Bourdieu
(1993) faced this problem in his study of French literature. This major historical study
focused in the ﬁeld of French literature in Flaubert’s time. In this study, he carefully
analyzed the field, primarily relying on writers’ biographies and the various sorts of texts
they wrote. Bourdieu reviewed agents’ biographical details (e.g., demography, details
about their families and places of birth, their social circles) and used that information to
explain agents’ writing habitus. agents’ social and professional trajectories. and agents’
positioning in the ﬁeld. In addition, Bourdieu portrayed the hierarchies of power that
were used in ruling the ﬁeld and how these shaped the distribution of prestige and stature
among the various social agents. Building on these sources of information (the only ones
available for such a historical inquiry), Bourdieu was able to provide a vivid picture of
the ﬁeld.

In terns of access to the field in quest, my current research ofNew Jersey’s field

of educational policy stands in between the two kinds of research I have described above:

142

while it does not enjoy the relatively easy access to agents in the field (like Anheier,
Gerhards, & Rome. 1995; Bourdieu, 1996; Johannesson, 1993), it does rely on a few
interviews with agents who had been part of the ﬁeld, and probably enjoys more access to
relatively larger resources ofinformation from state archives, published documents. and
media coverage, compared to those that were available to Bourdieu (1993). Thus. this
research will primarily focus on a large data set from The Newark Star-ledger. New
Jersey’s leading daily newspaper. The news coverage will be used to shed light on the
structure, hierarchies, and distribution of power in the ﬁeld of education. In addition. I
will also provide a policy analysis of all the educational policies that were initiated,
struggled, and implemented during the tenure of Governor Kean. The two data sets will
then be used to map the ﬁeld of educational policy. and to determine the structure of
power in the ﬁeld. By using the two separate sources of data. I hope to gain a more
accurate and reliable picture ofthe ﬁeld.

Before I continue, I would like to elaborate on two reasons why the use of news
coverage is a promising line of research for analyzing power struggles over educational
policy. First. the media can -- in some cases -- provide a relatively clear picture of
struggles over policy (in terms of providing attention to the main parties that are
involved). Second, the media coverage could be seen as a contested arena that reflects
the symbolic capital that agents carry and use in their struggles for power. I explain each
brieﬂy.

There are several ways to conceptualize the process of producing news and
understanding the role the media plays in shaping social reality. One important approach

in communication studies argues that the media portrays what happen in reality as

143

reflected in the decisions of professional gatekeepers in the mass media industry
(Shoemaker, 1991). Others argue that while the media reﬂects reality, it has very limited
power to shape the public policy agenda and only on rare occasions does it (Kingdon.
2003). Bourdieu (1999) was very critical of the mass media industry, arguing that the
media is gradually losing its autonomy vis-a-vis political and economic pressures.
Indeed, there is a large body of literature that argues how biased the news are and how
poorly they represents issues concerning the image and social policy concerning those
who live in poverty (Gilens, 1996), while overemphasizing issues that are ofconcern for
elites (Delli Carpini. 1998). These arguments about the distorted picture presented by the
news are probably truer when it comes to issues concerning the disadvantaged groups in
society. For instance. Gilens (1996) demonstrated this point in his research on the image
of African Americans in the news. After examining a considerable number of articles
across the media, he concluded that being poor was framed in the news primarily as a
problem related to African Americans in a way that overrepresented their actual share in
the poor population of America. However, when it comes to issues under the spotlight of
elites, media coverage tends to be more comprehensive, although it could still be biased
toward the interests of the political and economic ﬁelds, as argued by Bourdieu (1999).
Erickson and Mitchell (1996) examined the issue of fair coverage in the case of union
politics and found that. during a period when the power of unions was in decline. news
coverage of union events remained at the same level as it had been in the past. Thus, they
concluded that the news coverage of unions demonstrates some degree of autonomy on
the part of the media. These ﬁndings are important, because they clarify the extent to

which we can rely on news coverage to reﬂect power struggles in society. ()ur case of

144

state level educational politics seems to demonstrate a case that resembles that of
Erickson and Mitchell (1996).44 Thus, suggesting that the coverage of educational politics
in the news may reflect a less biased picture of reality.

Bourdieu provides a second reason for using news coverage in understanding
struggles for power in society. Bourdieu (1999) argues that, as the media loses its
autonomy and moral responsibility for representing disadvantaged or silenced groups. it
becomes a contested arena that represents the power structure and the interests of those in
control rather than the social reality and its complexity. In other words, the news
coverage becomes a mirror image of the symbolic capital that is used by the different
agents (those who are already “in the game”) in their struggle for power and control over
the ﬁeld of educational policy. Symbolic capital should be understood here as the overall
translation and aggregation ofdiffercnt sorts of capital into an institutionalized claim for
power and control. For instance. Bourdieu (1994) writes about the symbolic power ofthe
nation state, which claims power based on the values and roles that the state represents in
the hearts and minds of people. By using these sorts of common institutionalized
understandings (e.g., the “democratic” nature of the state), the state can relatively easily
invade many ﬁelds, like the ﬁeld of education, and by doing so occupy positions of
control and power that correspond with its “historic moral obligations” (Bourdieu. 1998.
p. 16).

Data and Methods
The data for this study consist of every news item on education that included a

discussion on policy/proposed policy. plans. or thoughts and/or discussed ideas that

 

‘4 Both cases involve news coverage ofunion struggles at about the same time frame. and the same area
(New York and New Jersey).

145

mention any group or institution related to education policy at the state level, appearing
between January 1 and December 31, 1985 in The Newark Star-Ledger. Articles were
identiﬁed by the author and a research assistant from microﬁlm. To assure reliability of
collection, the research assistant and author talked and met regularly to discuss and
elaborate the selection process for the news items. These meetings included a training
session in which the author and research assistant read and selected items from a sample
of three weeks. As a rule of thumb, the research assistant was instructed to be as inclusive
as possible. In this way, the loss of potential data was minimized. However, a few items
that were initially included were later dropped. For example, items that discussed
curriculum reform at the district level, or an item that reported on a program of
educational administrators at the district of Camden to boost teacher quality in their
schools. Though they both concerned issues pertaining to educational reform, neither
article concerned education policy at the state level. In total, 175 news items were
collected.

The next stage involved careful reading and coding each item (which was done by
the author). The variables were drawn directly from the theory of Bourdieu as laid out
above. In particular, the variables were designed to map the range of agents that operated
in the ﬁeld of educational policy, indicate which education policies were discussed (and
to what extent), and identify hierarchical differences of prominence between the agents.
Most variables related to basic descriptive information: the type of educational policies
mentioned, the educational agents that appeared in the item, and indication if the item
appeared on the front page or not. Additional variables that required relatively minimal

interpretation included identifying the major policy and agent in the item (by the space

146

devoted to the policy/agent in the item, and by the number oftimes it was mentioned). A
full list of the variables is available in Appendix A.

Most variables were dichotomous (e.g., when the alternate route policy was
mentioned in the item. the item was coded as a 1, and if it wasn’t mentioned, it was coded
as a 0). Some variables were categorical (e.g., the most dominant policy in the item. the
most dominant agent in the item). Once the entire data set was created, the data were
processed through the SPSS statistical software and provided descriptive statistics
including frequencies and cross tabulations.

In addition, I created another indicator to the power of social agents in the field of
education. This indicator uses the media coverage, as well as documents from state
archive, and academic publications to indicate failure or success of social agents to
promote policies up to the stage ofimplementation. I consider an agent to be successful
and thus powerful if he or her was able to put on the agenda high proﬁle policies and was
able to carry them to the stage of implementation. In this analysis, I consider any policy
that was reported in the news during 1985, even if it was launched before. Some of the
policies that were reported in the news were still under discussion and debate by the end
of the year, so I omitted them as their status was inconclusive. Fortunately, for all the
high proﬁle policies, a ﬁnal status could be identiﬁed.

Findings
The primary goal of this chapter is to map the structure of power in the field of
educational policy in New Jersey during the 19803. One component of mapping the field
of educational policy consists of identifying the agents that operated in the ﬁeld and

categorizing their possession of power according to their patterns of appearance in the

147

news. The second component evaluates the relationships between agents and the policies
that they supported or resisted. The main indicator for the power of a given agent in this
analysis was the agent’s capacity to propose a policy and have it implemented by
collecting the support ofother agents (coalition building strategy) and/or by pausing
effective resistance that blocked policies which he believed to be a threat to his interests
and vision of the ﬁeld.

The Hierarchical Structure of/fgents in the Field

The relative position that a given agent holds in the ﬁeld is illustrated by his or
her capacity to establish a public persona concerning his “legitimacy” to hold the
different types of capital that are valued in his field. This “position taking” is then
reflected in the way the agent is perceived by other agents in the field. The mass media is
one important public stage where agents communicate their relative position in the ﬁeld
to others. in a way that helps them institutionalize their positions in the power structure.
Thus, for instance. agents who occupy powerful positions are more likely to have the
know-how ofcommunicating these features of power through the media (see the example
of the state that was elaborated above). When considering this context. news coverage
can be viewed as a viable proxy for reﬂecting the power structure in the field of
educational policy.

In using this approach. sixteen different agents were reported to operate in the
ﬁeld of educational state policy in New Jersey in 1985. These agents, as will be shown
below, substantially differed in the frequency and types of appearance they received in
the news. As seen in Table 4.1. agents differed in the number oftimes they have

appeared in the news. and in the importance ascribed to them in the coverage. The

148

governor -- who appeared in over 60% of the news articles -- was the most prominent
agent in the news. The State Department of Education and the teacher unions also seem
to have captured a central role in the ﬁeld, appearing in over 50% of the articles. State
legislatures and Local Boards of Education captured a middle ground with appearances in
28% and 27% ofthe articles respectively.

Considering the frequency of appearance in the news provides only a partial
picture ofthe hierarchy in the ﬁeld. Thus, a variable that indicated the most prominent
agent mentioned in every article was constructed (the prominence was measured as a
function of the space that an agent captured in the coverage and/or number of times he ”
was mentioned). Using this variable further illuminates the hierarchical structure of the
field and identiﬁes the various positions occupied by the different agents. In order to
clarify the complex power structure between agents in the ﬁeld, I have created an
indicator entitled “rate of prominence” that articulates the relations between the two
variables for each agent by dividing the percentage of “being mentioned on the news”
with the percentage of being “mentioned as the prominent agent on the news.” When the
association between the two variables is tight, the value will approximate l. The rate of
prominence can be seen as a rough indicator of the power and prestige a given agent
enjoys in the ﬁeld as reﬂected in the actions and words of others in the ﬁeld. As can be
seen in Table 4.1. the courts. the governor. and the Department of Education stand at the
top with the rates 2, 2. and 2.3 respectively, while -- at the other extreme -- educational

administrators, teacher educators, and the media had the lowest rates of 10.1, 8.7. and 7.6

respectively.

149

This indicator demonstrates how appearance in the news alone does not
necessarily correlate with being mentioned as the most important agent in the news.
Some agents -- the governor. for instance -- are relatively prominent in both measures.
while others -- like teacher educators -- are mentioned relatively frequently, but rarely as
the prominent agent in the news. Why is that? In each of the articles reviewed. agents are
mentioned as part ofa discussion concerning educational policy. For example, when
articles discussed the alternate route policy or the reform of undergraduate teacher
preparation programs. teacher educators were frequently mentioned together with the
govemor and Department of Education. In the news (as in reality), however. the
prominent agents are those who have the symbolic capital that allow them to portray
themselves as those who struggle for change. for a better future, and as those who
represent and are interested in the public good. The governor was providing and pushing
an agenda for change and thus he was able to garner most of the articles’ attention.
Teacher educators. on the other hand. were portrayed as a narrow. self interested group

with no agenda and no real solutions to the problems at hand.

150

 

Table 4.1

Educational agents’ appearance and prominence in the news

 

 

Number of articles (with
their percentage in
parentheses) where
agent’s name was

Number of articles (with their
percentage out of 100% in
parentheses) where agent’s name
was mentioned as the one most

Rate of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agent’s Name mentioned (n=l75) prominent prominence. ._.
Governor l l l 54
(63.43) (30.9)_ _2_.(_§__ __
Department of 92 39
Education _ (53.57_)________ _ -#___(32_'_L 7k _ ___2.3_6_ -2
Department of Higher 27 5
.-__ Educaﬂgni _ E ,_ _ __<_!_5-4_.3_> __ H _ _ (2:9). _ - _ __ 5.33 s
Teacher unions 90 31
_ __ (51.43) (17.7) _7 _ 2.9_l___ _
Teacher educators 35 4
(20) 2.3) 8.70
Legislators 49 10
(28) (5.7) 4.91 _
Board of Education 47 3
(26.86) (1.7) 15.8
State Board of 5 0
Education (2.86) (0) N/A
Educational 30 3
adminisﬂtors (17.14) (l._7_) _ l_0.0_8%___
Parents 8 l
(4.57) (0.6) 7.62
Courts 10 5
(5.74) (2.9) 1.98 _ _
Media“ 8 1
(4.57) (0.6) 7.62
New Jersey School 15 4
Board Association (8.57) (2.3) 3.73
Districts + districts’ 17 3
superintendents __ (9.71) ‘ _ _(L7)_V 5.7__l_
New Jersey Business 3 0
and Industry (1.71) (0)
Association ___ _ _ Nil] _ _
New Jersey 2 1
Association of School (0.6)
s._ Social Workers _ 2.82
No major agent in the 1 1
article (6.3) N/A
Total 175
(190)

 

 

 

 

* The Department of Higher Education was mentioned in the news coverage regarding K— 12 Educational
policy, since it carried some ofthe responsibilities concerning teacher education programs in colleges and

universities.

** The media was mentioned in some articles as an agent that has opinions related to education policy (e.g.,
op-ed items written by educators sometimes accused joumalists or newspapers of supporting the state

agenda)

151

 

 

Another dimension of the field’s hierarchy is illustrated in the distribution ofhigh
profile appearances in the news (front page) among the various agents. The ﬁndings in
Table 4.2 indeed suggest a stratiﬁed structure of agents in the ﬁeld. Column 2 of the table
summarizes the number oftimes and rate of appearance of agents on front page articles.
The ﬁndings presented on column 2 indicate that state agents (governor, department of
education, and department ofhigher education) appeared in 40% of the items related to
education policy published on page 1. However, the access to page 1 of state agents is far
more pervasive and powerful when one checks also for appearance as the most important
agent on the item (column 3), for not only do they appear more often on the ﬁrst page.
but they also appear there as the most important player in the article. Under this
condition. state agents have raised their power from 40% to 60%. Legislators also
signiﬁcantly raised their percentage of appearance from 8% to 17%. Teacher unions
slightly weakened from 14% to 12%, and teacher educators disappeared. It is interesting
to note that both the Department of Education and the legislators had the highest levels of

prominence compared to appearance. (17, 34) and (8, 17) respectively.

152

 

 

 

 

Table 4.2 Agents’ appearance on page 1

 

 

Agent’s Name _7

 

Appearances of agents on
page I (with their percentages

z- swasnthsssatﬂ: I 59)

Appearance on page I as the most
important agent (with a percentage out
ofﬂflfgmmesestmﬁ L)___,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Govemor 31 10
(I9) *__(_2fl')_,___ _ ﬁ_ ﬁ
Department of 27 14
Education (l7) _,_ A] # _ (3i) * ‘ 7
Department of Higher 7 0
Education (4) (0_)__ _ _
Teacher unions 23 5
(I4) (12)
Teacher educators 10 0
(6) '(0)
Legislators 12 7
(8) ('7)
Board of Education I l l
(7) (2
State Board of 0 1
Education (0) (2
Educational 7 0
administrators (4) (0)
Parents 1 2
(l) (5)
Courts 4 0
(3) (0)
Media 0 0
__ <92 _ <0) _
New Jersey School 3 1
Board Association “4.— _ (2) (2
Districts + districts’ 5 0
superintendents (3) (0)
New Jersey Business 0
and Industry (0) 0
Association (0)
New Jersey 1
Association of School (1) 0
Social Workers (0)
Total 41
_____(100)

 

 

 

 

Overall. the broad trends represented in Table 4.2 correlate with those in Table

4.1, but there are a few differences to consider. In Table 4.2. the Department of Education

appears to be more prominent than the governor and the Teacher unions look slightly

weaker. especially in column 3 when compared to their position in Table 4.1. What might

explain this? The high profile arena ofthe front page provides advantages to agents who

153

can offer the symbolic capital that is associated with “real” action that have the
consequences of changing the reality. Therefore, the important players of the front page
are the Department of Education— which carries out, on a daily basis, the policy agenda
of the governor -- and the legislators who, with their voting power, can provide clear
news of acceptance or rejection of a policy. Teacher unions do not enjoy this kind of
position. They can object forcefully and negotiate their terms. but with no capacity to
reshape the arena. I believe that these differences of power among agents in the field are
reﬂected through their symbolic capital in their positioning in the news coverage.
Mapping the Educational Policy Agenda in New Jersey

Debates. struggles. and discussions that are aimed at pushing certain policies to
the forefront of the state agenda are used by various agents as a means to create what they
believe to be a better world. What policies are being pushed -- and by whom -- offers
another perspective onto the power relations among the social agents in the education
ﬁeld. The media reflects these struggles because it provides agents with a public stage to
make their arguments for and against a policy and, as a result, to mobilize power that
increases or decreases the chances of a proposed policy idea to enter the agenda. For a
policy proposal to pass this step successfully and become a full-ﬂedged policy, there is a
clear need to gain publicity (preferably positive) that depends, ofcourse, on the agents
who are promoting it. Here I present an analysis of which policies were mentioned. more
or less, in the news, and what can be learned from those discussions about the structure of
power in the field of educational policy.

Table 4.3 identiﬁes the educational policies that were discussed in the media

throughout 1985. Eighteen different educational policies were under discussion. which

154

 

 

seems -- at a first glance -- to imply on a rather large and thus competitive arena. A
closer analysis, however, suggests that the scope of educational policy agenda was
limited to a few major initiatives promoted by state agents (the governor, Department of
Education. and Department of Higher Education), with several other policies at the
margins.

According to the second column (which describes the appearance rates ofthe
various educational policies), the policy that appeared most often concerned the
minimum salary for new teachers (appearing in 34.9% of the items). This high rate of
appearance can be explained by the strong support that it received from the powerful
agents of the ﬁeld. This policy was initiated by the Republican Governor, Thomas 11.
Kean, and gained the support of both teacher unions, and the house Democratic majority.
The opponents of this policy, the house Republican minority, and the New Jersey School
Board Association argued that, if passed, this policy would dramatically drive up the cost
of education, without having any proof that it would improve the educational system.
Supporters of the minimum salary saw it as a genuine and bold move by the governor that
supported the teaching profession in general and would enhance teacher quality in
particular. No matter what sort of intentions were fueling this policy, it proved beneﬁcial
for the governor in the short and the long run. In the short run (in addition to gaining
wide support), this policy was able to obscure some aspects of the fierce conflicts that
aroused around the other three big policies ofthe state -- the alternate route into teaching.
undergraduate teacher preparation, and the master teacher plan. In the long run. this move
proved profitable for Kean. because it portrayed him in the eyes of the NJ EA. as a very

moderate Republican and one who is willing to negotiate and share power (Fulton. 2004).

155

This was part ofthe reason why the NJ EA -- in an unprecedented move -- supported
Kean for reelection against a Democratic candidate in the elections of 1985.

A second policy -- concerning an alternate route for teacher certiﬁcation --
appeared on 28.6% of the items, and had considerable overlap with discussions of
policies concerning the undergraduate preparation of teachers (28%) and a Iicensure

exam for new teachers (19%). This finding is also not surprising considering the fierce

 

 

struggle over these policies in New Jersey. especially the debates over the alternate route

and the reform of the undergraduate preparation of teachers. which became a national

 

landmark in the relationship between the state and the teacher education establishment.
The alternate route policy that was initiated in the early days of the Kean’s administration
reflected his market-oriented mindset and perspective about what constituted good
teaching. Teacher preparation, he and other top ofﬁcials believed, should not be left at the
hands of incompetent teacher educators who had enjoyed a monopoly, especially when
the results of their preparation of teachers were so poor, and when these protective
procedures make the cost of becoming a teacher intolerably high, thus driving young
talented candidates that would have considered becoming teachers to other professions
(Cooperman & Klagholz, 1985; Kean, 1988). Foreshadowing arguments that would
becoming increasingly part of the public and national discourse in the early 21"l century.
they argued that public schools should be able to consider talented candidates from top
colleges who had strong subject matter background and high motivation to serve as
teachers (e.g., Ballou & Podgursky, 1998; Hess, 2001).

The conflict over this policy was inevitable as two very different clusters of ideas

collided. On the one hand stood teachers and especially teacher educators who believed

 

156

that there is substantive knowledge about effective ways to teach that teachers should be
trained in before entering a classroom. This argument about the existence of a specific
knowledge held by teacher educators led to the adoption of professional arguments about
the need (for the sake of public good) to leave the management of teaching practice in the
hands of professionals, in this case, teacher educators (e.g., Carlson et. al., 1983). The
state ofﬁcials opposed this argument, asserting instead that the single most important
component for success in teaching derived from subject matter knowledge. Learning how
to teach is primarily based on experience and on-the-job training, because teaching is
more of an art and cannot be learned as prescribed methods for use outside ofdircct
experience (Cooperman & Klagholz. 1985). In order to legitimate these stances on
teaching, Commissioner of Education. C ooperman established two committees with
leading professionals who held these very same ideas and who were given the task of
singling out the most important components of learning to teach. These components
would then be put into a ZOO-hour program that was intended to prepare teachers before
and during the ﬁrst year ofteaching (Cooperman. Webb, & Klagholz, 1983).
Concurrently, as part of the attempts to challenge teacher preparation programs’
monopoly. the Department of Education -- together with the Department of Higher
Education -- launched a program that was intended to match the education and general
subject matter requirements of the alternate route preparation program with those
proposed in teacher education departments. As a result. teacher education departments
were not allowed to provide more than a minor in education consisting 30 hours of

preparation. of which 10 were prescribed to be supervised student teaching.

157

 

The third major policy focused on a master teacher plan (24.6%), a state policy
aimed at establishing a significant merit component within the collective bargaining
agreements that were signed at the district level between local boards and teacher unions.
Along the same lines of this merit pay, there was also a proposal for career ladder for
teachers, which was discussed in only 2% of the articles. All the while, state agents tried
to promote a series of small scale merit-based policies (12%) aimed at outstanding
teachers, and -- on another front -- tried recruiting smart talented graduates of high
schools and selective liberal arts colleges and universities into teaching by offering
generous loans, grants, and fellowships in exchange for their commitment to serve as K—
12 teachers (this initiative also corresponded closely with the rationale behind the
previously discussed alternate route policy).

These policies were important part of Governor Kcan’s agenda for improving
teacher quality (his “blueprint for educational reform”). The governor pushed these
policies against a major opposition posed by the NJ EA, which saw any attempt to
introduce merit pay as a critical threat to its unity. The battle over this policy signiﬁes the
wide ideological gap between the state ofﬁcials and union leaders. State ofﬁcials believed
that merit base system would signiﬁcantly enhance teachers’ motivation and outcomes.
while union leaders argued that schools are not businesses and children are not
commodities in the market. Merit-based salaries, teacher unions argued, would create
suspicion and distrust among teachers and between teachers and administrators, and
would obliterate any sense of cooperation that helped teachers learn from their mistakes,

cooperate with peers, and solicit advice and help when needed.

158

 

 

 

The ideological gap and the different interests reflected in this cluster of policies
were so pronounced that neither any party would make any concessions. Governor Kean
tried to tie the minimum salary bill with a teacher union support to a merit-based salary
program. The NJ EA, however. refused to cooperate. Eventually, Kean had no choice but
to push the program forward alone. which ended in what can only be considered as a
defeat on his part. Local NJEA unions around New .lerscy voted almost completely
unanimously to turn down thousands ofdollars in state funding in order to preserve their
unity. Interestingly. because of union rivalry and ideological differences. the NJFT
(which represented only a small percentage ofNew .lcrsey’s teachers. most of whom
were located in the Newark Public School District) accepted the state’s offer.
Nevertheless, after the Department of Education discovered that NJFT leaders were
overrepresented in the list of master teachers, and that the procedures and standards for
selecting the master teachers were flawed (to say the least), the state refused to deliver the
awards and put the policy on hold until further improvements could be made that would
prevent future abuse ofstate funds. To sum up. the policy that started as the jewel in the
crown became an enormous source of burden. embarrassment. and frustration for the
governor.

Returning to Table 4.3. column 3 indicates the policy that appeared as most
dominant in a given article (i.e., it was mentioned the most times and received most of
the space compared to other policies. or it was the only policy mentioned). The ﬁnding
here do not differ greatly from those found on column 2. As expected, overall, there
were fewer policies that received major coverage (because only one policy could be

picked for each of the 175 items). The minimum salary policy is still leading -- with

159

 

 

 

18.9% appearance rate -- as the most dominant policy in the news. The alternate route
into teaching and the master teacher plan had appearance rates of 16.7% and 14.3%
respectively. The preliminary licensing exam received 9% of the attention. Most notable
is the fading out of the undergraduate teacher preparation and teacher quality policies as
dominant in the discussion (from 28% and 21% to only 4% and 6.3% respectively).
Contrary to that, ﬁnger printing policy appears to be the policy that received the highest

rate of coverage in the news compared to all other policies (5 and 3.4 respectively).

160

 

 

Table 4.3 Types of educational policy appearance in the news

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Educational policies in the news Number of items where educational The most dominant
(with the agents who initiated them in policy has appeared (with their educational policy in the news
parentheses) percentages in parentheses) * (with it percentage in
(N :175) parentheses) ** (N’ 167)
Alternate route (state) 50 28
- -_ -__£-8-_§.)_ __ __. ___- -___<_Igzr_____ -
Undergraduate teacher preparatioﬂ 49 7
,.t__SLat¢)________ _, __<_3_§)____._ ___“- __ __ ___H-lt _-___-_.__ _z
Minimum salary (state) l 61 33
_ (34.9) (18.9) _.-_ __
Teacher workforce/ shortage quality 37 l l
H l professionalism (state)- othﬁgrs)_4______ _(_21_ l) _ __ (6.3) _-
State take over (state) 4 1
v_ Q _ (.6)
Master teacher plan (state) 43 25
______________ _ <24 6) ___ #-_.,___<_I:L3__ __ __
Budget issues (state t- others) 28 14
(I6) (8)
Higher education (state) 28 6
(16) (3.4)
Finger printing / security issues 8 6
(searches) (courts) (5) _ __ (3.4) g__4
Outstanding teachers / recruitment 21 5
grants/ teacheryrgognition_(state) q_ - 7 (l2_ _ _g (2.9)
Academy for the advancement of 4
teaching and management (state) (2) l
.- _____ - _ f9) _____--_z__
Standards tests / high school 8 l l
.__ ___mflgisass 13-5! (states- _ ,,__ ______(_5_)____. WW __ _ ‘_ ,_ ___t-é)
'l’eachers' pension (teacher unions) 2 1
_ .. __ _______ __. __ (I). (.6)
Curriculum (Holocaust) (state) I 1
___ _ (.6) (.6)
Licensing exam (state) 33 I6
__________,__ __ ___,__, (I9) __ <9)
[- Union contracts (teacher unions) 22 10
__--_._ _ (l3) ____._ J__. _ _ -____. ___ __ til—___
Career ladder (state) 4 0
_ ____ _ (2) _ ___ (0)
Student drop out (state) 2 l
(I) (.6)
Total 167
(100)

 

 

 

 

 

"' Each news article was coded for up to 5 different policies. Thus the total 01405 reflects an average of2.3
policies per article.
‘” 8 cases where dropped because no policy appeared to be dominant in the text (i.e., discussed more often
than other policies).
“‘* Since only one policy was picked from each article. the percentage of each item is the relative share of

100%.

161

 

Table 4.4 summarizes the patterns of educational policy appearance on the front
page. Overall. very few educational policies made it to the front page. As seen in Table
4.4, from 365 issues in which there was a potential for front page articles concerning
education policy in 1985, only 40 issues (1 1%) had front page items that concerned
educational policies. On average, for every one of these front page items, there have been
four policies that were discussed (159/40). Column 2 describes these policies. There are
four educational policies -- the master teacher plan, the alternate route, teachers’
minimum salary, and the undergraduate preparation of teachers -- which received the
most attention on the front page, with 8.8, 8.2, 8.2, and 7.5 percent respectively. Most
other policies remained at the margins, with very few appearances on the front page.
After controlling for appearance as the dominant policy on the front page (columns 3),
only 40 cases remain.

Interestingly, as reﬂected in Table 4.3, while undergraduate teacher preparation policy
seemed to receive relatively wide attention on column 2, it was appeared only once as the
dominant policy in an article. This might be explained in the “coupling” ofthis policy
with the alternate route policy. This means that it would be usually mentioned next to the
alternate route and would be promoted as an essential accompanying component needed
for the success ofthe alternate route.

The other three policies -- the master teacher plan, the alternate route, and
teachers’ minimum salary -- that appeared most often on page 1 (column 2), were also
those which were indicated as the dominant policies in the articles (column 3). These
three policies did. however. switch places. The minimum salary policy appeared as the

dominant policy in 20% of the front pages that had an education related item (column 3).

162

 

The master teacher plan -- which had the highest percentages of appearance on page 1

(8.8%) -- moved to the second place with 17.5% (column 3). The licensing exam for

teachers was not mentioned much on page 1 (only 5%), but when it was mentioned, the

policy usually received a dominant place in the item bringing it to 15% of the items on

column 3.

 

Table 4.4 Educational policy appearance on page 1

 

 

 

Educational policies in the
news (with the main agents
who initiated them in

Appearance of the policy on page 1
(with the percentage in parentheses)

Appearance of’the policy on page I as
the most dominant policy (with the
percentage in parentheses)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

___—J

 

parentheses) _ _ (n—‘159) (n:40)
Alternate route (state) 13 6
(8.2) ('5)
Undergraduate teacher 12 1
preparation (state) _____ (7.5) _ ___(25) _ __*#_
Minimum salary (state) 13 8
_ (8.2) (29)..
Teacher workforce/ shortage 6
./ quality / professionalism (3.8) 0
(state + others) (0)
State take over (state) 1 0
_ (0.6) _ (0)
Master teacher plan (state) 14 7
____ (8.8) (11.5)
Budget issues (state +‘ 7 3
_gthsrsLE EEE. - (4~4)____ EEEE _E (.7-§_)._ EEE _
Higher education (state) 7 2
(4.4) (5)____ _ _ __ _
Finger printing / security 5 3
issues (searches) (courts) (3.1) (7.5)
Outstanding teachers / 4
recruitment grants/ Teacher (2 5) 2
Recognition (state) (5) _ __
Academy for the l
Advancement of Teaching (0.6) 0
and Management (state) (0)
Standards tests/ High 3
School Proﬁciency Test (1.9) l
___E ___EtStats) _ EE. 3.2-5) E _ z E
Licensing Exam (state) 8 6
(5.0) _ EEE _ E E<_I_S>E E E
Union contracts (teacher 3 l
uniens) (1-9) _ EE , EE EEO-SE ___ E E
Total n/a 40
(L90)

* Student drop out has appeared on two items which are part of 16 items without a page number.

163

 

Setting the Agenda and the Implementation o/‘Educational Policy
The last part ofthe ﬁndings uses the media coverage, state archive documents, and other
publications to report on the capacity of agents in pursuing their educational policy
agenda during 1985 (some of which started before 1985). For each policy, 1 indicate who
were the initiators and supporters ofa policy, and who opposed it. I consider an agent to
be powerful and successful if he was able to push his policy from the stage ofa basic
proposal into a full-ﬂedged policy that was implemented. Implementation, however. as
many have pointed out before and as I will show in one of the cases below, did not
automatically guarantee success.

Table 4.5 provides a complementary perspective that ties together conceptually
the agents and the policies that they have supported or resisted to provide a clearer
picture of the power structure in the ﬁeld of educational policy. As can be seen, among
the ﬁrst ﬁve policies, those that received the most media coverage were all initiated and
pushed for implementation by state agents. This is yet another strong indication that
correlates with the earlier findings shown in the previous tables. This table illuminates the
complex net ofcoalitions. interests that constructed the structure of power in New
Jersey’s ﬁeld of educational policy. Consider. for example, the powerful role of the
NJEA. which backed some ofthe state initiatives (but only after negotiating and making
changes in their original format and content). The state proposals regarding the minimum
salary won the support of the NJ EA for obvious reasons. The union was signiﬁcantly less
cooperative with the state proposals concerning the alternate route. undergraduate teacher
preparation. and the state Iicensure test. Nevertheless. the union did not voice anything

more than a moderate cautious criticism about these state proposals. with the cases of

164

 

alternate route and licensure tests being the hardest to swallow. As a result. all these
policies were approved.

The union decided to forcefully oppose only what it perceived as an existential
threat, the proposal to establish a master teacher plan. The govemor, on the other hand, as
I have already indicated, has this plan and what it had represented ideologically (in terms
of the importance of competition, free market, and meritocracy) on the top of his political
agenda. As a result of this confrontation, the state program was rejected by almost all
districts, although it promised generous rewards for participants. Overall, the struggle
over the master plan proved to be an important victory for the NJEA that was able to a
draw boundaries around its core jurisdiction. Another interesting ﬁnding relates to the
difference among the positions taken by the two unions. The NJ FT resisted the alternate
route until the bitter end. while supporting the master teacher plan. The NJ EA held the
opposite position: it changed its mind and supported the alternate route, while resisting
the master teacher plan. These differences are part of the ideological differences between
the unions, with the AFT being more open to merit pay programs aimed at fostering
quality. The differences could also be explained on the grounds of each union having
different interests and constituents. In light of this perspective, the NJ FT’s resistance to
the alternate route could be explained by the fact that, in addition of being a teacher
union. it also represented most teacher educators in New Jersey. who would be the big

losers if the alternate route policy was to be implemented.

165

 

Table 4.5 Status summary of educational policy in New Jersey, 1985

 

EA 3‘11}_5_I_"E012129_§l_‘_19"_ _

 

 

Teacher preparation in
coHegcs

 

 

Minimum salary

J

Education. Dept. of
Higher Education.
State Board of

Education. NJEA_ __

 

Governor, Dept. of
Education. Dept. of
Higher Education

Educational policies in Implemented Agents in support Fail to be
the news implement
Alternate route + Governor, Dept. of

NJFT. some members of

NJFT. some members of
the house Democratic
majority, AACTE, teacher
educators

 

the house Democratic
majority, AACTE, teacher
educators in new jersey __

 

Govemor. Dept. of
Education. Dept. of
Higher Education.

NJEA. NJFT, the House Republican
house Democratic minority, New Jersey
majority School Board Associating

 

Master teacher plan

 

teachers _
Academy for the
Advancement of’
Teaching and
Management

 

Licensing exam for new

Governor, Dept. of

Education. Dept. of

Higher Education,
NJ FT

 

Governor. Dept. of
Education

NJEA

 

Teacher educators

 

—>—

Governor. Dept. of’

Education

'I‘CashgisdasatetsE ‘

 

Career ladder

 

“__Union contracts

“Standards tests High

 

 

 

Govemor. Dept. of
Education

 

NJEANJFT

(love—rnor. Dept. of

 

 

A 1‘ "NJI‘Z’ATNJF’I‘; ’l’eache—r

_N 1125313” VIE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I started this inquiry by revisiting the question posed by Robert Dahl (1961) halfa

.§s_h.0_9_|£0f1916"¢rlsslt E EElE EqusatmEn__-_._.____ EE_. EEE ,_,_.L:Qgcat0r8_ __EE
Outstanding teachers l Governor. Dept. of
recruitment grants." Education
dodge fellowships for
promising graduates /"
teacher recognition _ _ NJEA ﬂu]
Discussion

century ago: Who governs? As long as the political economy of our societies continues

to be governed by groups and individuals who aspire for power, this question will remain

relevant and appealing. Over time, social agents work to transform. adjust. and revise the

166

V5

ways in which power is distributed in political systems. Recall the two theoretical
traditions described earlier, each of which understand the process of ﬁghting for power in
different ways. This study was not designed to test which theory is more valid in the case
ofNew Jersey. Instead, I intentionally made the decision to put more emphasis on the
theory of Bourdieu in order to develop a theoretical alternative to the model of Kingdon.
Thus, this study was designed to develop an applicable empirical model that would
carefully operationalize the Bourdieuian theoretical notion of the ﬁeld and use it to
conceptualize -— and then see -- the power structure in which educational policy-making
was being shaped and decided in New Jersey in 1985. Here I elaborate and discuss the
merits of using this theoretical approach compared to the pluralist approach as
represented by the work of Kingdon. Before I do that, I would like to start the discussion
by ﬁrst considering the ﬁndings along the lines of the pluralists.
The Kingdon Approach

Kingdon’s agenda setting model is based on the pluralist model in which many
players with different interests strive to insert their vision into the policy agenda. The
assumption that Kingdon and the pluralists make is that, in a democracy, the obstacles for
participation are minimal and that power is ﬂuid, unstructured. a result of a constant ﬂow
of interests which works against any attempt of players to preserve their power. The ﬁeld
of education in New Jersey serves as an example. Several agents enjoyed high degrees of
power that enabled them to actively shape and push policies that correlated with their
interests and vision. For instance, state agents who were looking to expand their
jurisdiction over the ﬁeld of education and had deep concerns about teacher quality,

believed that teacher quality would be improved through the implementation of market-

167

based reforms, like the master teacher plan, alternate route, and the like. While it is true
that all indicators for agents’ power (types of dominance in the news. and the power of
agents to carry policy proposals to the stage of implementation) did point out that state
agents appeared as the most powerful players in the ﬁeld, this power did not allow the
state to establish uncontested authority. The NJEA, the largest teacher union of New
Jersey, ‘posed a continuous challenge to the state. During the 19803, it focused on
improving teacher benefit packages by supporting the minimum salary policy (which
ended up pushing all teacher salaries up) and by opposing the master teacher plan that ——
had it been accepted -- would have threatened its unity. Legislators, especially those
belonging to the Democratic house majority proved also to be a powerful agent,
especially injoining with unions to form coalitions that pressured the governor to agree
for certain concessions concerning the policy about teachers’ minimum salary.

In most instances, the state was forced to make concessions in order to "buy” the
support of other agents. and when it refused to do so (as in the case of the master teacher
plan), the policy faced strong opposition and eventually died in its tracks. Thus, the
ﬁndings do support -- to some extent -- the pluralist approach that conceptualizes public
policy as an arena governed by the interests of many stakeholders. Furthermore, the
findings seem to support two major pluralist notions. First, that state agents have a strong
grasp on setting and implementing of the public policy agenda (Kingdon, 2003). Indeed.
one can see in the ﬁndings how the policy agenda was largely set by state agents. Second.
that policy is the outcome of negotiations and concessions between various groups that

have interest in it (Dahl, 1961).

168

However, the policies were not implemented by state agents alone. Different
coalitions with different stakeholders organized around various issues, thus refuting the
notion of a clear—cut divide between agents along racial, class, or any other lines. In the
case of the minimum salary policy, for example, the data suggest the formation of an ad-
hoc coalition. which included the state, teacher unions, and the Democratic house
majority. On other issues like the master teacher plan, these same agents forcefully
opposed each other. Yet on other issues, like the undergraduate teacher preparation
reform in colleges, the NJ EA exercised minimal interference in the state plans, while the
NJ F T rejected the reform all together. For pluralists, the fact that these educational
policies were approved through coalition arrangements is evidence that power in
democracies is not controlled in the hands of small elites and that democracy provides a
voice to many stakeholders. Furthermore, the fact that so much power was granted in the
hands of elected politicians and state bureaucrats is. according to pluralists, a sign for a
healthy democracy.

A Bourdieuan lie-Interpretation

A Bourdieuan reading of the ﬁndings views public education, specifically
educational policy, as a ﬁeld in which different agents have stakes and ﬁght for power.
interests, control, ideology, and vision.

Thus, for Bourdieu, the power that the state possesses is not obvious, “healthy.
“”natural, or “moral”; the state is just another agent who tries to materialize its capital in
order to occupy more control in the ﬁeld. Furthermore, according to my reading of
Bourdieu (1999), democratic procedures should be closely scrutinized, or they will be

exploited by agents who are constantly on the lookout to gain more power that will allow

169

them to establish even more control. This does not mean that Bourdieu is not accepting or
welcoming the moral goods that might be associated with democratic structures. He
obviously does, but at the same time he would probably argue that democracy is not an
utopian ideal that we can presume will naturally evolve. but is rather an ideal that should
be vigilantly fought for. Educational policy-making is one key field of political action
where powerful agents struggle to construct and insert their interests and vision over the
field. Understanding how this field works and who controls and shapes it is crucial for
understanding how our society operates.

An important theoretical contribution that evolves from this discussion is that the
Bourdieuan concept of the ﬁeld allows researchers to adopt a flexible perspective ofthe
politics of education. one that is not captured in its own inherent assumptions, ideology.
and unsubstantiated wishful thinking. The ﬁeld is a dynamic entity that sometimes can
have pluralist characteristics. while at other times has a rigid hierarchical structure. with
elite that reproduces itself and is highly resistant to changes.

When applied to the case study of New Jersey, Bourdieu’s concept helps us
reconsider several issues that are usually concealed in the discourse of mainstream policy
analyses. First, as implied above, Bourdieu’s model helps in conceptualizing the role of
the state as an agent that skillfully participates in the game and is able to capture power to
affect educational policy through the use of symbolic capital (see Chapter 3). Second. the
operationalization of Bourdieu’s model, as suggested in this study. provides a meaningful
way to evaluate the power ofthe different agents in the field in different points in time.
Third. instead of understanding policy formation as a phenomenon that is being

constructed partly by chance and partly through the hands of powerful individuals

170

(Kingdon, 2003), Bourdieu offers an alternative framework in which policy is an
outcome ofa power struggle among interests and visions that are held by various agents
that are part of a field. The policies, agents. and struggles between them correspond to
each other and are largely determined by preexisting power structures in the ﬁeld, that is.
by the agents that occupy positions of power in the ﬁeld and the kinds of ideas and
visions that they look to nurture.

The main contribution ofthis study is the development of practical tools that help
identify agents and issues and evaluate the power structures ofa given ﬁeld. For this
purpose, I have used: 1) news coverage measurements of prominence that reﬂect on the
hierarchy of power among the agents in the field of educational policy and 2) evaluations
of agents’ power based on their capacity to initiate and lead policies to the stage of
implementation. According to these two complementary measurements of power, there
were a fairly large and diverse set of social agents who operated in the ﬁeld of
educational policy in New Jersey during 1985. Power in the ﬁeld, however. was
distributed unevenly. Overall, the inquiry reveals that the governor and the state
Department of Education in New Jersey were able to develop after four years a relatively
substantial degree of control over the ﬁeld. These state agents used their formal mandate
as ofﬁcials who represent the state of New Jersey (symbolic capital) to enter forcefully
into areas, like the ﬁeld of educational policy, which they considered to be part of their
jurisdiction. This move on their part, as I have argued in chapter two, illustrates a shift in
the history ofNew Jersey. a state that was known for its powerful local interests (Salmore

& Salmore, 1993 ).

171

In practice. the building up ofa central state control over educational policy was
gradual. State officials achieved it by promoting numerous policy initiatives that reflected
their interest in changing the ﬁeld in several ways. The ﬁndings suggest that the three
most discussed policies were: 1) minimum teacher salary; 2) an alternate route into
teaching and a state teacher Iicensure exam and; 3) the master teacher plan. All ofthese
policies were promoted by the state and reﬂected a clear interest in teacher quality. The
content ofthe policies also reflected the ideological tendencies, and belief system of their
authors — the state officials and the consultants who helped them articulate their ideas and
vision. In particular, one may note that the alternate route and master teacher plan leaned
toward a market-based agenda that supported competition as a vehicle to enhance quality.
A handful of other policies also shared these ideological tendencies.

An important exception, however. to these ideas of competition and free market
was the most discussed policy: a minimum salary for teachers. Several explanations can
be considered here. One is that Governor Kean supported the minimum salary policy as a
way to offset resistance from the house Democrats and teacher unions to his other major
reforms. A second explanation may argue that Kean was primarily interested in
supporting and enhancing the teaching profession. and understood the issue of salary as
one essential component ofthe “package.” although it was not favored by his own party’s
members.

Nevertheless, state agents were not alone in the field of educational policy. The
findings consistently rank teacher unions as second or third in their importance. visibility,
and power. Legislatures were also prominent in the field. Teacher unions. in particular

the NJEA, was the only agent in the ﬁeld that had the resources, organizational capacity.

institutional infrastructure, and broad public legitimacy that allowed it to challenge state
officials rhetorically. and on the ground (as I have previously demonstrated through the
case ofthe master teacher plan).

Finally, there were various agents that one would expect to have interests in most
or at least some of the debates, but are hardly mentioned in the news. Teacher educators,
educational administrators, and local boards of education are a few signiﬁcant examples.
Some might say that this only proves the bias in the reports that are published in the mass
media. However, as I have already argued, there are reasons to believe that the media
reﬂected the power structure of the ﬁeld. Overall, teacher educators, educational
administrators. and local boards of education had relatively low appearance rates in the
news mainly because of other reasons, including the fact that they had a narrow interest
which related to only one or two policies in the ﬁeld, and that they did not have the
necessary capital that would allow them to become powerful agents in the ﬁeld (see
Chapter 3).

Conclusions

The catalyst for this study was a deep interest in New Jersey’s politics of
education during the 19803. This interest evolved into a theoretical and methodological
exploration, combined with a practical interest in revealing and understanding the
structures of power. the social agents, and the various policies that shaped the ﬁeld of
educational policy.

One important issue that revealed itself throughout this inquiry relates to the role
of theory in policy analysis. Educational policy-making is a contentious issue. not only

for policy-makers. but also for researchers. especially when the lines between research

I73

and policy are blurred. In this environment, it is important for researchers to be aware of
the ideological biases that are concealed in their scientific theoretical approaches. This
study pointed out to some of these biases that have been part of the widely used and
accepted pluralist approach of Kingdon (2003). While not dismissing the contribution of
Kingdon and the pluralists more generally. this study offers the socio-political theory of
the prominent French sociologist. Pierre Bourdieu. His meta-theory has its own
assumptions that may seem problematic to some. but overall it provides a more flexible
framework to describe the politics of social entities. For instance, the theory of fields may
be used to describe ﬁelds with relatively democratic structure, where power is shared
among agents and the hierarchy is flat. On the other hand, the theory can conceptualize
more rigid social environments, where the power is institutionalized and preserved in the
hands of longstanding elites.

Theory alone can provide ideas, but it needs specific tools that help illuminate the
complex social environment that is of interest to us. In order to do so effectively. these
tools need to be tied to specific case studies. Thus in this research, the methods and
collected data were designed to illuminate the field of educational policy in New Jersey
during the 19803. For purposes of reliability and validity, I used two data sources »— one.
which consisted of news coverage and another, that mainly included archival documents.
academic publications, and interviews. I used these two sources to better understand the
link between social agents and policies, and to conceptualize questions of power and
control in the ﬁeld of educational policy.

Many have tried to argue and demonstrate before that, during the 19803. the

politics ofeducation. speciﬁcally teacher certiﬁcation and preparation. in New Jersey

174

have been dominated by state officials (Carlson, 1990; Kean. 1988; Klagholz, 2000). In
this study, however, I offer a new theoretical approach to conceptualize and empirically
describe and explain these political developments. in a way that sheds new light and
portrays a more complex picture of those historical events. State agents indeed became
major agents that initiated most educational policy in the ﬁeld, and appeared as the most
prominent agents in the news. But they were acting, especially in some occasions, under
the constraints of teacher unions and legislatures who continued to hold positions of
power in the field.

Most importantly. the ﬁndings ofthis research should be of interest to educators
and all those who are in favor of having diversity of ideas and would like to learn more
about how politics shapes their lives as professionals and the lives ofthose who are
educated by them. The ﬁndings of this inquiry teach us once again that it is only when
professionals are organized as a collective that they may have a voice in policy-making
processes. Having this voice is important. for it democratizes the discourse around
educational policy and does not leave it in the hands ofone group. Bourdieu helps us
understand this point. by demonstrating the problematic position of the state as an agent
in the field. States tend to portray themselves as an objective entity that belongs to the
people and altruistically serves their interests. But surrendering the power and resources
of the ﬁeld of education into the hands ofstate politicians is not the best way to go. Why?
Having too much power in the hands of one entity is an invitation for despotism. We
have seen in the case ofNew Jersey that state agents had their own agendas, interests. and

visions, like any other agent in the ﬁeld. These, by definition, could never serve all

175

constituents. Having the interests and visions of other agents is essential for the viability

of the ﬁeld as a dynamic and. hopefully, more democratic space.

176

Chapter 5

CONCLUSIONS
Main Findings

This dissertation focused on clarifying the tension that developed during the 19803
between the state ofNew Jersey and the education establishment concerning issues of
authority and jurisdiction in education at large and teacher certification and preparation in
particular. Although this struggle was comprehensive in scope. intensive. and spanned
nearly 8 years. it was resolved gradually through the enactment or blockage of
educational policy. This fact helped me direct my efforts at a careful analysis ofthe
educational policy-making process and its outcomes. In this analysis. I was interested in
revealing the allocation of power between the various education stakeholders at that time.
or as stratiﬁcation sociologists would argue, in contemplating and sorting out who were
the winners and the losers in this struggle for power and control.

In simple terms. my response to this question is that New Jersey is a case where
the state was able to enhance its control over the ﬁeld of educational policy. while other
players. like teacher educators and teacher unions. experienced a loss of power compared
to what they had in the past. This finding corresponds with what others have already
suggested in the past. that is. a story ofa ﬁerce struggle that winds up with a victory of
the state over the education establishment (Carlson. 1990; Cooperman & Klagholz, 1985;
Kean. 1988; Klagholz. 2000). Indeed. Chapters 2 and 3 of this dissertation -- which
focused on the alternate route and teacher preparation reform —- support this argument. In
Chapter 2. I describe the historical context ofthe ﬁeld of education in New Jersey. and

how the state worked to change the power balance in it through two conceptual

177

frameworks, the agenda setting model ofKingdon (2003) and Bourdieu’s (1985) theory
of social ﬁelds. In Chapter 3. I provide a close analysis ofthe policy-making process and
report on the types of capital that have been used by state officials to subdue the battle
against teacher educators.

Nevertheless. a careful and comprehensive analysis of the findings reveals a more
complicated and nuanced reality in New Jersey. In Chapter 4. I contend that New Jersey’s
field of educational policy consisted of a complex power structure. In this structure there
were various agents, like state officials, teacher unions, house legislatures. teacher
educators, educational administrators. and board of education members, all of whom
occupied positions with various degrees of prominence and impact on educational policy.
To complicate things further, one needs to also consider the different scope of interests
among the various agents. Some, like the state, had broad and comprehensive interests in
education, while others -- like the New Jersey School Board Association -- had relatively
narrow interests (teacher salaries, budgeting, etc.).

When considering all educational policies that were discussed in 1985, it is clear
that the policies concerning teacher certiﬁcation and preparation that were discussed in
Chapters 2 and 3 appeared to receive much attention in the news (and in the research
literature). Yet, overall, these policies represented only one fraction of the entire ﬁeld (the
findings suggest that these policies were mentioned in approximately 25% to 33% of the
news coverage).

Another ﬁnding in Chapter 4 demonstrates that, while the state was quite
successful in implementing the teacher certification and preparation policy proposals. it

clearly failed to do so in the masters’ teacher program that was a top priority for the

178

governor. In light of this evidence, it would be inappropriate to draw generalizations from
the story of the alternate route policy to other educational policies in New Jersey. Instead,
it becomes rather clear that the story is more nuanced and complex. That is. the state had
enhanced its control in some parts ofthe field, but failed to do so in other parts where
other agents. in particular the NJEA, continued to hold a prominent role.

Theoretical Contribution

For decades, the concept of power in society and the roles ofdiffercnt social and
political stakeholders in shaping and regulating politics have been prominent subjects in
sociology. political science, and public policy literature. In this work, I have tried to
suggest an alternative — the political sociology of Pierre Bourdieu -- to the mainstream
pluralist conceptualization of power, which is considered by many scholars to provide the
most adequate analysis of power in American politics.

Let me start by briefly reviewing the main notions in Kingdon’s and Bourdieu’s
approaches. By using terms like interest groups. coalition, and democratic participation.
pluralists have established a theory that seeks to describe democracies as politically
inclusive societies where individuals can maximize their interests by electing govemment
representatives and by actively participating in a civil society. The latter may include, for
example, establishing or becoming members of active interest groups. In accordance
with these principles. policy and policy-making processes are conceived by pluralists as
contested arenas that are relatively open for individuals input. This input may include
various levels of active participation that depends on the importance of a given issue for
different individuals. Because individuals look to maximize their interests. they are likely

to become involved in coalition building whenever this might serve them. This also

179

means that power is enjoyed for relatively short periods of time by the same coalition, as
individuals are constantly moving and looking to join more proﬁtable partnerships.

Throughout this work, I have been using the agenda model of Kingdon (2003) --
perhaps the most regarded in the ﬁeld -- as a prime example for a pluralist based model
of policy analysis. I have argued that while Kingdon’s model seems powerful in
conceptualizing how a policy proposal gets on the agenda. it also suffers from several
fundamental limitations. Let us consider these main limitations in brief. First, the model
entitles the state a role and position that are based on the assumptions that (a) the
American state is a representative entity that reﬂects the aggregate will of the people; and
(b) the state is an objective entity that is responsible for the public good. While these
assumptions may seem obvious to many, they should be constantly and seriously
questioned for their mythical components. Second, the model argues that the political
system with its three streams (as discussed in Chapters 1 and 2) is so complex and
unpredicted that it is impossible to anticipate which policy proposal will get onto the
agenda. Here Kingdon fails to acknowledge the possibility that there are, at times, power
centers in the ﬁeld that can pave the way for a speciﬁc proposal to become a full-ﬂedged
policy. Third, the model puts undue emphasis on the policy entrepreneur as an essential
component for the convergence and transformation of the three streams into a viable
policy.

It is my contention that, although the pluralist tradition sheds considerable light
on policy-making, the work of Pierre Bourdieu helps us see other aspects of the policy-
making process. especially issues obscured in the pluralist tradition. To demonstrate how

the theory of Bourdieu is helpful in conceptualizing the politics surrounding the struggle

180

over educational policy in New Jersey, while addressing the limitations of Kingdon’s
model. I have organized two chapters of this work around two major notions taken from
Bourdicu’s theory: capital (Chapter 3) and social ﬁeld (Chapter 4).

So what is the contribution of Bourdieu’s theory to educational policy research?
Bourdieu provides analytic tools and a conceptual framework that are comprehensive but.
at the same time. accommodate the ﬁne tuning needed in the specific context of every
case study. Like pluralist models, Bourdieu conceptualized the social sphere and its
various fields as contested arenas. where agents are constantly involved in a struggle over
resources. The big difference. however. is that Bourdieu integrated to his model the
likelihood of having signiﬁcant extant power structures in the field, that would, for
example. expect to have an interest in and thus impact the content ofa particular policy.
These power structures -- which could either be groups or individuals who hold excessive
power -- are not easily replaced. as they usually use sophisticated strategies to legitimize
and preserve their prominent positions over time. Thus. Bourdieu was critical of the
pluralist conceptualization of politics and the rhetoric that views the state as a
disinterested benevolent entity. Ile argued that, when we try to analyze a social field. we
should carefully consider who are the different agents that operate in it, what kinds of
capital they bring to the game, and how they try to use their capital to enhance their
power in the field. When the state takes an active part in a struggle, it should be
considered like any other agent in the field, that is. an agent who tries to use sophisticated
strategies for claiming maximum power.

And last, Bourdieu dismisses the notion of individual agency as a possible

explanatory variable for anything. let alone the acceptance of public policy as Kingdon

181

suggests. For Bourdieu, this is a romantic idea. Individuals are part of their society and
part of their ﬁeld, where they are socialized to accept certain positions, values, and
norms. The capital they possess -- together with their life experience and current position
-- build their habitus. which includes their behavioral responses to the events they
encounter. This also means that individuals are not really capable of making rational
decisions or choices concerning their “interests.” but are rather driven to act based on
their habitus, “feel for the game” and by their positions in the field. Thus, according to
Bourdieu. individuals are not likely to become suddenly passionate about leading a policy
to implementation (as suggested in the notion of the policy entrepreneur) unless they
were carefully prepared for doing so, tacitly or explicitly. Things are more complex from
Bourdieu’s perspective, for individuals may lead the charge for the implementation ofa
particular policy. but it is no accident that the individual ﬁnds himself in that position.
The invisible hand ofcapital plays an enormous role in who has — and gets — access to
power.

In sum, there are four main areas ofcontcntion between the two theories (see
Table 5.1 below):

1. Social structures - for Bourdieu, social structures are usually rigid because
social agents have the tendency to preserve and defend their privileges vis-a-
vis others who lack them. Kingdon does not share this view. For him the
social sphere consists of streams which do not reflect a stable recognizable
power structure. Thus, the streams have only a random unpredicted effect on
the policy agenda. And over time they are likely to represent equally the
interests of all the stakeholders.

2. Individuals’ role - for Bourdieu individuals would always be viewed as an
inseparable part of their social and cultural environment. T bus, the habitus is

an outcome ofa complex aggregation of individual’s life experiences as

182

reflected in his or her access to the various forms of capital and the position he
or her occupies in the social space. While Kingdon suggests that there are big
forces that shape the policy arena, he. in contrast to Bourdieu. insists that the
big forces he calls streams act in random and can be converged only by
devoted individuals (policy entrepreneurs) who care deeply about a certain
policy.

The democratic state - for Bourdieu the state is a sophisticated agent that tries
to portray itself as different from other agents. One that is above the others.
that only has aspirations to promote a universal good, that is disinterested,
objective, responsible. Under the guise of these attributes the state has been
successful in invading social ﬁelds and taking control from other agents who
were accused of holding and promoting only their narrow interests. Kingdon.
holds a very different view. He believes that the democratic state is 3
representing entity ofa collective of individuals. which provides them with
the opportunity to fully participate and shape their lives through public policy.
Thus, because of its democratic character the state, in kingdon's view, does
and should enjoy a legitimate superior stance in the public sphere.

The notion of interest - for Bourdieu, the interests of an agent are embodied
inclinations entrenched in the hearts and minds of the agent through his or her
habitus. These inclinations do not reﬂect calculated rational choices, but are
largely explained by the habitus and the position of the agent in the social
space. While Kingdon does not directly discuss this issue, he will probably
disagree with Bourdieu’s argument. For Kingdon politics are driven by careful
calculation of interests in part of the individuals, which assumes that
individuals are rational and capable ofchoosing the option that would

maximize their proﬁts.

183

 

Table 5.1 A theoretical comparison between Bourdieu and Kingdon

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The theoretical component Bourdieu Kingdon
Social structure Relatively rigid, social agents Fluid consists of ad hoc
tend to preserve power / and coalitions. Policies enter the
changes do not happen by agenda in a random sequence
chance
Individuals' role Always the outcome oftheir Policy entrepreneurs are
speciﬁc location within the powerful — can change the
___. _______ __ >_____ _4 social space _______ political realitL __
The democratic state A powerful agent / “bank of Elected officials are those
symbolic capital” who seek to responsible for operating
have more control of the social state’s institutions. They
space, and is increasingly represent and serve a
successful in doing so. The state collective of individuals who
tend to serve and represent those are actively pursuing their
with excessive capital political interests.
The notion of interest Entrenched in the hearts and Rationally motivated, drives
minds of agents / not a individuals to maximize their
calculated rational action proﬁts

 

 

While I ﬁnd Bourdieu‘s notions to be very helpful in analyzing educational policy
they were not always fully consistent with my ﬁndings. Bourdieu’s extensive research,
driven by his political sentiments. focused primarily on social fields with relatively strong
elites that were successful in reproducing themselves and preserving their privilege
positions. I encountered also different kinds of ﬁelds that vary in their structure of power.
While some tended to have rigid structures with strong elites who preserve their privilege
position and are highly resistant to change, other fields were more open to changes and
enjoy relatively high number of social agents who were engaged in the game and had the
power to shape the ﬁeld. I believe that Bourdieu‘s notions can help make these
distinctions and thus are capable of providing a thoughtful analysis of educational policy,
one which requires flexible tools that are not biased toward either the pluralist or
conflictual positions and thus can clarify the conditions under which a policy was

proposed and accepted or rejected.

I84

To conclude, I hope that, by presenting the limitations of the pluralist based
approach of Kingdon, in light of the new insights that the theoretical alternative proposed
by Bourdieu provides, I will be able to raise doubts among political and policy scientists
about the sheer potential of the pluralist tradition to explain policy-making. Serious
consideration of that kind might lead to a constructive professional debate, more nuanced
research, and a refined theory.

Before I move to a discussion of the possible implications and future research that
may come out ofthis study, let me ﬁrst consider the limitations ofthe study.

Limitations

There are several limitations of this dissertation that deserve further
acknowledgment and explanation in my part. The central limitations include: I) the type
of data that was collected, 2) the generalizability of the ﬁndings, and 3) the theory.
Although this is not an exhaustive list, the issues included, in my mind, reflect the issues
that have troubled me the most as I was trying to consider the values, impact, and weak
spots in my arguments. I reflect on them here, hoping that in the future I be better
prepared to overcome the complexities as they may arise in my future work.

The ﬁrst limitation relates to the type of data that were collected and used
in the work. This limitation repeated itselfdifferently, especially in Chapter 3 and 4. In
chapter 3. for example, I didn’t have the same quality of data for each form ofcapital.
While this might very well suggest that some types of capital were more important in the
struggle for power. and thus had more wealth of data to support them, the reality might
also be that some types of capital manifest themselves in varied forms, which would

require different data collection methods. In particular, this has been the case with social

I85

,4.

capital. I believe that the explanation that I provided in the text for the lack of social
capital is a valid one. Nevertheless, if I had the opportunity to conduct more interviews
and verify this point with the stories of substantial number of individuals, I would know
that I am standing on a ﬁrmer ground regarding to my argument. In Chapter 4, data was
again a major concern for me. As I have pointed out in that chapter, when possible.
researchers have used surveys to describe structures of power and the possession of
capital in social fields. In my case, this method was not applicable, for I was studying a
policy retrospectively. This meant that I needed to improvise and ﬁnd a responsible
alternative that would give comparable results. I have done so by analyzing the media
coverage of educational policy and the agents who struggled over it. In this case. a
criticism concerning the unreliability of the method used would be to some extent
legitimate. Nobody can claim to have used a method for the first time with full success.
However. I have tried to provide maximum support to my claims also by using an
alternative method that was looking at the various agents in the field and recording their
support or opposition to the various policies. Then I checked which of these policies was
implemented successfully and which was blocked. I consider the fact that the two
methods yielded consistent results an encouraging sign that the news coverage method is
fairly reliable. Overall, it might have been helpful if I had more access to individuals who
had participated in the struggle (through surveys or interviews) in strengthening my
claims. especially in C haptcr 4. However. this was not feasible 20 years after the

45
debates.

 

"5 Even with granted access to a field. conducting a survey with a representative sample of participants is a
very challenging and costly project that would need substantial funding and thus would probably not be
applicable for every dissertation study.

186

The second limitation of this study relates to the kinds of generalizations that can
be drawn from it. That is, what kinds of conclusions from this study are applicable to
other ﬁelds of educational policy in other states? My ﬁrst intuition led me to argue that
the general themes of the New Jersey story are likely to have occurred in other locations
as well. Indeed, in the first drafts ofmy second chapter this was one of my leading
arguments. Thus I viewed the fact that alternate route policies mushroomed across the
US. after the New Jersey case received national coverage, as yet another validation of
my initial intuition. Ilowever, as I have become more acquainted with the policy-making
processes of alternate routes in other states, I gradually understood that these policies
should first be conceived in their local political, social, and historical contexts. This
argument might be seen as a recipe for scientiﬁc weakness among social scientists, who
believe in the ideal that good research provides helpful generalizations. But Bourdieu
( l 992) is helpful to us here as well, for he argued that theory shouldn’t be “treated as
intellectual totems" (p. 16] ’). Instead, he advocated for an approach that understood
theory as being closely related and shaped by the speciﬁc characteristics of the ﬁeld:

Their [the concepts of habitus, ﬁeld, or symbolic capital] construction and use

emerged in the practicalities of the research enterprise, and it is in this context that

they must be evaluated. The function of the concepts I employ is ﬁrst and

foremost to designate. in a kind of shorthand, within the research procedure, a

theoretical stance, a principle of methodological choice... Systematization

necessarily comes ex post, as fruitful analogies emerge little by little, as the useful

properties of the concept are successfully tried and tested. (p. I61)

I87

In my research. I built on the concepts that Bourdieu developed over the years.
but I employed them carefully, checking their applicability to the specific ﬁeld of
educational policy in New Jersey. Thus. I argue, that any future research that looks at
employing the Wittgensteinian "thinking tools” of Bourdieu should focus ﬁrst on the
idiosyncrasies of the new field and only then try and see how these tools can help
conceptualize the speciﬁcs of the ﬁeld.46

Last. my decision to import Bourdieu’s sociological concepts -- developed in
France -- might be seen as inapplicable for an American environment. After all, the
French context -— with its centralization, especially in education —- is much different than
that of the U .8. Moreover, how can the ideas ofa French sociologist. who never wrote
about policy—making. be sensibly applied to the ﬁeld of educational policy in New
Jersey?

Leaving aside the abundance ofcriticism of scholars who have not first carefully
and thoroughly explored Bourdieu”s writing,47 I admit that applying imported theoretical
concepts is potentially problematic. If we go back to Bourdieu’s claim that theory
develops on the ground. and (if I might add) the capacity to develop certain patterns of
thinking -- a scientific habitus -- also develop in speciﬁc social and cultural context, it is
likely that they encompass the complexities and respond well to the history ofthe
originating society. Thus. Bourdieu and his writings should always be understood as an
outcome of the French academic environment. It is quite legitimate then to ask how can
a theory that evolved in a French environment possibly respond to the American field,

which according to all signs is arguably very different? Furthermore. in this dissertation I

 

I) . . . . . . . . . .
‘ Ihis seems particularly Important in education research Circles. in which there has been a wholesale

embracing of Bourdieu’s concepts without this kind of situation-speciﬁc caution.
4’ See references to those critiques in Bourdieu & Wacquant (1992) and Bourdieu (198x letter from duke).

I88

used Bourdieu‘s concepts to challenge the pluralist theory, a theory that evolved in
America, by Americans who monitored closely the political environment of their society.

I have no easy answer to these issues, which can fairly be considered as
limitations. Although I am not arguing for the wholesale replacement of pluralist theory
with Bourdieu. my only answer is that I have tried to keep these issues and concerns in
mind while collecting and analyzing the data. I started this work without having
Bourdieu's theory in mind, but as I have gradually became aware to the kind of issues
that would need to be addressed in a serious analysis of the alternate route policy ofNew
Jersey, Bourdieu kept coming back as a powerful explanatory frame. Indeed, after
considering the data from multiple perspectives, I became convinced that the qualities of
Bourdieu‘s concepts carry potentially universal applicability and. in the case of the New
Jersey altcmativc route policy. provides a powerful conceptualization of such a complex
story.

Overall, I believe that some of what I have listed above as potential limitations in
the case of Bourdieu might also be seen as beneﬁcial. For example. the importation ofa
theory could end up not as being a problem, but a blessing, offering an alternative way of
seeing and understanding various aspect of the ﬁeld in question. So far this has been the
case in other places around the globe, where the concepts of Bourdieu have been applied
by scores of scholars who found his theory to be meaningful and helpful in
conceptualizing social struggles in various ﬁelds.48 I hope that my study ofNew Jersey

adds to this line of work.

 

“8 See for example. the work ofJéhannesson (I993) on thejﬁeld of education in Iceland. or the work of
Anheier, Gerhards, and Romo (1995) on the ﬁeld of poetry in Kt'iln. Germany. These are just two

189

Implications for Teacher Educators and the Education Establishment

Conceptualizing the ways in which social agents struggled for power in New
Jersey’s ﬁeld of educational policy during the 19805 may not look promising in terms of
having a practical contribution to the field of education today. I believe, however, that
this line of work does provide meaningful conceptual tools that are helpful in enabling
educators to think more critically about their profession and improving their current
understanding concerning struggles over educational policy. This beliefcorrcsponds with
my views as a sociologist: that educators should be well informed regarding to their
position in the social sphere. should be cautious about the concealed components of their
own professional agenda, open to criticism of outsiders, and prepared to ﬁght to preserve
some control over the core of their ﬁeld. Since educators are constantly being challenged
by various social agents, this historical work may be relevant and helpful in clarifying the
general nature of current struggles, as well as helping educators reconsider the character
and features of their own “professionalization” agenda.

A recent work of Wilson and Tamir (in press) demonstrates a possible application
of Bourdieu‘s theory. In this work, we analyzed major contemporary debates concerning
teacher certiﬁcation, Iicensure, and program accreditation. Included in this is an
examination of the major arguments posed by the different challengers of the education
establishment, for example, criticisms of those who support free market and competition
(e.g., I-Iess, 2001). According to this critique the teacher education establishment thwarts
talented people of becoming successful teachers by placing unnecessary requirements for

acquiring teacher certiﬁcation. Other challengers argue that teacher preparation programs

 

examples of scholars who understood the universal aspects of Bourdieu’s theory and were able to apply it
skillfully in supposedly very different environments.

I90

are too progressive and thus detached from the “real“ values held by most Americans
(e.g. Will, 2006). Moreover. those prospective teachers who refuse to be indoctrinated by
the system are expelled. Then we offered an explanation of how these debates may
progress and what are their consequences for the professionalization of teaching. At its
heart, such an analysis is practical, offering insiders — in this case, teacher educators —— a
way to think about which criticisms to attend to and why.

Similarly. I can imagine some practical lessons teacher educators might take from
the analyses offered in this dissertation. For example, if teacher educators want to regain
or keep power, they might want to consider the importance of building and maintaining
strong and meaningful relationship (social capital) with teacher unions and university
professors from other disciplines. Once these kinds of alliances are constructed, teacher
educators would possibly be able to rely more heavily on their social capital when a
future struggle erupts. That means, for example, that the alliance with university
professors might open access to intellectuals and leading academics, while the connection
to teacher unions might secure more support among state politicians. This is potentially a
positive process for teacher educators, since, for it to succeed, teacher educators will also
need to consider more seriously the critique of outsiders on their practices and
knowledge. This brings me to a second possible lesson. which is the need for teacher
educators to invest in their cultural capital. I suspect, that as long as teacher educators
will not develop more rigorous Ph. D. programs. and as long as the new generations of
teacher educators will not be able to produce the same quality of scientific outcomes as

their colleagues in the disciplines do. they are deemed to occupy a subordinated position

191

in the ﬁeld of academia. and as a result a vulnerable position in the field of educational
policy.

I believe that working toward implementation of such recommendations involves
serious commitment and effort in part of all sides. The potential rewards. however. are
great. Most importantly. it would be the public at large. and the democratic culture that
would benefit from a more balanced ﬁeld of educational policy where professionals have
a significant impact on policy formation. policy-making. and policy implementation.

Future Research

There are several parallel lines of inquiry departing from this work that I would
like explore in the near future.

I plan to extend my research on New Jersey and also use it as the basis for a
multi-state that will identify the ways in which different education stakeholders struggle,
using their bureaucratic, cultural. economic. and social capital, to shape educational
policy. This study will include an extensive empirical investigation that will map and
analyze the ways in which teacher education policies have been shaped. throughout the
19705. 19805. and 19903, by the various educational stakeholders. Among the questions
that interest me are: Who are the dominant and subordinated education agents in the
field? What constitutes the hierarchy among them? How is this hierarchy reflected in the
structure of capital held by the different agents? What kinds of arguments for and against
certain educational policies are used by the different agents in their struggle for power?
This inquiry would also allow me to establish a broader and deeper understanding of
teacher education policy as an outcome of social struggles over power among the various

educational agents. In particular. I am interested in the ways controversial market-based

educational policies like alternate route, merit pay, or school choice have been
constructed and integrated into the policy agenda by state bureaucrats in the last two
decades and the implications of these shifts on the professionalization agenda of the
teacher education establishment.

In a second line of work, I would like to extend my knowledge concerning teacher
certification debates at the national level. Here I would be interested at mapping
empirically the current structure and distribution of capital in the ﬁeld of teacher
education (including the orthodoxy and the heterodoxy) with its multi layers of
institutions, organizations. prominent scholars, unions, bureaucrats, think tanks, and
foundations. I hope that uncovering the structure of power in the ﬁeld -- including the
types ofcapital that support the various agents in the struggle -- would be helpful for
educators in understanding their position and the steps that they need to take in order to
strengthen their professional autonomy.49

In a third line of work, I intend to extend my current investigation to other
nations. In particular. I am interested to learn how public education in countries like the
US. and Israel. which have historically evolved in different socio-political settings. do
share today increasingly similar debates and discourses around teacher quality. teacher
training. teacher certification, students‘ testing. and the achievements gap. For instance.
within the economic and political elites oflsrael. there are many. like former Prime
Minister Netanyahu and corporate C 150 Dovrat. who argue that the market-based policies
tested in the US. should be implemented in Israel. as they have proved to be successful.

These ideas. however. are relatively new to the social-democratic tradition of Israel and

 

W Here, again as l have noted earlier. I am not advocating for a full professional autonomy. as I believe it is
potentially harmful and impractical. Instead, I believe that professionals should be an important part ofthe
field and have impact on the policies that are intended to regulate their work.

193

thus meet some opposition from various stakeholders. I believe that by comparing these
issues both across states and nations will help me to challenge misconceptions and push
forward my understandings. The complexity of educational phenomena ~ including

policy-making -- cannot be unraveled otherwise.

194

APPENDIX

I95

APPENDIX A

VARIABLES CODING GUIDE FOR NEWARK STAR-LEDGER MEDIA ANALYSIS

 

Table Appendix A Variables coding guide

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Variable Variable sub-categories Values
CategOiL :::_ ___ __W__ ___ﬂ_ *1
Types of Front page item no 0. yes—l
coverage:
Educational Alternate route to teacher certiﬁcation (1 EP ) policy not mentioned : 0, policy
Policy mentioned ; I 7
(EP): Undergraduate teacher preparation (2 EP ) policy n. m. = 0, policy in. ~‘- I _
Minimum salary for teachers (3 EP) policy n. m. = 0. policy m. I__
leacher force/ shortage / quality (4 EP ) policy n. m. 1‘ 0.policy m. I _
State take over (of ”failing districts) (5 E P ) policy n. m. 1 0. policy m. —I
:MasIer teacherplan (6 E P) policy n. m. —'= 0. policy m. : I _ _7
Budget issues (7 E P) policy n. m. I O policym7= I
I inger printing / security issues (searches) (8 I P ) policy hymn" 0, policy in. I 7
:'7leacher fellowshipsg 0rants (9 EP) pom n. m. “ -0 p_ol:icy7___ m. -‘- I _ -
Academy for the advancement ofteaching (10 EP ) policy n. m. 2— 0, policy m. z —-I
:Stmandards tests / high school proﬁciencLU I EP ) policy n. £17.77 0, POII‘FXJII: I _ 7
_Ieachers' pension (12 EP) policy n. m. —~ 0. policy in. I __ 7
“Cpprpipulum (holocaust) (13 EP ) _7 policy n. In ~ 0. policy in. ' _I_
Licensing exam (I4 EP) Fpolicy n. m 0 policv77 m. z I: ___
Union contracts (15 EP) policy n. m. — _:.0 policy ni:::1~__
:C areer la_dd7e__r(I6 EP ) polian. m. 3:0 .policy in. I
Student drop out (I7 LP) policy n. m. = 0. policy m. '—' I
l Major ”3 Tie—_- Educational policy(EP) ~ I EP- I
poIIcy: __ 77_ __77_ 17 EP -
I ducational 7 Governor (I) agent n. m. =— 0. agent m. I
agents Department of Education (2 EA) agent n. m. : 0. agent m. I
(13/03 Department of high education (3 EA) agent n. m. = 0. agent m I _7
Teacher unions (4 EA) agent n. m. = 0. agent m. —I
Teacher educators (5 EA) agent n. m. : 0. agent m. I
I..egislatqrs (6 EA) agent n. =—' 0. agent in I
Board ofeducation (7 EA) agent n. m. * __-77()7. agent m. I 7
State board ofeducation (8 E_A) agent n.m — -07 agent in. — I
E ducational administrators (9 E A) _I_agent n. m. 2- 0. agent m.7 — I
7Pareii_t_s (_I_()__EA) agent n.m -0. agent m. I _
77C ourts(ll F A) agent n. m. — () agent7Ii_i_:_I:_:
77Media (12 I2. A) 7_agent n. m. 1— 0. agent in. 1 I I
New Jersey school board association (I3 I2 A) agent n.m " ___0. agent In. L::
7777:I)Is7t:r:i:ct:s_:dIs:tricts superintendents (14 EA) _ agent n. m. - :0. ag_ent m. I ,
New Jersey Business and industry association (15 agent n. m. TO. agent m. A 1
EA)
New Jersey association of school social workers (16— agent n. m. 0. agent in. '- |
EA)
__7____ __ No7 majoragent in th__e_7article (I7 E_A) _ _ agent "ﬁll; w 0. ___agcntm. -— TI __ _
Major - Educational agents (12 A): r l
L_PIaycr A:: ’::__ ___ I A__I7 EA 7_____

 

 

I96

 

REFERENCES

197

REFERENCES

AACTE Task Force on Teacher Certiﬁcation. (1984). Emergency teacher
certification: Summary and recommendations. Journal of Teacher Education. 35 (2), 21 -
25.

Abbott, A. (1988). The system of professions: An essay on the division of expert
labor. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Abell Foundation. (2001, October). Teacher certification reconsidered:
Stumbling/or quality. Baltimore, MD: Author. Retrieved April 23, 2005,
from http://x-x-wwabelLorgpubsitenis/ed cert ll(,)l.pdl‘

 

Anheier, H. K., Gerhards, J., & Romo, P. F. (1995). Forms of capital and social
structure in cultural fields: Examining Bourdieu’s social topography. American Journal
ofSociology. 100 (4), 859—903.

Apple. M. W. (2003). The state and the politics ol'knoii'ledge. New York:
Routledge Falmer.

Angus, D. L. (2001). Professionalism and the public good: A brief history of
teacher certiﬁcation (J. Mire], Ed.). Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.

Ballou, D., & Podgursky, M. (2000a). Gaining control of professional licensing
and advancement. In T. Loveless (Ed), Conﬂicting missions? Teachers unions and
educational reforms (pp. 69-109). Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.

Ballou, D., & Podursky, M. (2000b). Reforming teacher preparation and
licensing: What is the evidence? Teachers College Record. [02(1), 5-27.

Becker. G. ( l 976). The economic approach to human behavior. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.

Besser, II. (I993). The Educational marketplace. In R. Muffoletto, & N. Knupl'er
(Eds), Computers in education: Social, political, historical perspectives (pp. 37-69).

C resskill: Hampton Press, Inc.

Bestor, A. E. (1953). Educational wastelands: The retreat from learning in our
public schools. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1979). Algeria 1960. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of thejudgment of taste.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

198

Bourdieu, P. (1985). The social space and the genesis of groups. Theory and
Society, 14(6), 723-744.

Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.). Handbook of
theory and research/or the sociology ofeducation (pp. 241-260). Westport: Greenwood
Press.

Bourdieu. P. (1988). llomo academicus. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1993). Theﬁeld of cultural production: Essays on arts and
literature. New York: Columbia University Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1994). Rethinking the state: Genesis and structure ofthe
bureaucratic ﬁeld. Sociological Theory, 12(1), 1-18.

Bourdieu. P. (1996). The state nobility. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Bourdieu. P. (1999). On television. New York: New Press

Bourdieu. P. (2005). Questions in sociology. Tel Aviv: Resling Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1997). Passport to Duke. A/letaphilosophy. 28(4). 449-455.

Bourdieu. P.. & Wacquant. L. J. D. (1992). An introduction to reflexive
sociology. Chicago: University ol’Chicago Press.

Boyd, w. 3., Plank, o. N., & Sykes, G. (2000). Teacher Unions in Hard Times.
In T. Loveless (Ed.), Conﬂicting missions? Teachers unions and educational reforms (pp.
174-210). Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.

Boyer, E. L. (1984). Report of a panel on the preparation of beginning teachers.
New Jersey State Department of Education. Trenton: New Jersey.

Braun, R. (1982, February 21). Search gets under way for Burke successor.
Neil/ark Star—Ledger, p. unknown.

Carlson, K. (1984). Testimony to the New Jersey State Board ofEducation.
Trenton: New Jersey.

Carlson, K. (1985, November 10). Prof Asks Re-evaluation of teacher-ed
criticism and ‘altemate’ route. Newark Star-Ledger, p. 125.

Carlson. K. (1990). New Jersey 's alternate route to teacher certification. Paper

presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association.
Boston, MA.

199

Carlson, K. (2004, August). Interview by author. New-Brunswick, NJ.

Carlson, K., Kaplan, L., Maher, C., Nelson, J., Tanner, D., Vitello, S. J.,
Weinstein, C .. & Woolfolk, A. (1983). An analysis of the proposal by the New Jersey
education department. for an alternative route to teacher certification. New Brunswick:
Graduate School of Education, Rutgers University.

Carlson, K., & Silverman, R. ( I985). The politics of teacher education reform.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Chicago, IL.

Coleman. J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American
Journal ofSocio/ogy, 94, 895-3120.

Collins, R. (1979). Credential society: An historical sociology ofeducation and
stratification. New York: Academic Press.

Collins, R. (1990). Market closure and the conﬂict theory of the professions. In
M. Burrage & R. Torstendahl (Eds), Professions in theory and history: Rethinking the
study of the professions (pp. 24-42). London: Sage Publications.

Conant, J. B. (1964). The education of American teachers. New York: McGraw
Hill.

Cooperman, S. (1984, September 20). A letter from Cooperman to Chancellor
Ilollander regarding to the alternate route policy. Trenton, New Jersey.

Cooperman, S. (2000, January 26). The sky is not falling!: There‘s a well-traveled
route to solving our teacher shortage. Education Week.

Cooperman, S., & Klagholz, L. (1985). New Jersey's alternative route to
certification. Phi Delta Kappan, 66(10), 691 - 695.

Cooperman, S., Webb, A., & Klagholz, L. (1983a). An alternative route to
teacher selection and professional quality assurance — The elements ofa districts
internship: An addendum. Trenton, NJ: New Jersey State Department of Education.

Cooperman, S., Webb, A., & Klagholz, L. (1983b). An alternative route to
teacher selection and professional quality assurance. Trenton, NJ: New Jersey State
Department of Education.

Congressional Commission to Study Teacher Preparation Programs. (1981). A

congressional report submitted to New Jersey congress. Trenton: New Jersey State
Archive, in file: Education assistant for the governor.

200

Dahl, R. A. (1961). Who governs? Democracy and power in an American city.
New Haven: Yale University Press.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1999). Teacher quality and student achievement: a review
ofstate policy evidence. (Document R-99-1). Seattle: Center for the Study of Teaching
and Policy, University of Washington.

Delli Carpini. M. X. (1998). Race and community revitalization.“ Communication
theory and practice. (Available at: http://www.aspeninstitute.org/atf/cf/%7BDEB6F227-
659B-4EC8-8F'84-8DF23CA704F5%7D/1 lDelliCarpinipdf).

Education Commission of the States. (1983). Task Force on Education for
Economic Growth. Actionfor excellence: A comprehensive plan to improve our nation 's
schools. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.

Elmore. R. F. (1997). The Politics of education reform. Issues in Science and
Technology, 14, 41-49.

Erickson. L. C., & Mitchell, J. B. D. (1996). Information on strikes and union
settlements: Patterns of coverage in a “newspaper of record." Industrial and Labor
Relations Review, 49, 395-407.

Finn, C. E. (2001). Getting better teachers - and treating them right. In T. Moe
(Ed), A primer on America 's schools (pp.127-150). Stanford: Hoover Institution Press.

Foucault, M. (1965). Madness and civilization. New York: Random House.
Floden, R. E., & Stoddart, T. (1995). Traditional and alternate routes to teacher
certification. Michigan State University, East Lansing: National Center for Research on

Teacher Learning (NCRTL).

Frazier, B. W. (1938). Development of state programs for the certification of
teachers. US. Office of'Education Bulletin. 12, 1-30.

F reistritzer, E. C. (2006). Alternative teacher certification: A state-by-state
analysis 2005. Washington, DC: The National Center for Alternative Certiﬁcation
(NCAC).

Fulton, E. (1983, August 28). NJEA chief blasts Cooperman certification plan.
Newark Star-Ledger, p. 31.

Fulton, E. (2004, August). Interview by author. Trenton, NJ.

Gideonse, H. D. (1984). Detailed testimony ofDr. H. D. Gideonse before the
Board of‘Education. New Jersey State Board of Education. Trenton, NJ.

201

Gilens, M. (1996). Race and poverty in America: Public misperceptions and the
American news media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 60(4), 515-541.

Gittell, M., & McKenna, L. (1999). Redefining education regimes and reform:
The political role of governors. Urban Education, 34(3), 268-291.

Goldhaber, D. D., & Brewer, D. J. (2001). Evaluating the evidence on teacher
certiﬁcation: A rejoinder. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(1), 79-86.

Goodlad, J. ( l 990). Teachersfor our nation ’s schools. San Francisco: Jossey—
Bass.

Hess, F. H. (2001). Tear down this wall: The case for a radical overhaul of
teacher certification. Washington, DC: Progressive Policy Institute.

Hess, F. H. (2003). The case for being mean. Educational Leadership, 61(3). 22-
26.

Hess. F. H. (2005). The predictable, but unpredictably personal, politics of
teacher Iicensure. Journal of Teacher Education, 56(3), 192-198.

Hirsch, E. D. (1996). The schools we need: And why we don't have them. New
York: Doubleday.

Jaroslaw, H. (1984). State commission on alternative teacher certification.
Trenton, NJ: State Department of Education.

Johannesson, A. l. (1993). Professionalization of progress and expertise among
teacher educators in Iceland: A Bourdieuean interpretation. Teaching and Teacher
Education. 9(3), 269—28 1.

Karabel, J. (1977). Community college and social stratiﬁcation: Submerged class
conﬂict in American higher education. In J. Karabel & A. H. Halsey (Eds), Power and
ideology in education (pp. 232-253). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kean, T. H. (1981). The importance of quality education to a vibrant New Jersey.
A position paper by Thomas H. Kean — Republican candidate for governor. New Jersey
state archive, in file: Education assistant for the governor.

Kean, T. H. (1988). The politics of inclusion. New York: The Free Press.

Kingdon, J. W. (2003). A gendas. alternatives. and public policies. Longman
Classics in Political Science.

Klagholz, L. (1984). Standardsfor professional preparation at New Jersey
Colleges — a brieﬁng paper (submitted to the State Board of Education). State
Department of Education. Trenton: New Jersey.

Klagholtz, Leo. (2000, May). Growing better teachers in the garden state: New
Jersey 's “A lternate Route ” to teacher certification. Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.
(Available online at http:lt’xxru'u'edcxcellence.net/librarv/ncu-‘Q/bZOiersev.html)

 

Koemer, J. S. (1963). The miseducation ofAmerican teachers. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin.

Krause, Elliot A. (1996). Death of the guilds: Professions, states, and the advance
ofcapitalism, 1930 to the present. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientiﬁc revolutions. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.

Labaree, D. F. (1992). Power, knowledge, and the rationalization of teaching: A
genealogy of the movement to professionalize teaching. Harvard Educational Review.

62(2), 123—154.

Labaree. D. F. (2004). The trouble with ed schools. New Haven: Yale University
Press.

Labaree, D. F. (2005). Life on the margins. Journal of Teacher Education. 56(3),
186-191.

League of Women Voters of New Jersey. (1992). Spotlight on Ntw Jersey
government. 6lh Edition. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

Lindblom, C. E. (1977). Politics and markets. New York: Basic Books.
Lanier, J. E. with Little, J. W. (1986). Research on teacher education. In M. C.
Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook ofresearch on teaching (3rd edition, pp. 527-569). New York:

Macmillan.

Manley, J. F. (1983). Neo-pluralism: A class analysis of pluralism I and pluralism
II. The American Political Science Review, 77(2), 368-383.

Marx, K. (1967). Capital (Vols. 1- 3). New York: International Publishers.
McDermott, K. A. (2005). In MINT condition? The politics ofaltemative
certification and pay incentives for teachers in Massachusetts. Educational Policv. 19(1).

44-62.

Michels. R. (1949). Political parties. Glencoc. 11.: Free Press.

203

Mills. R. (1985). The governor ’s role in providing quality education. Paper
presented at the meeting of New Jersey Federal Program Association. New Jersey State
Archive. File: education assistant to the governor.

Murphy, M. (1990). Blackboard unions: The AFT and the NEA, l 900-1980.
Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

National Commission on Excellence and Education. (1983). A nation at risk:
The imperative/or educational reform. Washington, D. C .: U. S. Government Printing
Office.

Natriello. G., & Zumwalt, K. (1993). New teachers for urban schools? The
contribution of the provisional teacher program in New Jersey. Education and Urban
Society, 26(1 ). 49-62.

Null, J. W. (2006). We must start over: A new vision for the profession of
teaching. In J. W. Null and D. Ravitch (Eds), Forgotten heroes of American education:
The great tradition ofteaching teachers (pp. xix-xxix). Greenwich, CT: Information Age
Publishing.

Portes. A. (1998). Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology.
Annual Review of'Sociology. 24, 1-24.

Prabhu. B. W. (1992). Spotlight on New Jersey government. 6th Edition. New
Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

Putnam R. D. (1993). The prosperous community: Social capital and public life.
.I‘lmerican Prospect. 13. 35-42.

Ramirez. H. (2004). The shift from hands-off: The federal role in supporting and
defining teacher quality. In F. M. Hess, A. J. Rotherham, and K. Walsh (Eds). A
qualified teacher in every classroom? A ppraising old answers and new ideas (pp. 49-81).
Cambridge: Harvard Education Press.

Riemann. C. (2006. January). Interview by author. East Lansing. MI.

Shoemaker, P. (1991). Gatekeeping. Newburry Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Ravitch. D. (2000). Left back: A century offailed school reforms. Simon &
Schustcr Press.

Rothstcin. R. (2004). Class and schools: Using social, economic, and educational
reform to close the black-white achievement gap. New York: Teachers College Press.

204

Salmore B. G., & Salmore. S. A. (1993). New Jersey politics and government:
Suburban politics comes ofage. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Schultz, T. W. (1977). Investment in human capital. In J. Karabel & A. H. Halsey
(lids), Power and ideology in education (pp. 313-324). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sedlak, M. (In press). Competing visions of purpose, practice. and policy: The
history ofteacher certification in the United States. In M. Cochran-Smith. S. Feiman-
Nemser, and J. McIntyre (Eds), Handbook ofresearch on teacher education: Enduring
issues in changing contexts. 3rd edition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Inc.

Sedlak, M., & Schlossman, S. (1986). Who will teach? Historical perspectives on
the changing appeal ofteaching as a profession. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.

Smith, A. (1950). An Inquiry into the nature and the causes of the wealth of
nations. [Vol. 1]. London: Methuen.

Soyka. D. (1985. .lunc 9). School reformers need to focus on more than just
teacher pay hikes. Newark Star-Ledger.

Sykes, G. (1984). Teacher education and the predicaments of reform. In C. E.
Finn, D. Ravitch. & R. Fancher (Eds), Against mediocrity: The humanities in American
high schools (pp. 172-194). New York: Holmes and Meier.

Swartz, D. (1997). Culture and power: The sociology of'Pierre Bourdieu.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Swartz, D. (2006). Pierre Bourdieu and North American political sociology: Why
he doesn‘t ﬁt in but should. French Politics, 4(1), 84-99.

National Council on Teacher Quality. (2003). Alternate route under attack in
garden state. Teacher Quality Bulletin, 4(29), 3-4. (Available online at
littp:/’s"\\‘\\ \\ .nctqorgr’bulletin/\'-‘ln.29.litml)

 

Tullock, G.. Seldon, A., & Brady, G. L. (2002). Governmentfailure: A primer
in public choice. Washington, DC: Cato Institute.

'l‘wentieth Century Fund Task Force on Federal Elementary and Secondary
Education. (1983). Making the grade. New York: Author.

Tyack, D., & Cuban. L. (1996). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public
school reform. MA: Harvard University Press.

Urban. W. J. (2000). Gender. race and the NEA: Professionalism and its
limitations. New York: Routledge Falmer.

205

Weber, M. (1952). Economy and society: An outline of'interpretive sociology
(Vols. I -3 ). New York: Bedminster Press.

Weiss, C. H. (1995). The four “1‘s” of school reform: How interests, ideology.

information. institution affect teachers and principals. Harvard Educational Review, 65
(4). 571-592.

Will, G. (2006, January 16). Ed schools versus education. Newsweek.

Wilson, S. M., Floden, R. F., & Ferrini-Mundy, J. (2001, March). Teacher
preparation research: Current knowledge, recommendations, and priorities/or the
future. Center for the Study of Teaching Policy, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
(Available online at
http://\V\\'\>\'.depts.\x'ashington.edu/ctpmaillReports.html#TeacherPrep.)

Wilson S. M., & Tamir E. (In press). Mapping the challenges to teacher education
establishment. In M. Cochran-Smith, S. Feiman-Nemser, and J. McIntyre (Eds),
Handbook of research on teacher education: Enduring issues in changing contexts. 3rd
edition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Wise, A. E. (2005). Establishing teaching as a profession: The essential role of
professional accreditation. Journal of Teacher Education, 56. 318-331.

Tamir, E. & Wilson, S. M. (2005). Who should guard the gates: Fx'itlentiar} and

prolbssional \xarrants for claimingjurisdictitm. Journal ofTeacher Education. 56. 332-
342.

Zumwalt. K. (1991). Alternate routes to teaching: Three alternative approaches.
Journal of Teacher Education, 42(2), 83-92.

206