Stage I: Identification of Policy Contexts. In the first stage of data analysis, I used axial coding to organize data according to each relevant policy context and policy actor. This process aimed to de-contextualize data from its original source so that it can be later re-contextualized in the form of organizational identities and underlying policy
discourses (Coffey & Atkinson, 1996; Erickson, 1986). As noted above, because the provisions of Massachusetts S. 2315 will not take effect until September 2016, I was not able to collect data on aspects of the policy trajectory that characterize the context of practice, such as school- or classroom-level implementation. I therefore used eight initial codes: four policy cycle codes – i.e., the contexts of influence, policy text production, outcomes and political strategy – for each of the two major policy actors – i.e., Stand for Children and the MTA. Importantly, I applied all eight codes across my full portfolio of collected data. As I describe below, each subsequent chapter presents analysis from a single policy context, with the exception that Chapter Five reports findings from both the contexts of text production and outcomes of the ballot initiative.
When coding for the context of influence, I indexed instances where research participants discussed the overarching purpose or need for a policy change related to teacher transfer and dismissal, as opposed to another topic in school change. For
example, in our interview, a key member of Stand for Children explained that the focus on teacher job security was a response to “stories about frustration especially from younger teachers that were saying ‘we’re getting tired of seeing that someone can put her feet up on the desk and say ‘it doesn’t matter what you say, I’m gonna be here at the end of the year, you’re not.’’ This was coded as “Stand for Children- Context of Influence”
because it provides an indication of common arguments that Stand for Children made about the need for changing current policies regarding teacher evaluation and job security.
Importantly, the context of influence codes also include instances where research participants described overarching changes in Massachusetts educational policy making
in the years leading up to the ballot initiative. As I describe in Chapter Four, following the Obama Administration’s launch of Race-to-the-Top, Massachusetts enacted a suite of neo-liberal reforms that in many ways set the stage for the ballot initiative and
compromise law. I used the context of influence codes, then, to capture the arguments, beliefs and political events that shaped policy development during this time.
When indexing transcripts for the context of policy text production, I looked for arguments about the particular mechanisms chosen as vehicles for policy change. For example, when seeking policy change in Illinois, Stand for Children pursued legislation at the Illinois state legislature. In Massachusetts, meanwhile, the organization opted to go directly to Massachusetts’ voters in the form of a ballot initiative. When I asked the organization’s Executive Director about this decision, he explained that legislators
“weren’t even willing to have the public conversation and that’s what led us to say, we’re gonna make sure that the conversation happens and that was filing the ballot initiative.”
This excerpt was indexed with a code for “Stand for Children- Context of Policy Text Production” as key argument informing Stand for Children’s original decision making about the appropriate vehicle for policy change.
In analysis of the context of outcomes, I sought to understand the political consequences of the ballot initiative and the compromise law. For example, after launching the ballot initiative, Stand for Children found itself largely isolated from the Massachusetts’ policy making community. A prominent business leader explained that the organization was “maybe expecting more support than they got, from not just our group but from a lot of groups” in the business community. This excerpt was coded as
“Stand for Children- Context of Outcomes.” Additionally, I indexed concrete actions
taken in response to the ballot initiative and compromise law. As an example, excerpts discussing the MTA’s lawsuit against the ballot initiative were coded as “MTA- Context of Outcomes.”
Lastly, analysis in the context of political strategy sought to identify changes to social structures and political decision making that can remedy injustices observed across the policy trajectory. In particular, I indexed examples of strategies for increasing public engagement in political decision making. Many of the MTA teachers that I interviewed criticized state-level leadership for ignoring the concerns of local-level members. These members often offered detailed descriptions of the public outreach mechanisms that the union could have used in order to garner feedback from rank-and-file members; these excerpts were coded as “MTA- Context of Political Strategy.” I also indexed mechanisms for public outreach as well as common arguments for greater public engagement in future educational policy making.
Policy context codes were applied at the level of what I am calling a “topical thread.” In interviews and public venues, for example, stakeholders’ discussion of policy making often weaves several topics, themes or arguments together to create a rich and comprehensive illustration of the thinking that informed political decision making.
Guided by the above definition of policy contexts, I used coding to organize topical threads according to the contexts of influence, policy text production, outcomes, and political strategy.
Figure 6 provides an example of how topical threads were often woven together in interview data. In the excerpt below, the Executive Director of Stand for Children Massachusetts is describing the organization’s initial decision to pursue a ballot question
related to seniority-based job security. As mentioned above, several months before the ballot question was announced the Massachusetts’ Department of Elementary and Secondary Education convened a working group to rewrite the state’s regulations on teacher supervision and evaluation. Although Stand for Children was a member of this working group, many charged that the organization did not publicly discuss its plans to seek legislative changes that would add consequences for teachers deemed
underperforming according to the new evaluation system. In the excerpt below, the Executive Director of Stand for Children Massachusetts responds to this critique, while weaving together comments about the underlying purpose of the new law and the particular mechanism chosen for bringing about policy change.
Figure 6: Identification of Topical Threads
In the first bracketed section of the above excerpt, the interview participant is responding directly to claims that Stand for Children had not notified others in the state policy making community that it was planning to seek policy change regarding teacher
became labeled as uncollaborative and disconnected from the state policy making community. This image featured prominently in public outreach against the ballot initiative. As a result, critique of Stand for Children, as well as the organization’s response to critics, are part of a topical thread related to the outcomes of the organization’s decision to pursue a ballot question.
The second bracketed selection, meanwhile, is coded as an indication of the underlying arguments influencing Stand for Children’s focus on teacher job security. In this short excerpt, the speaker echoes broader discourses about the value of using high-stakes accountability to ensure that changes to teacher evaluation policy are implemented effectively and about the importance of teacher quality over and above out-of-school factors that may influence student achievement.
Lastly, in the third bracketed selection, the interviewee shifts from discussing the purpose of the new law to the vehicle chosen for policy change. It is important to note that the teacher evaluation working group convened by the DESE only made changes to regulations governing existing law; they did not write new law. As described in the excerpt above, in April 2011, the state Commissioner of Elementary and Secondary Education had tried to use regulatory changes to add consequences for underperforming teachers to the state’s new evaluation system. However, lawyers for the state’s Board of Elementary and Secondary Education rejected this proposal, asserting that changes to teacher job security had to be done by implementing a new law – i.e., statutory change – as opposed to merely rewriting the rules on an existing law – i.e., regulatory change. This discussion is part of a larger topical thread related to Stand for Children’s decision to
draft the “Great Teachers, Great Schools” ballot question; as a result, it is coded as part of the context of policy text production.