The traditional delivery system for public

Transcription

1 impact political outcomes ifluece reform advocacy Louisiaa advocates law legislatio educatio Teessee strategy oppositio leverage survey support North Carolia policy evaluatio Measurig ad Uderstadig Educatio Advocacy Grover J. (Russ) Whitehurst, The Brookigs Istitutio David Stuit, Claire Graves, ad Laure Shaw, Basis Policy Research March 2015

2 Executive Summary The traditioal delivery system for public K-12 educatio i the U.S. is beig disrupted by forces from without (e.g., forms of competitio, icludig charter schools) ad from withi (e.g., ew regulatory requiremets, icludig meaigful teacher evaluatio ad the Commo Core). As i ay sizable sector of the ecoomy, challeges to the status quo i educatio are ofte met by orgaized advocacy efforts. Because educatio i this coutry is by-ad-large a public eterprise, champios of chage ad defeders of the status quo must tur to elected ad appoited officials to advocate for their desired outcome. Do such advocacy efforts succeed i ifluecig the public policy that govers educatio? This report sheds light o that questio by examiig the ifluece ad approach of advocacy orgaizatios i three states that recetly eacted or cosidered school reform legislatio: Louisiaa, Teessee, ad North Carolia. It builds upo research we coducted for a previous report which focused exclusively o Louisiaa. I Louisiaa, we examied the activity of advocacy groups leadig up to the 2012 passage of the state s omibus school choice legislatio, House Bill 976. I North Carolia, we studied the activity of advocacy groups with respect to Seate Bill 337, a piece of charter school legislatio that ultimately passed the legislature i 2013 after udergoig a variety of modificatios. I Teessee, we explored advocates ivolvemet i a voucher bill kow as the Teessee Choice ad Opportuity Scholarship Act (Seate Bill 196 / House Bill 190), which was debated by the state s 108th Geeral Assembly but was ultimately removed from cosideratio. Thus, these case studies spa the rage of legislative outcomes, from a strog legislative victory for propoets of chage (Louisiaa), to a compromise victory for those propoets (North Carolia), to a loss (Teessee). I our prior report, we itroduced a ew method to study ifluece: the Survey with Placebo (SwP), which asks respodets to rate the ifluece of a o-existet advocacy group (the placebo), alog with actual etities egaged i advocacy. By comparig the scores of real orgaizatios with those of the placebo group, a scale of ifluece with a kow zero poit is geerated. This allows us to quatify the amout of ifluece ay orgaizatio exercises ad to test for the statistical sigificace of differeces betwee ifluece scores. I this study, we agai employ the SwP techique, ameded slightly based o lessos leared from its first use. Because the examied advocacy groups represet a diverse rage of missios, utilize a variety of advocacy tactics, ad focus efforts o differet stages of the policymakig process, we also employ a Critical Path Aalysis (CPA) to differetiate advocacy orgaizatios i terms of the paths through which they exercise ifluece. The CPA allows us to idetify the particular goals ad tactics of each orgaizatio i order to evaluate the degree to which that particular orgaizatio was able to implemet its strategy successfully. Applyig these two methods to the case studies i Louisiaa, North Carolia, ad Teessee provided several compellig fidigs with respect to the ifluece process ad success of advocacy efforts, ad also with regards to the future use of such measures i evaluatig advocacy. Grover J. (Russ) Whitehurst is the Herma ad George R. Brow Chair i Educatio Studies ad a seior fellow i Goverace Studies at the Brookigs Istitutio. David Stuit is a foudig parter of Basis Policy Research. Claire Graves is a research associate at Basis Policy Research. Laure Shaw is a research associate at Basis Policy Research. 1

3 Key Fidigs with respect to the ifluece process: The advocacy orgaizatios we studied are a clearly recogized ifluece withi each of the respective states. They have a impact o the itroductio of policy ito the legislative area, the cotet of legislatio, ad the votes of members of the legislature. Perceived ifluece closely tracks outcomes. Whe the policy of iterest is ot passed ito law, oppoets are credited with substatially greater ifluece tha i sites where the policy is successful. The effort to ifluece political outcomes, just like politics itself, is local. For example, approaches appropriate to a state i which the goveror is the domiat political force with respect to the legislatio of iterest, as was the case i Louisiaa, will be differet tha i a state i which the legislature is more powerful, as was the case i North Carolia. Advocacy orgaizatios that are omially i the same camp i terms of beig supporters or oppoets of a piece of legislatio frequetly have differet objectives whe it comes to the cotet of the bill. Cotradictory messagig, or publicly visible discord, amog advocacy orgaizatios that appear to be part of the same pro-legislatio team provide opeigs that oppoets exploit i their ow advocacy efforts. Coordiatio amog advocacy orgaizatios that have related policy goals stregthes total impact. I Louisiaa, for example, oe of the advocacy groups focused o obtaiig coordiatio ad cooperatio amog all groups supportig the legislatio. This allowed each group i the coalitio to focus o what it could do best ad provided opportuities for workig through ay coflicts i policy goals amog the advocacy orgaizatios out of the public eye. Key Fidigs with respect to methods ad measures: The Survey with Placebo (SwP) ca detect meaigful differeces i the perceived ifluece of advocacy groups ad betwee the actual ifluece groups vs. the placebo orgaizatio. Respodets to the SwP typically separate their ow positios as supporters or oppoets of the legislatio from their ratigs of ifluece. Overall, orgaizatios o the wiig side of a legislative battle are perceived by respodets to be more effective tha those o the losig side. Critical Path Aalysis (CPA) with advocacy group leaders ad with those playig critical roles i the political process surroudig the issue of iterest reveals sigificat iformatio that caot be gathered through the SwP. For example, oe lears how a particular advocacy orgaizatio goes about geeratig grassroots support ad focusig it at times ad places that have political leverage. The expese ad labor required to coduct the CPA makes it impractical to pursue o a regular basis, but iterested parties may cosider leveragig this method i sites where they are particularly iterested i developig a better uderstadig of the advocacy eviromet ad the specific strategies that advocates deploy. 2

4 Measurig ad Uderstadig Educatio Advocacy Itroductio Educatio policy i the U.S. is i a period of itese political focus. The traditioal delivery system for public K-12 educatio is beig disrupted from without by forms of competitio, icludig charter schools, ad from withi by ew regulatory requiremets, icludig meaigful teacher evaluatio ad the Commo Core. Challeges to the status quo withi ay sizable sector of the ecoomy are ofte accompaied by orgaized advocacy. This is true i K-12 educatio as well, but educatio is a special case i that it is by-ad-large a public eterprise i which all decisios ivolvig maagemet ad resources are grouded i the politics of local school boards, mayoral admiistratios, ad state ad federal govermet. Those whose iterests are served by the traditioal system of delivery as well as those who wat substatial chage must tur to elected ad appoited officials ad those who ifluece them to make their case. I this cotext, a ew geeratio of educatio advocacy groups has emerged, seekig to exercise ifluece ad beefittig from the fiacial support of philathropies. They ofte are pitted agaist orgaizatios that oppose disruptive chage, such as teacher uios ad associatios represetig school boards ad school district admiistrators, ad that have historically advocated for their policy prefereces with little i the way of a orgaized couterweight from those with differet policy prefereces. This report sheds light o this ew world of orgaized educatio reform advocacy by examiig the ifluece ad approach of advocacy orgaizatios i Louisiaa, Teessee, ad North Carolia that were active i the politics of recet school reform legislatio uique to each state. I Louisiaa, a state o which we focused i a previous report, we examied the activity of advocacy groups leadig up to the passage i 2012 of the state s omibus school choice legislatio, House Bill 976, which led to the statewide expasio of the New Orleas voucher program as well as other aspects of educatioal choice. I North Carolia, we studied the activity of advocacy groups with respect to Seate Bill 337, a piece of charter school legislatio that ultimately passed the legislature i 2013 after udergoig a variety of modificatios that weakeed its origial itet to provide more autoomy to the charter school sector. I Teessee, we explored advocates ivolvemet surroudig a voucher bill kow as the Teessee Choice ad Opportuity Scholarship Act (Seate Bill 196 / House Bill 190), which was debated i the 2013 ad 2014 sessios of the state s 108th Geeral Assembly but was ultimately removed from cosideratio. The advocacy groups ivolved i each of these states represet a rage of the types of orgaizatio ivolved i educatio advocacy across the atio; ad our case studies spa the rage of legislative outcomes from a strog legislative victory for propoets of chage (Louisiaa), to a compromise victory for those propoets (North Carolia), to a loss (Teessee). Our efforts to uderstad educatio advocacy required us to create ew measuremet tools ad methodological approaches to address two logstadig challeges i the study of social ifluece. The first is that typical survey methods that ask respodets to rate or rakorder various etities i terms of ifluece produce oly ordial or iterval data. Thus, oe ca lear that orgaizatio Alpha is raked first i terms of ifluece whereas orgaizatio Beta is raked secod, or that Alpha received a mea score o a scale of ifluece of 6.5 whereas Beta received a mea of 6.0. But oe caot determie what the umbers ad rakigs mea i absolute terms. Is it that Alpha ad Beta differed somewhat i their ifluece but either had much impact, or is it that they differed somewhat ad both had substatial impact? There is o way to tell with the results of a traditioal survey of perceived ifluece. This report sheds light o this ew world of orgaized educatio reform advocacy by examiig the ifluece ad approach of advocacy orgaizatios i Louisiaa, Teessee, ad North Carolia. 3

5 To address the challege of providig a achor to the umbers produced by a reputatioal survey, we itroduced i our previous report ad refie i the preset report a survey method that allows for measuremet of ifluece o a ratio scale, i.e., a scale i which there is a o-arbitrary zero poit. Our method, called the Survey with Placebo (SwP), requires respodets to rate the ifluece of a fictioal advocacy group (the placebo) alog with actual etities egaged i advocacy. By comparig the scores of real orgaizatios with those of the placebo group we geerate a scale of ifluece with a kow zero poit (the score give to the placebo orgaizatio). This allows us to quatify the amout of ifluece ay orgaizatio exercises ad to test for the statistical sigificace of differeces betwee ifluece scores. The secod challege is to capture iformatio that differetiates advocacy orgaizatios i terms of the paths through which they exercise ifluece. Imagie two advocacy orgaizatios that operate i very differet realms oe egages i persoal lobbyig of legislators whereas the other deploys social media to impact public opiio. To be sure, it would be valuable to be able to evaluate the perceived ifluece of the two orgaizatios o the same scale, as we do with the SwP. But it is also importat to uderstad the particular goals ad tactics of each orgaizatio i order to evaluate the degree to which that particular orgaizatio was able to successfully implemet its actio pla. Our methodological approach to differetiatig the tactics ad goals of advocacy orgaizatios is called Critical Path Aalysis (CPA): High-level officials i each advocacy orgaizatio participate i structured iterviews i which they are asked to defie their ifluece efforts i terms of the chaels they use ad the actios they deploy at differet stages of the advocacy process. These revealed plas are the subjected to validatio by structured iterviews with kowledgeable respodets outside the orgaizatio who are i a positio to have observed whether the activities described by the official of the advocacy orgaizatio were actually observed i practice. Backgroud o Legislatio Louisiaa School Choice Legislatio Louisiaa s 2012 House Bill 976, which became Act 2 upo beig siged ito law i April of that year, creates or alters four differet programs ad processes. Most otably, it expads eligibility for Louisiaa s existig voucher program, Studet Scholarships for Educatioal Excellece (SSEE), from oly studets i New Orleas to all studets statewide i families with a total icome ot exceedig 250 percet of the federal poverty guidelies ad who are eterig kidergarte, were erolled i a Louisiaa public school with a accoutability grade of C, D, or F, or received a scholarship the previous school year. Studets are eligible to trasfer to participatig private schools or to public schools with a A or B grade. This is sometimes referred to as the voucher portio of the bill, ad was cosidered the heart of the legislatio. The law also makes a umber of chages to charter school statutes. It requires the state Board of Elemetary ad Secodary Educatio (BESE) to approve a commo charter applicatio, recruit charterig groups, ad create a process for authorizig multiple charter schools. BESE is also give the ability to approve charter proposals if a local school board fails to comply with the charter applicatio requiremets. Related to authorizers, HB 976 requires BESE to establish procedures for certifyig local charter authorizers, icludig oprofit orgaizatios ad uiversities, for the purpose of acceptig, evaluatig, ad approvig applicatios for charter schools from charterig groups. I additio, the legislatio permits parets of studets attedig a public school with a letter grade 4

6 Measurig ad Uderstadig Educatio Advocacy of D or F for three cosecutive years to petitio BESE to trasfer the school to the Recovery School District, a state-ru district tasked with turig aroud chroically low-performig schools. Fially, the bill requires BESE to create a process through which virtual course providers, postsecodary istitutios, or corporatios ca be authorized to provide courses to Louisiaa studets. The bill passed with a comfortable margi i both houses, gaiig 58 percet of the vote i the House ad 62 percet i the Seate. The bill garered bi-partisa support i Louisiaa s Republicadomiated legislature, with 29 percet of House Democrats ad 47 percet of Seate Democrats votig i favor of the bill. North Carolia Charter School Legislatio As origially itroduced, Seate Bill 337 proposed a variety of chages to laws goverig charter schools i North Carolia. The ceterpiece of the legislatio was the proposed creatio of the North Carolia Public Charter Schools Board, which would operate idepedetly of the State Board of Educatio ad take o resposibility for authorizig ad overseeig charter schools. Amog may other provisios, the bill was also iteded to elimiate requiremets for charter school teacher licesure, require charter school boards to adopt a policy regardig whether they would coduct crimial backgroud checks, ad require the trasfer of local school district fuds to charters withi thirty days. Over the course of the legislative process, the bill uderwet umerous substative chages. These icluded the establishmet of a charter school advisory board rather tha a idepedet board, the reductio of the percetage of teachers i a charter school required to hold liceses rather tha the elimiatio of all licesure requiremets, ad a madate for charter schools to adopt crimial backgroud check policies that mirror those i their local district. The fial versio of the bill was siged ito law i July the legislatio. Both chambers are marked by Republica cotrol, ad o Republica lawmaker voted agaist the bill i either chamber. Democrats were almost equally as likely to support as to oppose the bill i the House (46 percet of Democrats voted yes while 54 percet voted o), but voted more cosistetly agaist the bill i the Seate (31 percet voted i support ad 69 percet i oppositio). While the fial vote cout represets the ultimate success of policy passage, the major efforts of the advocacy groups of iterest i our study were directed toward the cotet of the policy uder study ot its ultimate passage. Teessee School Voucher Legislatio The Teessee Choice ad Opportuity Scholarship Act (Seate Bill 196 / House Bill 190) was itroduced i 2013 o behalf of Goveror Bill Haslam at the begiig of Teessee s two year legislative cycle. As origially filed, the legislatio would have allowed a limited umber of low-icome studets i the state s bottom five percet of schools to receive vouchers that could be used to atted private schools. The program would have bee iitially capped at 5,000 vouchers, icreasig to 20,000 over time. Durig the 2013 sessio, Goveror Haslam resisted efforts to amed the program to expad eligibility to more studets, ultimately withdrawig his legislatio rather tha allowig it to be altered. Movemet o the pair of bills resumed i 2014, ad they were each ameded i committee to broade the pool of eligible studets, though the two chambers amedmets differed i their approach. Seate Bill 196 passed the Seate with a wide margi (21 to 10). However, idicatig that the bill lacked eough support amog committee members, the House sposor withdrew the legislatio from the lower chamber s fiace committee, killig the bill for the sessio. By comparig the scores of real orgaizatios with those of the placebo group we geerate a scale of ifluece with a kow zero poit (the score give to the placebo orgaizatio). The bill passed with 82 percet of votig Seators ad 80 percet of votig Represetatives supportig 5

7 Methods This sectio describes i greater detail the two methods used to measure the ifluece of advocacy groups o policy outcomes i our research sites, highlightig how the methods were refied i year two based o fidigs from year oe. Survey with Placebo The first method, the SwP, is a variat of the attributed ifluece surveys used by political scietists to study ifluece of iterest groups. 1 I each research site, we distributed a survey to all state legislators alog with a group of political isiders who were expected to have first-had kowledge of the factors that iflueced the legislatio uder study. The iclusio of a placebo orgaizatio kow to have had zero ifluece distiguishes this method from the typical attributed ifluece survey. Advocacy groups icluded o the SwP Each research site survey icluded five to six real advocacy groups ivolved with the policy issue uder study ad a placebo group kow to have had o ivolvemet i the ifluece process i that state. 2 The mix of real advocacy groups listed o the survey icluded those workig i support of the legislatio ad those that opposed the legislatio. We used the same placebo ame across sites: Road to Educatioal Achievemet (REACH). 3 Table 1 displays iformatio about the advocacy groups icluded i the survey across the three states uder study. Table 1. Number of advocacy groups icluded o the SwP Louisiaa Teessee North Carolia Propoets Oppoets Placebo Total # Groups Admiistratio of the SwP Log ad short form versios of the survey were used i two of the three research sites, though the log form was always our preferred data collectio istrumet. The log form of the survey was admiistered at the begiig of the survey widow to all respodets i both hard copy ad electroic formats. I the first year of our work, the log form was desiged to take approximately 20 miutes to complete. It asked respodets to rak the level of ifluece of each advocacy orgaizatio s use of six differet tactics. Several chages were made to the log form i year two. The modified log form icluded five survey questios ad was desiged to take five miutes to complete. The first questio asked respodets to assess their kowledge regardig the ifluece of advocacy groups o the policy issue uder study ad assig themselves a ratig ragig from Very Kowledgeable to Not at all Kowledgeable. O the ext three questios, which were the core of the tool, respodets were asked to rate the amout of ifluece that each advocacy orgaizatio had o: the cotet of the legislatio; icreasig support for the legislatio; ad icreasig oppositio to the legislatio. Ratigs were based o a 7-poit scale, ragig from 1 (No Ifluece) to 7 (Major Ifluece). A culmiatig questio asked respodets to rate the amout of ifluece that five key political actors had o the policy of iterest usig the same 7-poit scale. These political actors icluded advocacy groups, civic leaders, costituets (geeral public), the goveror s office, ad the state board of educatio. A copy of the versio of the log form used i Teessee is reproduced i Appedix A. I Louisiaa, the survey was set to 194 idividuals with first-had kowledge of how the policy outcome came to be. The target sample cosisted of 142 legislators ad 52 political isiders. I both Teessee ad North Carolia, the umber of political isiders targeted was icreased, resultig i a larger overall survey sample. A total of 250 idividuals received the survey i Teessee, icludig 119 legislators ad 131 political isiders. 6

8 Measurig ad Uderstadig Educatio Advocacy The target sample was similar i North Carolia, cosistig of 263 idividuals, icludig 163 state legislators ad 100 political isiders. Table 2 compares the survey sample i the three research sites. The survey results were used to calculate a measure of attributed ifluece for each advocacy group i the survey o each of the three cetral questios icluded o the log form: amout of ifluece o legislative cotet; icreasig legislative support; ad icreasig legislative oppositio. We focus o comparisos betwee the actual advocacy groups ad the placebo group, REACH, which was icluded i all versios of the survey distributed. These ratigs capture how strogly the respodets edorsed the ifluece of the advocacy group over that of the placebo. Comparig the ifluece ratig of each advocacy group to the iactive placebo group allows us to evaluate whether the ifluece attributed to each advocacy group is statistically sigificat. Critical Path Aalysis The iterview aalysis complemets the SwP by lookig iside the black box of advocacy group activity. This method ivolves gatherig qualitative data to verify the relatioship betwee a advocacy tactic ad a specific policy outcome. 4 While the modified versio of the SwP is desiged to measure the amout of ifluece that advocacy groups have, the critical path aalysis is desiged to capture the ways i which advocacy groups exert that ifluece. I year oe of the study, each of the critical paths we idetified coected a advocacy tactic to the fial passage of a piece of school voucher legislatio, a outcome that took place durig the decisio makig stage of the policy process. However, i year two of our study, we expaded the focus of our critical path work to cosider outcomes from other stages of the policy process, icludig ageda settig ad policy formulatio (Aderso, 1975; Sabatier, 1991; Ja ad Wegrich, 2007). 5 Across our research sites, advocacy groups ofte poited to their role i promotig the policy issue uder study o the legislative ageda (ageda settig) or shapig the policy cotet (policy formulatio) as importat elemets of their work. Therefore, by broadeig our focus to iclude stages earlier i the policymakig Table 2. SwP survey sample i each research site Louisiaa Teessee North Carolia Legislators Political Isiders Total Sample process, we were able to capture more of the tactics that advocates themselves believed to be sigificat cotributios to the overall policy effort. This expaded approach also aliged more closely with the revisios made to the survey tool i year two. I relatio to the policy formulatio phase, respodets were asked to idicate how much ifluece each of the icluded advocacy groups had o the cotet of the legislatio uder cosideratio. Two of the other items ask respodets to idetify the amout of ifluece that orgaizatios had o icreasig support for the legislatio ad icreasig oppositio to the legislatio questios iteded to reveal iformatio about the decisio makig stage. As a first step i the critical path aalysis, we coducted iterviews with the advocacy groups of iterest i each of our research sites. The iterviews focused o idetifyig the various tactics used by the orgaizatios, ad for each major tactic described, the sequece of evets ( itermediate outcomes ) that lik the tactic to a fial outcome i oe or more of the policymakig stages we explored. I Teessee, we coducted iterviews with advocacy group leaders while the policy of iterest was uder cosideratio i the legislature ad the followed up with a secod iterview followig the withdrawal of the legislatio. This allowed us first to capture desired outcomes from specific tactics that advocates had implemeted or were plaig to implemet, ad the to collect additioal iformatio oce the policy outcome was kow. I both Louisiaa ad North Carolia, advocacy orgaizatio iterviews were coducted approximately oe year followig the passage of the policy of iterest. 7

9 After documetig all of the tactics used by each advocacy group, the research team selected a small umber of tactics that highlighted the uique roles ad major strategies adopted by each advocacy group to explore through the critical path aalysis. A critical path was diagramed for each tactic to summarize the advocacy group s cojecture o how the tactic was coected to a specific outcome i the ageda settig, policy formulatio, or decisio makig stage. Each path diagram begis with a advocacy tactic ad eds with a stage-related outcome. For example, the itroductio of legislatio related to the issue of iterest is a potetial outcome of the ageda settig stage, while a amedmet shapig the policy cotet i a directio favored by the advocacy group is a potetial outcome of the policy formulatio stage. If the path ivolves a persoal or iformatioal chael of ifluece, the tactic is liked directly to a policymaker outcome, as they were the immediate audiece of the tactic. If the chael of ifluece is idirect, the path is mediated by the respose of the third party that was the immediate audiece of the tactic. For example, the ifluece of a grassroots campaig o policymakers support for a policy will deped at least i part o the respose of members of the public exposed to the grassroots campaig. I situatios where the fial policy outcome sought was ot achieved, the outcome is shaded ad we represet the path likig the previous itermediate outcome to the fial policy outcome as broke. Iitial sketches of the diagrams were set to the advocacy groups i order to cofirm that they accurately reflected their hypotheses o the chai of evets likig the tactic to the policy outcome. The research team proceeded to gather evidece to verify the chais of evets show i each diagram, begiig with the implemetatio of the tactic ad workig forward i the path toward the relevat policy outcome. Evidece was gathered from official state records, media reports, ad iterviews with legislators ad political isiders. We sought both evidece that particular tactics ad itermediate outcomes occurred, as well as evidece that particular steps i the path iflueced subsequet steps. After completig the collectio of evidece, the fidigs were summarized i arrative form. 8

10 Measurig ad Uderstadig Educatio Advocacy Advocacy Groups Louisiaa I Louisiaa, we examied the ifluece of six advocacy groups active o House Bill 976 durig its cosideratio i 2012, four of which supported the legislatio, ad two of which opposed the legislatio. The groups ad their missios are described i Table 3. Table 3. Louisiaa Advocacy Orgaizatios Orgaizatio Name Black Alliace for Educatioal Optios Louisiaa Associatio of Busiess ad Idustry Louisiaa Associatio of Public Charter Schools Louisiaa Federatio for Childre Louisiaa Federatio of Teachers Louisiaa School Boards Associatio Missio The missio of the Black Alliace for Educatioal Optios is to icrease access to high quality educatio optios for Black childre by actively supportig trasformatioal educatio reform iitiatives ad paretal choice policies that empower low-icome ad workig-class Black families. 6 The missio of the Louisiaa Associatio of Busiess ad Idustry (LABI) is to foster a climate for ecoomic growth by champioig the priciples of the free eterprise system ad represetig the geeral iterests of the busiess commuity through active ivolvemet i the political, legislative, judicial ad regulatory processes. 7 The missio of the Louisiaa Associatio of Public Charter Schools is to support, promote, ad advocate for the Louisiaa charter school movemet, icreasig studet access to high quality public schools statewide. 8 The Louisiaa Federatio for Childre is a project of the America Federatio for Childre ad the Alliace for School Choice, dedicated to promotig educatioal choice by protectig, growig ad expadig scholarship programs for low ad middle-icome childre. 9 The America Federatio of Teachers [of which the Louisiaa Federatio of Teachers is the statewide affiliate] is a uio of professioals that champios fairess; democracy; ecoomic opportuity; ad high-quality public educatio, healthcare ad public services for our studets, their families ad our commuities. We are committed to advacig these priciples through commuity egagemet, orgaizig, collective bargaiig ad political activism, ad especially through the work our members do. 10 The missio of the Louisiaa School Boards Associatio is to provide leadership, services, ad support for its members so that they become more effective as policy makers i meetig the educatioal eeds of all studets. 11 Supports Legislatio Yes Yes Yes Yes No No 9

11 North Carolia I North Carolia, we examied the ifluece of five advocacy groups active o Seate Bill 337 durig the 2013 sessio of the North Carolia Geeral Assembly. Because of the multi-faceted ature of the legislatio, some orgaizatios supported particular elemets of the origial bill while opposig others. This makes it difficult to idetify some orgaizatios as pure supporters vs. oppoets. Therefore, we idetify groups as those workig i support of charter schools ad those which geerally work i oppositio to charter school expasio ad deregulatio. Three of the groups icluded i the survey are cosidered pro-charter groups, ad two are groups that voice oppositio. The groups ad their missios are described i Table 4. Table 4. North Carolia Advocacy Orgaizatios Orgaizatio Name North Carolia Alliace for Public Charter Schools North Carolia Associatio of Educators North Carolia Justice Ceter North Carolia Public Charter Schools Associatio Parets for Educatioal Freedom i North Carolia Missio Our missio is to advace quality educatioal opportuities for all North Carolia childre by supportig ad expadig effective public charter schools. 12 To be the voice of educators i North Carolia that uites, orgaizes ad empowers members to be advocates for educatio professioals, public educatio ad childre. 13 As a leadig progressive research ad advocacy orgaizatio, our missio is to elimiate poverty i North Carolia by esurig that every household i the state has access to the resources, services ad fair treatmet it eeds to achieve ecoomic security. 14 The missio of the [NC Public Charter Schools] Associatio is to grow ad sustai high quality public charter schools that ourish North Carolia s childre ad erich their families. 15 Our missio is to iform parets of the beefits of expaded educatioal optios ad empower them to exercise freedom i meetig their childre s eeds, regardless of race, atioal origi, icome or religio. Supports Legislatio Yes No No Yes Yes 10

12 Measurig ad Uderstadig Educatio Advocacy Teessee I Teessee, we examied the ifluece of six advocacy groups surroudig Seate Bill 196 / House Bill 190, four of which supported the legislatio, ad two of which opposed the legislatio. The groups ad their missios are described i Table 5. Table 5. Teessee Advocacy Orgaizatios Orgaizatio Name Beaco Ceter of Teessee School Choice Now StudetsFirst Teessee Educatio Associatio Teessee Federatio for Childre Teessee School Boards Associatio Missio The Beaco Ceter of Teessee empowers Teesseas to reclaim cotrol of their lives, so that they ca freely pursue their versio of the America Dream. The Ceter is a oprofit, opartisa, ad idepedet orgaizatio dedicated to providig cocered citizes ad public leaders with expert empirical research ad timely free market solutios to public policy issues i Teessee. 17 Note: School Choice Now is a grassroots campaig that represets a partership betwee the Beaco Ceter ad the Teessee Federatio for Childre, two other orgaizatios icluded o the SwP. These orgaizatios braded their grassroots activities usig the School Choice Now ame. Thus, School Choice Now does ot have a distict orgaizatioal missio. StudetsFirst is a oprofit orgaizatio fightig for oe purpose: to make sure every studet i America has access to great schools ad great teachers. We are drive by the belief that every child regardless of backgroud ca succeed if put i the right school eviromet. Ad every day we work to build a educatio system that makes this possible. 18 The missio of the Teessee Educatio Associatio is to protect ad advocate for our studets, our professio, ad our members to create great public schools that prepare everyoe for success i a global society. 19 The Teessee Federatio for Childre s missio is to support equal opportuity i educatio. 20 The missio of the Teessee School Boards Associatio is to assist school boards i effectively goverig school districts. 21 Supports Legislatio Yes Yes Yes No Yes No 11

13 Survey with Placebo Fidigs As show i Table 6, respose rates across all three research sites were similar, with the exceptio of a higher respose rate amog political isiders i Louisiaa. Overall respose rates raged from 37 percet i Louisiaa to 30 percet i North Carolia. The highest legislative respose rate was 23 percet i North Carolia ad the lowest legislative respose rate was 17 percet i Teessee. Below, we preset survey fidigs from the three years of our study to aswer four key questios regardig the SwP s utility ad feasibility. These four questios ad their motivatio are laid out i Table 7. Table 6. Survey respose rates across research sites Respodet Group Samplig Total Respose Rate Frame Respodets Louisiaa Legislators % Political Isiders % Overall % Teessee Legislators % Political Isiders % Overall % North Carolia Legislators % Political Isiders % Overall % Table 7. Key questios regardig the SwP s utility ad feasibility Key Questio 1. Do actual advocacy groups receive ifluece ratigs that differ from those assiged to the placebo? 2. Do ifluece ratigs differ by respodet s positio o the policy issue? 3. Do ifluece ratigs differ by respodet type? 4. Are advocacy groups attributed differet levels of ifluece across stages of the policymakig process? Motivatio Essetial to determiig if the SwP tool has utility for quatifyig ifluece. Idetifies whether respodets o differet sides of a policy issue assig differet ratigs to the advocacy groups to shed light o whether self-selectio i regards to who chooses to respod to the survey may bias the survey results. Provides isights regardig whether resposes from political isiders ca geerate iformatio that is similar to that geerated from legislator resposes. Idicates whether the SwP is able to distiguish whe ifluece occurred. 12

14 Measurig ad Uderstadig Educatio Advocacy Do actual advocacy groups receive ifluece ratigs that differ from those assiged to the placebo? This questio is essetial to determiig if the SwP tool has utility for quatifyig ifluece. We would expect that a group kow to have had o ivolvemet i the policy issue uder cosideratio would receive the lowest score amog the listed advocacy groups. To aswer this questio, we compared the mea overall ifluece ratig assiged to pro school choice advocacy groups ad ati school choice advocacy groups across the three states icluded i our study to the ratig assiged to the placebo across those three states. For orgaizatios examied i Louisiaa, their overall ifluece ratig is simply their score o the sigle item icluded o the year oe survey. I year two sites, we averaged pro school choice groups ratigs o the cotet ad support questios to determie their overall ifluece ratig ad combied ati school choice groups ratigs o the cotet ad oppositio questios to establish their overall ifluece ratig. The placebo s overall ratig i year two sites represets its average ratig across the cotet, support, ad oppositio questios. We fid that there are statistically sigificat differeces betwee the placebo group ratig ad the ratigs of pro school choice advocacy groups or ati school choice advocacy groups (Figure 1). I Louisiaa ad North Carolia, states where the school choice policy of iterest was successfully passed, pro school choice advocacy groups were Figure 1. Legislator ad political isider advocacy group ifluece ratigs Louisiaa* Pro Groups Placebo: Ati Groups 0.59 Teessee Pro Groups Placebo: Ati Groups 2.38 North Carolia Pro Groups Placebo: Ati Groups 0.53 Overall Pro Groups Placebo: Ati Groups No Major Ifluece Average Ifluece Ifluece Ratig Note: Figure 1 shows the mea ifluece ratigs for each advocacy group. Thi light blue bars show the 95% cofidece iterval aroud each mea. The gray bars idicate the placebo mea ratig. The data labels o the blue bar idicate the differece betwee the placebo ad the orgaizatio mea ratigs, represetig the groups ifluece score. Meas preseted are meas used i paired t-tests, thus observatios without ratigs for all groups, icludig the placebo, are excluded. (Louisiaa, =61; Teessee, = 59; North Carolia, =61; Overall, =181). *I Louisiaa, the survey scale was Least ifluetial (1) to Most Ifluetial (7). Source: Survey results. Authors calculatios. 13

15 rated sigificatly higher tha ati school choice groups, while i Teessee, where the school choice policy of iterest was ot successfully passed, differeces i ratigs of pro school choice ad ati school choice groups were ot statistically sigificat. We would expect that wiers would be more ifluetial tha losers i ay particular state. I fact, whe cosiderig oly ifluece i the decisio makig stage (ifluece o icreasig support or icreasig oppositio), ati school choice groups i Teessee receive higher ifluece ratigs tha pro school choice groups i the state. Across research sites, respodets were cosistetly able to accurately idetify the placebo orgaizatio as the least ifluetial group icluded o the survey. 22 This fidig gives us cofidece i the SwP s ability to establish a valid measure of advocacy group ifluece across diverse settigs with varyig policy outcomes. Eve i the states where the school choice policy of iterest was successfully passed ad the ati school choice advocacy groups showed sigificatly lower ifluece tha the pro school choice groups, the tool was able to produce statistically sigificat differeces betwee the placebo ad the ati school choice groups. Do ifluece ratigs differ by respodet s positio o the policy issue? Idetifyig whether respodets o differet sides of a policy issue assig differet ratigs to the advocacy groups sheds light o whether self-selectio i regards to who chooses to respod to the survey Figure 2. Ifluece ratigs by respodet ad advocacy group positio o policy outcome Louisiaa* Wiig Groups Losig Groups Wiig Respodets Losig Respodets Teessee Wiig Groups Losig Groups North Carolia Wiig Groups Losig Groups Overall Wiig Groups Losig Groups No Major Ifluece Average Ifluece Ifluece Ratig Note: Figure 2 shows average meas for all wiig advocacy groups ad losig advocacy groups accordig to respodet positio as a supporter of the wiig or of the losig policy positio. Thi light blue bars show 95% cofidece itervals aroud each mea. Across the research sites, 9 Louisiaa respodets, 4 Teessee respodets, ad 2 North Carolia respodets did ot have readily idetifiable positios o the issue uder study ad are excluded from the calculatio. (Louisiaa, wiig = 45, losig =10; Teessee, wiig =24, losig =36; North Carolia, wiig = 43, losig =23). *I Louisiaa, the survey scale was Least ifluetial (1) to Most Ifluetial (7). Source: Survey results. Authors calculatios. 14

16 Measurig ad Uderstadig Educatio Advocacy may bias the survey results. Our respodet pool i each of the three research sites icluded idividuals who were supportive of the school choice issues of iterest i the survey ad those who were ot. If idividuals who support the policy of iterest assig ratigs to the advocacy groups that systematically differ from those assiged by idividuals who oppose the policy, the it becomes more critical to have a represetative sample of respodets from the wiig ad losig sides of the policy debate. I particular, we might expect to fid that respodets o the wiig side of the policy debate assig higher ratigs to wiig groups i essece givig themselves more credit for a victory tha their oppoets would. We tested the statistical sigificace of the differece betwee the average ifluece ratig assiged by those o the wiig side of the policy issue to the average ifluece ratig assiged by those o the losig side of the policy issue. I states where the policy of iterest passed, advocacy groups that supported that legislatio are deemed wiers ad those that opposed the legislatio are deemed losers. I states where the policy of iterest did ot pass, advocacy groups that supported the legislatio are deemed losers ad those that opposed the legislatio are deemed wiers. As show i Figure 2, there were geerally o statistically sigificat differeces i the way that wiig respodets ad losig respodets rated either wiig groups or losig groups o average. For example, wiig respodets distributed ratigs to wiig groups i Louisiaa that were similar to the ratigs distributed to those orgaizatios by losig respodets. The oly istace i which differeces i ratigs were statistically sigificat betwee wiig ad losig respodets was i Teessee. I that state, losig respodets pro school choice respodets assiged higher ifluece ratigs to losig advocacy groups tha did wiig respodets those who oppose school choice. Wiig advocacy groups received similar scores from both wiig ad losig respodets. Do ifluece ratigs differ by respodet type? Aswerig this questio provides isights regardig whether securig resposes from political isiders ca geerate iformatio that is similar to the iformatio that is geerated from legislator resposes. This is importat to kow because securig legislator resposes is both more expesive ad more labor itesive tha collectig resposes from political isiders, ad the respose rate for legislators still lags the respose rate of political isiders. Thus, if these two groups provide similar iformatio, the the tool could be admiistered oly to political isiders i the future, reducig its overall cost. We test the statistical sigificace of the differece betwee the average ifluece ratigs that legislators ad political isiders assiged to pro school choice groups ad ati school choice groups across the three states. As depicted i Figure 3 o page 16, our comparisos show that there are o statistically sigificat differeces betwee the ifluece scores assiged by legislators ad by political isiders to pro school choice groups or ati school choice groups as a whole. This fidig holds across all three research sites without exceptio. Are advocacy groups attributed differet levels of ifluece acorss stages of the policymakig process? Advocacy groups work to exercise ifluece across various stages of the policymakig process, with some groups participatig heavily i certai stages without egagig i others. Ideally, the SwP would be able to distiguish ifluece that occurred durig differet stages of the policymakig process. This would ehace the flexibility of the tool, givig us cofidece that it could differetiate ifluece that shaped the cotet of the bill from ifluece that impacted whether the bill ultimately became law. The refiemets made to the SwP i year two allow us to aswer this questio by comparig the scores that advocacy groups received o a questio regardig their ifluece over legislative cotet a There are o statistically sigificat differeces betwee the ifluece scores assiged by legislators ad by political isiders to pro school choice groups or ati school choice groups as a whole. 15

17 Figure 3. Legislator ad political isider-reported advocacy group ifluece ratigs Louisiaa* Pro Groups Ati Groups Legislators Political Isiders Teessee Pro Groups Ati Groups North Carolia Pro Groups Ati Groups Overall Pro Groups Ati Groups No Major Ifluece Average Ifluece Ifluece Ratig Note: Figure 3 shows mea ifluece ratigs for respodet types: legislators ad political isiders. Thi light blue bars show 95% cofidece itervals aroud each mea. (Louisiaa, legislator = 25, political isider = 39; Teessee, legislator = 16, political isider =48; North Carolia, legislator = 32, political isider =36). *I Louisiaa, the survey scale was Least ifluetial (1) to Most Ifluetial (7). Source: Survey results. Authors calculatios. policy formulatio stage to their scores o a questio regardig their ifluece o icreasig legislative support for or oppositio to the policy of iterest the decisio makig stage. Our results show that the oppositio groups were less effective with regard to ifluecig cotet, but were just as, if ot more, effective at ifluecig the policy outcome, depedig o the research site. Figure 4 plots each advocacy group s ifluece score (ifluece ratig of the group ifluece ratig of the placebo) o cotet ad support or cotet ad oppositio, as appropriate. The pro groups across the states clustered together, idicatig that respodets rated them similarly differetly from the placebo i their respective states. As the figure makes obvious, i both Teessee ad North Carolia, ati school choice groups received lower scores o their ifluece over the bill cotet tha their ifluece o icreasig oppositio whe compared to the placebo. I both cotexts, this makes sese: ati school choice groups were commoly opposed to the cocept of the bill etirely ad were thus more likely to egage i the decisio makig stage by attemptig to icrease legislative oppositio to the bill rather tha attemptig to tweak the policy cotet durig the policy formulatio stage. Pro school choice advocacy group scores were also sigificatly differet o the two questios, but these orgaizatios received higher marks for their ifluece o icreasig support tha their ifluece 16

18 Measurig ad Uderstadig Educatio Advocacy o the legislative cotet. I some cases, this is a somewhat surprisig fidig whe triagulated agaist our o-the-groud work. I North Carolia, oe advocacy group that idicated that it oly worked i the area of ifluecig the bill s cotet is rated similarly o ifluecig the cotet of the bill ad icreasig support for the legislatio. I this case, it may be that respodets thought of the group s push for chages to the cotet of the bill as efforts to icrease support for the bill s passage ad were uable to distiguish betwee the two types of ifluece. Figure 4. Ifluece Scores of Pro ad Ati School Choice groups i the Policy Formulatio ad Decisio Makig Stages TN Pro Groups NC Pro Groups TN Ati Groups NC Ati Groups Ifluece o Policy Outcomes TN Pro Average TN Ati Average NC Pro Average NC Ati Average Ifluece o Legislative Cotet Note: Figure 4 shows the differece betwee advocacy groups ifluece ratigs ad the ifluece ratigs assiged to the placebo. The ifluece o legislative cotet is equal to the advocacy group mea ratig mius the placebo ratig. The ifluece o policy outcome is equal to the advocacy group mea ratig o support mius the placebo ratig o support for pro groups, ad the advocacy group mea ratig o oppositio mius the placebo ratig o oppositio for ati groups. Groups that fall o a axis were ot sigificatly differet from the placebo o that scale. Meas preseted are meas used i paired t-tests Source: Survey results. Authors calculatios. 17

19 Critical Path Fidigs use ad exemplify broader themes. For example, iformatio provisio was a commoly described tactic durig the ageda settig stage, while grassroots activities were more commo durig the decisio makig stage. I year oe of our work, we focused o idetifyig critical paths of ifluece that liked tactics implemeted by the Louisiaa advocacy groups of iterest to the fial policy outcome: passage of the school voucher legislatio i the decisio makig stage of the policymakig process. These tactics aliged with three chaels of ifluece: persoal (persoal commuicatio, political support); iformatioal (research materials, semiars ad evets); ad idirect (grassroots campaigs, media outreach). I year two, we expaded the focus of our work to examie policy outcomes associated with multiple stages i the policy process, ot just the decisio makig stage. This allows us to capture some of the work that advocates do before the policy actually comes to a vote, such as promotig the issue o the legislative ageda ad ifluecig policy cotet. We cotiue to focus o tactics from the persoal, iformatioal, ad idirect chaels. Below, we outlie three examples of critical paths that arose from our study i year two sites, oe that aligs with each of the phases of the policymakig process we explored. Each of these tactics was part of a broader strategic push toward the outcome described, though oly select tactics are icluded i this report. These illustrative paths poit to the rage of tactics that advocates Tactic Providig iformatio to Task Force Ageda Settig Stage A major issue discussed by advocacy groups we spoke with i Teessee was the eed to promote or keep the voucher issue o the legislative ageda. While the issue of vouchers had bee a active oe i Teessee for several years, the issue reached its peak promiece oce the Goveror took a active role by itroducig his ow piece of legislatio. Oe of the ways that advocacy groups worked to improve the positio of the voucher issue o the legislative ageda was by equippig the Goveror s office with iformatio that could help him i the developmet of legislatio. Tactic: Providig iformatio to Goveror s Task Force Figure 5 depicts oe of the tactics employed by advocacy groups i Teessee as part of the ageda settig stage. A advocacy group of iterest provided iformatio to the Goveror s Task Force Figure 5. Ifluece path of iformatio provisio i the ageda settig stage Research related to private school participatio Goveor aouces policy Goveror draws o iformatio preseted to Task Force to develop policy Fial Outcome Goveror s Legislatio Cosidered SB 196 ad HB 190 itroduced Voucher legislatio high o decisioal ageda 18

20 Measurig ad Uderstadig Educatio Advocacy o Opportuity Scholarships that met i This iformatio stregtheed the Goveror s ability to craft his voucher legislatio, resultig i the placemet of the issue high o the decisioal ageda i the 2013 legislative sessio. The advocacy group delivered relevat iformatio about key factors related to potetial private school participatio i voucher programs, icludig issues related to available seats, tuitio, ad testig. The iformatio provided by the group was icluded i the task force s report to the Goveror ad his office also received additioal follow up iformatio from the group about other issues icludig the provisio of school meals ad trasportatio two issues that oppoets to private school choice commoly use to argue that a voucher program will ot serve the types of studets it is iteded to serve. Iformatio from this group cotributed to the Goveror s ability to formulate ad itroduce a voucher proposal i the 2013 legislative sessio. With the state s chief executive pushig for a voucher program, the issue was placed high o the decisioal ageda for the sessio. To validate this path of ifluece, we sought evidece from the miutes of the Task Force o Opportuity Scholarships meetigs, the workig group s fial report to the Goveror, public commets made by Goveror Haslam, ad iterviews with legislators ad political isiders. We foud materials i the task force report that reflect the iformatio gathered by the orgaizatio that executed this tactic. 23 Accordig to media reports ad his ow public commets, the Goveror drew o the task force recommedatios alog with other studies of the issue i developig the legislatio that he itroduced i Oe political isider who was kowledgeable about the process by which the Goveror developed the legislatio specifically described the cotributios of the advocacy group that coducted this tactic as helpful to the process. 25 Legislators ad political isiders commoly referred to the legislatio as beig the Goveror s bill. Highlightig the impact that havig a bill promoted by the state s chief executive ca have, oe legislator said that it is easier for legislators to coalesce aroud a admiistratio bill, 26 while a political isider emphasized the fact that o voucher legislatio had ever passed a House committee i Teessee before the Goveror became ivolved i the issue. 27 Aother legislator who was a log-time supporter of paretal choice said that whe the goveror got ivolved, it elevated the issue. Policy Formulatio Stage Advocacy groups i every research site implemeted a variety of tactics aimed at shapig the fial cotet of policy proposals movig through their state s legislature. These tactics ofte icluded direct commuicatio betwee advocates ad key policymakers, sometimes i the form of persoal meetigs aimed at persuadig lawmakers to make amedmets to a bill. At other times, advocates worked to covice legislators to refrai from pursuig chages. Advocacy groups sometimes framed their work as brokerig agreemets amog lawmakers ad other stakeholders i order to make the policy more politically palatable or more likely to be effective oce implemeted. As a example of tactics pursued i this policy stage, oe advocacy group i North Carolia described how it worked through ogoig coversatios with lawmakers to modify the cotet of the legislatio uder study to be more reflective of their policy goals ad more resposive to the political situatio i the state. Tactic: Persoal commuicatio with stakeholders to shape policy cotet Figure 6 o page 20 depicts oe of the tactics employed by advocacy groups i North Carolia as part of the policy formulatio stage. A advocacy group of iterest egaged i persoal commuicatio with key stakeholders i order to egotiate chages to the policy cotet of SB 337 ad build legislative support for those chages. The bill laguage was ultimately ameded to reflect these desired chages. A advocacy group of iterest worked with legislators ad other key stakeholders to guide chages to the bill s cotet after it was itroduced. I particular, members of the orgaizatio s staff commuicated amog policymakers ad other key stakeholders, icludig other advocacy groups, ad advised leaders o how the policy could be modified. Through these ogoig commuicatios, the group was able to share iformatio about stakeholder positios, develop strategies with legislators aroud how to 19

21 Figure 6. Ifluece path of persoal commuicatio i the policy formulatio stage Tactic Fial Outcome legislators idetified the group as oe of the drivig orgaizatios o the issue ad idicated that groups were workig behid the scees at the top levels to make the bill happe a descriptio matchig that of the group implemetig this tactic. 31 Persoal Commuicatio Coversatio with legislative leaders Negotiatio amog various stakeholders Legislator Support Legislators support proposed chages to origial policy Legislatio Ameded SB 337 laguage modified Amedmets passed avigate the process of alterig the bill, ad geerate the ecessary policymaker support for brigig about those chages. With this support i place, the bill s cotet was ameded as it moved through the legislative process. I order to collect evidece to verify this path, we iterviewed leaders of other egaged advocacy orgaizatios alog with legislators i positios close to the process, icludig members of the educatio committee ad coferece committee o the bill regardig how the cotet of the legislatio was shaped over time. While advocacy group leaders ofte poited to their ow group as the major driver behid the cotet of the bill, legislators frequetly metioed several orgaizatios, each of which was icluded i the survey, as importat players i the developmet of the fial policy. For example, oe legislator idicated that aother advocacy group s lobbyist sat i o coferece committee meetigs. 29 Some evidece from these iterviews does, however, poit to the advocacy group that implemeted this tactic as beig a particularly importat player i egotiatig chages to the bill ad activities like those described by the orgaizatio as playig a importat part i the process. For example, oe legislator that served o the coferece committee described the group as playig a major role i egotiatig amog stakeholders, 30 ad other Decisio Makig Stage Advocacy groups ot oly worked to keep their target issue o the policy ageda ad to shape the cotet of the policy uder cosideratio, they also implemeted tactics meat to move the legislatio through the ecessary committee ad floor votes ad have it siged ito law. Amog the tactics employed, grassroots activities were popular across two of our three research sites, ad were sometimes differetiated to target policymakers from certai areas or with certai political affiliatios. I oe example, grassroots activities were specifically geared toward establishig a cosistet presece of supporters at the capitol i order to build support for legislatio. Tactic: Grassroots activities to build a steady pressure As show i Figure 7, oe of the advocacy groups of iterest i Teessee worked through persoalized ad cotiuous grassroots activities i order to mobilize supporters throughout the 2014 sessio. Orgaizatio leaders hypothesize that these activities worked to build support for the voucher iitiative, maitai support amog champios, ad promote bill passage i the Seate ad House. The advocacy group that implemeted these grassroots tactics was less focused o large-scale evets ad more focused o geeratig a steady grassroots presece both at the capitol ad i legislator districts, supplemeted by calls to actio at critical poits i the process. The orgaizatio hypothesized that by workig through grassroots mobilizatio, they could ifluece the overall coversatio aroud educatio reform, stregthe supporters, sway ucertai legislators toward support, ad impact oppoets. I buildig their grassroots support base, the group sposored ad atteded evets i key areas of the state ad amog importat costituecies. They 20

22 Measurig ad Uderstadig Educatio Advocacy had iformatioal booths at cofereces, orgaized ad participated i tow hall meetigs to aswer questios from the public, ad reached out to people who respoded positively to their social media posts about school choice to give them opportuities to amplify their voice o the issue. To egage supporters that had bee idetified through these activities, they ivited their grassroots members to sig up for persoalized visits to the legislature. Through this ivitatio, the group hosted about 30 grassroots supporters at the capitol over the course of the sessio. For each visit, the advocacy group crafted a idividualized itierary that icluded a mix of meetigs with the visitor s legislative delegatio, educatio committee hearigs, legislative floor sessios, ad coversatios with legislators who support the group s educatio reform ageda. The orgaizatio also issued calls to actio targeted to specific members of key committees, such as the House Fiace Committee, to which their grassroots members respoded by sedig hudreds of s at critical juctures. Through these ad other efforts, the advocacy group worked to reaffirm supportive legislators ad sway udecided legislators toward supportig the voucher iitiative. The legislatio passed with bi-partisa support i the Seate ad through some of the key committees i the House, but was withdraw from the House Fiace Committee. To gather evidece to validate this path of ifluece, we reviewed publicly available documets regardig the group s grassroots activities, iterviewed legislators who were targeted by this tactic, ad iterviewed other political isiders with critical roles surroudig the bill. Legislators that we iterviewed ofte poited to authetic cotact from their costituets, ot the geeral public, as beig a powerful ifluece o their legislative activity. For example, oe legislator idicated that if he receives te to twety cotacts from his district, he would cosider that a tidal wave of support. 32 Speakig i the media, oe of the few Democratic champios of voucher legislatio described experiecig Legislators that we iterviewed ofte poited to authetic cotact from their costituets ot the geeral public, as beig a powerful ifluece o their legislative activity. Figure 7. Ifluece path of grassroots activities i the decisio makig stage Fial Outcome Tactic Bill Passes i Seate Grassroots activities Mobilizatio of Grassroots supporters Legislative Support SB 196 passes full seate Sposorig ad attedig evets Cotactig supporters through social media Ivitig supporters to visit the capitol Calls to actio Grassroots supporters take persoalized visits to capitol Hudreds of grassroots supporters respod to calls to actio Supporters i the legislature stregtheed Udecided legislators swayed Oppositio i the legislature eutralized Bill Passes i House HB 190 withdraw from committee 21

23 a major outpourig of grassroots support, though ot ecessarily through the tactics implemeted by this orgaizatio. 33 Aother legislator with whom we spoke said that the orgaizatio of iterest i this path brought a supporter by his office i a attempt to ecourage him to support the legislatio, but idicated that this activity was ot effective because he foud the costituet ot to be kowledgeable about the legislatio, ad he cotiued to oppose the bill. 34 This same legislator described grassroots advocacy groups i the state as creatig a virtual rally o the issue through social media ad olie iitiatives activities cosistet with those described by the advocacy group examied i this path. The legislator idicated that this activity s primary impact was to raise awareess about the issue. 35 This is cosistet with oe of the log-term goals that the orgaizatio studied here discussed: impactig the broader educatio coversatio ad elevatig the priority that policymakers place o educatio issues. Overall, while may legislators ad political isiders with whom we spoke idicated that authetic commuicatio from a legislator s direct costituets is a ifluetial factor i votig decisios ad that members of the public did cotact legislators regardig the voucher legislatio, they ofte portrayed grassroots ivolvemet o the issue of vouchers i Teessee as somewhat miimal. However, it is possible that grassroots support was ultimately successful i ifluecig some key votes i the House, but because the bill ever made it to a full floor vote, it is difficult to kow with certaity whether these actios would have had a impact o securig passage of the bill. Highlights of Results ad Implicatios Fidigs with respect to methods ad measures The Survey with Placebo (SwP) ca detect meaigful differeces i the perceived ifluece of advocacy groups ad betwee the actual ifluece groups vs. the placebo orgaizatio. Respodets to the SwP geerally separate their ow positios as supporters or oppoets of the legislatio from their ratigs of ifluece. Thus, the average ifluece ratigs of pro or ati groups do ot differ statistically depedig o the respodet s positio o the policy issue. Further, orgaizatios o the wiig side of a legislative battle are typically perceived by all respodets to be more effective tha those o the losig side. These fidig provide importat support for the validity of the SwP i that ratigs track specific outcomes. Legislators provide ratigs of ifluece through the SwP that do ot differ statistically from ratigs provided by political isiders who are ot i the legislature whe cosiderig pro or ati groups as a whole. This fidig is of practical sigificace because the respose rate to the SwP is much higher from political isiders tha it is from legislators. Future uses of the SwP ca be more efficiet by surveyig oly political isiders. A short form of the SwP, which ca be admiistered i less tha five miutes, produces ratigs of overall ifluece that 22

24 Measurig ad Uderstadig Educatio Advocacy are highly correlated with fidigs from loger forms that ca take up to 30 miutes for a idividual to complete. Thus, we have developed a tool that ca be used by a variety of iterested parties to evaluate the ifluece of various advocacy efforts that is practical because of its low time burde o respodets. Critical Path Aalysis (CPA) with advocacy group leaders ad with those playig critical roles i the political process surroudig the issue of iterest reveals sigificat iformatio that caot be gathered through the SwP. For example, oe lears how a particular advocacy orgaizatio goes about geeratig grassroots support ad focusig it at times ad places that have political leverage. The expese ad labor required to coduct the CPA makes it impractical to pursue o a regular basis, but iterested parties may cosider leveragig this method i sites where they are particularly iterested i developig a better uderstadig of the advocacy eviromet ad the specific strategies that advocates deploy. Fidigs with respect to the ifluece process The advocacy orgaizatios we studied are a clearly recogized ifluece withi each of the respective states. They have a impact o the itroductio of policy ito the legislative area, the cotet of legislatio, ad the votes of members of the legislature. The impact of advocacy orgaizatios is coditioal o powerful political actors takig positios that ope the door to supportive advocacy activities. For example, voucher legislatio i Louisiaa ad Teessee would likely have received less legislative attetio but for the leadership of the goveror of each state. Likewise, the overwhelmig oe-party cotrol of the North Carolia legislature was likely a precoditio for the legislative actio o charter schools aroud which advocates orgaized, eve though the bill that evetually passed received bipartisa support. Coordiatio ad role differetiatio amog advocacy orgaizatios that have related policy goals stregthes total impact. I Louisiaa, for example, oe of the advocacy groups focused o obtaiig coordiatio ad cooperatio amog all advocacy groups supportig the legislatio. This allowed the resources of each group i the coalitio to be focused o what it could do best, lesseed the likelihood that critical actios such as buildig visible grassroots support would fall betwee the cracks, ad provided opportuities for privately workig through coflicts i policy goals amog the advocacy orgaizatios. Perceived ifluece closely tracks outcomes. Whe the policy of iterest is ot passed ito law, oppoets are credited with substatially greater ifluece tha i sites where the policy is successful. The effort to ifluece political outcomes, just like politics itself, is local. For example, approaches appropriate to a state i which the goveror is the domiat political force with respect to the legislatio of iterest, as was the case i Louisiaa, will be differet tha i a state i which the legislature is more powerful, as was the case i North Carolia. Advocacy orgaizatios that are omially i the same camp i terms of beig supporters or oppoets of a piece of legislatio frequetly have differet goals i terms of the lie item cotet of a bill. For example, the North Carolia Alliace for Public Charter Schools ad the North Carolia Public The impact of advocacy orgaizatios is coditioal o powerful political actors takig positios that ope the door to supportive advocacy activities. For example, voucher legislatio i Louisiaa ad Teessee would likely have received less legislative attetio but for the leadership of the goveror of each state. 23

25 Charter Schools Associatio differed o the provisio of Seate Bill 337 that would have created a Charter School Advisory Board idepedet of the State Board of Educatio. Cotradictory messagig or publicly visible discord amog advocacy orgaizatios that legislators may thik of as part of the same pro-legislatio team provide opeigs that oppoets exploit i their ow advocacy efforts. Achievig bipartisa support for educatio reform legislatio is ehaced by uderstadig ad appealig to the motives of differet camps of potetial supporters. For example, there are groups of people that support charter schools because they believe i a market-based approach to reform, others with populist leaigs that are motivated by the opportuity to achieve more equitable access to good schools for childre from low-icome ad miority families, ad still others that support charters as laboratories meat to test ew approaches ad share those with public schools. Advocacy efforts that are tailored to these uique iterests are likely to be more successful tha a oe-size-fits-all approach. 24

26 Measurig ad Uderstadig Educatio Advocacy Edotes 1 Adreas Dur, How Much Ifluece do Iterest Groups have i the EU? Some Methodological Cosideratio, i Opeig EU Goverace to Civil Society: Gais ad Challeges, edited by Beate Kohler-Koch, Dirk De Bievere ad William Maloey. (Maheim, Germay: CONNEX, 2008). 2 I year two sites, a secod placebo was also icluded i order to test whether the placebo s ame may ifluece its ratig. It is ot icluded i the couts show i Table 1. 3 Road to Educatioal Achievemet (REACH) is a shorteed versio of the ame of a actual advocacy group active i Pesylvaia, Road to Educatioal Achievemet through Choice. However, this orgaizatio was i o way ivolved i the ifluece process uder study i ay of the three states, ad should stad as a valid referece poit for zero ifluece. 4 Adrew Beett. Process Tracig ad Causal Iferece, i Rethikig Social Iquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Stadards, 2d ed., edited by Hery E. Brady ad David Collier, pp (Laham, Md.: Rowma ad Littlefield, 2010). 5 Frameworks describig stages i the policymakig process vary i the termiology ad umber of stages utilized. They also geerally iclude stages beyod the decisio makig or adoptio phase, such as implemetatio ad evaluatio. While some of the advocacy groups uder study lauched activities aimed at these later stages, the bulk of their work i these research sites were focused o the first three stages described: ageda settig, policy formulatio, ad decisio makig. Thus, we do ot iclude descriptios of tactics implemeted i relatio to post-decisio makig stages. 6 Our Missio ad Core Values. Black Alliace for Educatioal Optio, accessed July 1, ( org/?s_ref=14&id=5457). 7 Our Missio & Goals. Louisiaa Associatio of Busiess ad Idustry, accessed December 18, ( 8 Louisiaa Associatio of Public Charter Schools accessed July 1, ( 9 About Us, Louisiaa Federatio for Childre, accessed July 1, ( aboutus). 10 About Us. Louisiaa Federatio of Teachers, accessed December 18, ( 11 LSBA Policy Maual. Louisiaa School Boards Associatio, accessed December 18, ( lsba.com/privacypolicy.asp). 12 Welcome. North Carolia Alliace for Public Charter Schools, accessed December 18, ( ccharters.org/). 13 Values, Missio, ad Visio. North Carolia Associatio of Educators, accessed November 17, ( 14 About Us. North Carolia Justice Ceter, accessed November 17, ( org/?q=about-us). 15 About Us. North Carolia Public Charter Schools Associatio, accessed December 18, ( cpubliccharters.org/about-us/). 16 Missio & Visio. Parets for Educatioal Freedom i North Carolia, accessed November 17, ( 17 About Us. The Beaco Ceter of Teessee, accessed November 17, ( about-2-2/). 18 Who We Are. StudetsFirst, accessed November 17, ( 25

27 26 19 About TEA. Teessee Educatio Associatio, accessed December 18, ( org/about-tea). 20 Teessee Federatio for Childre, About Us, Facebook, accessed November 17, ( facebook.com/pages/teessee-federatio-for-childre/ ). 21 Missio ad Goals. Teessee School Boards Associatio, accessed November 17, ( tsba.et/about_tsba_affiliates/our_missio_ad_goals). 22 There were istaces whe orgaizatios that may have had little ivolvemet i a particular stage of the policy makig process were ot rated differetly tha the placebo. For example, ati groups i North Carolia were idetified as havig a ifluece o differet tha that of the placebo o the cotet of the legislatio. 23 Task Force o Opportuity Scholarships, Task Force o Opportuity Scholarships Draft Report, November 2012, ( 24 Richard Locker, School voucher bill appears dead i Teessee legislature, Commercial Appeal, April 15, 2014, ( Associated Press, Text of Gov. Bill Haslam s State of the State address, Times Free Press, Ja. 29, 2013, ( 25 TN Political Isider A, iterview by Claire Graves, October 9, TN Legislator A, iterview by Claire Graves, October 3, TN Political Isider B, iterview by Claire Graves, October 9, TN Legislator B, iterview by Claire Graves, October 9, NC Legislator A, iterview by Claire Graves, Jue 24, NC Legislator A, iterview by Claire Graves, Jue 24, NC Legislator B, iterview by Claire Graves, Jue 25, TN Legislator B, iterview by Claire Graves, October 9, Stephaie Scurlock, More Africa Americas Push for School Voucher Program, WREG, Ja. 24, 2014, ( 34 TN Legislator C, iterview by Claire Graves, October 7, TN Legislator C, iterview by Claire Graves, October 7, 2014.

28 Measurig ad Uderstadig Educatio Advocacy Appedix A 27

29 Study of Effective Educatio Advocacy This survey is desiged to assess the ifluece of advocacy groups o the school voucher legislatio kow as the Teessee Choice ad Opportuity Scholarship Act (Seate Bill 196 / House Bill 190) that was uder cosideratio durig the sessio of the Teessee Geeral Assembly. The questios i this survey will ask you to rate advocacy groups i the followig areas: ifluecig the cotet of the legislatio, icreasig support for the legislatio, ad icreasig oppositio to the legislatio. Rather tha cosiderig the amout of ifluece that these advocacy groups may have had o your persoal stace o the legislatio, please cosider their broader ifluece o the legislatio. Refresher o the Teessee Choice ad Opportuity Scholarship Act (Seate Bill 196 / House Bill 190) Would have allowed a limited umber of low-icome studets i the state s bottom five percet of schools to receive vouchers that could be used to atted private schools Passed the Seate o April 10, 2014 Withdraw from the House Fiace Committee o April 15, How kowledgeable are you regardig the ifluece of advocacy groups o the recet legislative activity related to school vouchers i Teessee? Very kowledgeable Kowledgeable Somewhat kowledgeable Not at all kowledgeable Usure 28

30 Measurig ad Uderstadig Educatio Advocacy 2. Please rate the amout of ifluece the followig advocacy groups had o the legislative CONTENT of Seate Bill 196 / House Bill 190 (school voucher legislatio). No Ifluece Moderate Ifluece Major Ifluece 7 Teessee School Boards Associatio (TSBA) Teessee Federatio for Childre (TFC) Road to Educatioal Achievemet (REACH) StudetsFirst School Choice Now Beaco Ceter of Teessee Teessee Educatio Associatio (TEA) (Survey cotiues o followig pages.) 29

31 3. Please rate the amout of ifluece the followig advocacy groups had o icreasig SUPPORT for Seate Bill 196 / House Bill 190 (school voucher legislatio) withi the Geeral Assembly. No Ifluece Moderate Ifluece Major Ifluece 7 Teessee School Boards Associatio (TSBA) Teessee Federatio for Childre (TFC) Road to Educatioal Achievemet (REACH) StudetsFirst School Choice Now Beaco Ceter of Teessee Teessee Educatio Associatio (TEA) 4. Please rate the amout of ifluece the followig advocacy groups had o icreasig OPPOSITION for Seate Bill 196 / House Bill 190 (school voucher legislatio) withi the Geeral Assembly. No Ifluece Moderate Ifluece Major Ifluece 7 Teessee School Boards Associatio (TSBA) Teessee Federatio for Childre (TFC) Road to Educatioal Achievemet (REACH) StudetsFirst School Choice Now Beaco Ceter of Teessee Teessee Educatio Associatio (TEA) 30

32 Measurig ad Uderstadig Educatio Advocacy Below is a list of five political actors i Teessee. 5. Please rate the amout of OVERALL ifluece the followig actors had o icreasig for Seate Bill 196 / House Bill 190 (school voucher legislatio) withi the Geeral Assembly. No Ifluece Moderate Ifluece Major Ifluece 7 Goveror s Office State Board of Educatio Costituets (Geeral Public) Advocacy Groups Civic Leaders Thak you for promptly returig this survey to us i the eclosed postage-paid evelope. 31