EDLED-GE:2205 Advocacy and Education
Program in Educational Leadership
Department of Administration, Leadership, and Technology
The Steinhardt School of Education, New York University
Spring Semester, 2014
Instructor:
Gary L. Anderson
Office Location: Pless Hall, #618
Class Location:
Class Time:
Office Hours:
Email Addresses: gary.anderson@nyu.edu
Before and after class or
by appointment
194 Mercer #202
Tuesday 4:55PM –
6:35PM
Catalog Description: This course will look at the theoretical foundations and critical
issues of advocacy, elements of advocacy planning, and strategies for action. Various
types of advocacy will be emphasized in the course, including community organizing,
disabilities advocacy, advocacy for children, and civil and human rights advocacy. A
primary focus will be on the connection of community organizations and schools.
ACADEMIC INTEGRITY
All students are responsible for understanding and complying with the NYU Steinhardt
Statement on Academic Integrity. A copy is available at
http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/policies/academic_integrity.
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES
Students with physical or learning disabilities are required to register with the Moses
Center for Students with Disabilities, 719 Broadway, 2nd Floor, and are required to
present a letter from the Center to the instructor at the start of the semester in order to be
considered for appropriate accommodation.
Grading Procedures
15 points: Class attendance, informed participation, small group participation, evidence
of critical reflection on assigned readings.
Your contribution to the class conversation is valuable and contributes to the overall
dynamism of the class and the discussion groups. Regular attendance and active
participation informed by class readings is expected both in small and large group
discussions and activities.
15 points: Three Compare and Contrast mini-papers (5 points each). Compare and
contrast papers should be 3-4 double spaced pages. Hand in paper copies.
70 points: 2 synthesis papers. (See appendix B for descriptions of these assignments)
Due: March 19 and May 14.
Total: 100 points
The OVERALL GRADE of the course is determined as follows:
A
= 94 - 100 points
A- = 90 - 93 points
B+ = 87 - 89 points
B
= 83 - 86 points
B- = 80 - 82 points
C+ = 77 - 79 points
C
= 73 - 76 points
Required Texts
Wilson, William Julius (2009). More than just race: Being Black and poor in the inner
city. New York: W.W. Norton.
Lakoff, George (2008). Thinking Points: Communicating Our American Values and
Vision. San Francisco: Rockbridge Institute. (Chapters 2,3,4,5)
http://www.cognitivepolicyworks.com/resource-center/thinking-points/#thinkingpoints-discussion
Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (Sixth Edition)
Washington, D.C.: A.P.A. (All of your papers should follow APA. guidelines.)
Or visit: http://www.apastyle.org/learn/ and take the tutorials.
Course topics
Theme 1: Structural and Cultural Advocacy
Understanding the relative importance of structural and cultural forces that
contribute to race and class inequality is crucial if advocates are to intervene effectively
in social process that lead to social justice outcomes. Many current school reform efforts
tend to focus on the cultural level, attempting to provide “middle class values” to lowincome students, make classrooms and schools more regimented, and raise student
expectations. As part of a larger strategy, these may make sense under some
circumstances, but without also addressing structural reforms beyond the school, low-
2
income students and students of color are not likely to make significant educational and
social gains. We will analyze how structural and cultural factors work both separately and
synergistically to help determine the future educational and economic success of students.
Theme 2: Advocacy: The State, Civil Society, and the Market
It is useful to differentiate existing social spaces in terms of a tripartite division of
civil, political (State), and market society. Civil society refers to the sphere of voluntary
associations around shared interests, purposes and values. Within this realm, valueoriented motivation prevails, and influence is the dominant resource. Its organizational
manifestations are differentiated from those of the state (political society), family and
market (market society), though in practice, the borders between the state, civil society,
family and market are often multifaceted and fluid. Civil society commonly embraces a
multiplicity of actors and institutional forms, varying in their degree of formality,
informality, and power. Civil societies are often populated by organizations such as
registered charities, non-governmental organizations, community groups, women’s
organizations, faith-based organizations, professional associations, trades unions, selfhelp groups, social movements, business associations, coalitions and advocacy groups.
Political society refers to the sphere of state-based administration and power. In
theory, its organizational forms are distinct from those of the family and market (market
society) and civil society, though in practice, the boundaries between civil society, family
and market, and political society are multifaceted and fluid. Within this realm, power is
the dominant resource. Political society commonly embraces various institutional forms.
Organizations such as federal, state, county, and city governments, legislative, executive,
and judicial branches, regulatory agencies, political parties, and political advocacy groups
often populate political societies.
Lastly, market society refers to voluntary associations centered on shared
commercial interests. Within this realm, exchange value prevails, and money is the
dominant resource. In theory, its organizational forms are distinct from the state
(political society), family and civil society, though in practice, the boundaries between
state, civil society, family and market are often multifaceted and fluid. Market societies
are typically populated by organizations such as sole proprietorships, partnerships, and
corporations. Market society commonly embraces a range of actors and institutional
forms. (Anonymous Blogger, Ludwig von Mises Institute)
Theme 1: Social Structure/Political Economy and Human
Agency/Culture
Jan. 28: Introduction, Syllabus.
Interview each other: Provide a list of codes/themes under headings “structural” and
“cultural”. Analyze your own life in cultural and structural terms.
Feb. 4: Structure and culture: Economic, social, and cultural capital
Required Reading:
3
Pasco, Rebecca (2003). Capital and opportunity: A critical ethnography of students at
risk. New York: University Press of America. (brief exerpt)
Stanton-Salazar, R.D. (2011). A Social Capital Framework for the Study of Institutional
Agents and their Role in the Empowerment of Low-Status Students and Youth.
Youth. Youth and Society, 43(3), 1066-1109.
See also (not required):
Social Reproduction video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-1vmvNuO0E
Social Capital video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xo-AsgN1VNE
Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (1997). A social capital framework for understanding the
socialization of racial minority children and youths. Harvard Educational Review;
67,1-40.
Feb. 11: Structure and Culture
Due: Compare and contrast how William Julius Wilson and Ricardo Stanton
Salazar think about the relationship between structure and culture. What
are the implications of each author’e views for social advocacy? (3-4 double
spaced pages) Hand in paper copies.
Required Reading:
Wilson, William Julius (2009). More than just race: Being Black and poor in the inner
city. New York: W.W. Norton.
Talk by William Julius Wilson:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=xluoImnZwG0
See also (not required): “structure and agency” and “social structure” in Wikipedia
And Inequality.org
Feb. 18: Student achievement: New Paternalism and/or addressing out-of-School
factors
Due: Compare and contrast these two readings (Berliner and Whitman). What are
the implications for social advocacy? 3-4 double spaced pages. Hand in paper
copies.
Required Readings and viewing:
4
Whitman, D. (2008). Sweating the small stuff: Inner-city schools and the new
paternalism. Washington, D.C.: Thomas B. Fordham Institute. (Introduction and
Chapter 2: Amistad Academy)
Berliner, D. (2009). Poverty and Potential: Out-of-School Factors and School Success.
Boulder and Tempe: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy
Research Unit. Retrieved [date] from http://epicpolicy.org/publication/poverty-andpotential
David Berliner video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=so5bSQAPDYE
Feb. 25: Macro, Meso, and Micro: A Multilevel Approach to reform.
Required Reading and viewing:
Anderson, Gary L. (2009). Advocacy Leadership: Toward a post-reform agenda in
education. New York: Routledge. (Chapter 2)
Gary Anderson (discussing chapter 2) http://vimeo.com/46758446
March 4: Framing
Required Reading and viewing:
Lakoff video (hour and a half):
http://cms.mit.edu/news/2012/09/video_george_lakoff_the_brains.php
Lakoff, George (2008). Thinking Points: Communicating Our American Values and
Vision. San Francisco: Rockbridge Institute. (Chapters 2,3,4,5)
http://www.cognitivepolicyworks.com/resource-center/thinking-points/#thinkingpoints-discussion
Framing theory: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4QoIMX50sA
March 11: TBA (Exchange and read first drafts of each others papers. Provide
feedback based on criteria).
March 18: No class: Fall Break Synthesis Paper #1 due.
Theme 2: Advocacy: The State, Civil Society, and the Market
March 25: The Market and the State
Required readings and viewing:
5
Friedman, Milton. (Feb. 19, 1995). Public schools: Make them private The Washington
Post. http://www.friedmanfoundation.org/friedmans/writings/1995.jsp
Milton Freidman on higher education:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNXclFOROEk
Naomi Klein http://i3.democracynow.org/2008/10/6/naomi_klein
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/10/6/naomi_klein
Wall Street Crisis Should Be for Neoliberalism What Fall of Berlin Wall Was for
Communism.
Wolff, Rick (2009). Economic Crisis from a Socialist Perspective. Socialism and
Democracy, 22(2), 3-20.
Wolff New School video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n30zO0ABFqc
April 1: Civil Society: Community Organizing and Social Movements
Required readings and video:
Ciobanu, Monica (2007). Civil society. In G.L. Anderson, and K. Herr (Eds.) The
Encyclopedia of Activism and Social Justice. Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage Pub.
(On NYU classes, Scroll down to the civil society entry)
Elizabeth Warren: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A
Community Organizing:
Obama, B. (1990). Why Organize? Problems and Promise in the Inner City. In P.
Knoepfle (Ed.). After Alinsky: Community Organizing in Illinois. Illinois Issues,
University of Illinois at Springfield. Access at:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2075109/posts
Donna Nevel (Center for Immigrant Families) interview:
http://gemnyc.org/2010/04/21/separate-and-unequal-school-system-in-liberal-nyc-grit-tv/
April 8: Social Movements, Media
Anyon, J. (2009). Progressive social movements and Educational Equity, Educational
Policy, 23(1), 194-215.
Video:
Beyond Gay Rights: Lessons From Other Social Movements
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOWMjskmcrc
6
Anderson, G.L. (2007). Media’s Impact on Educational Policies and Practices: Political
Spectacle and Social Control The Peabody Journal of Education, 82(1), pp. 103120.
April 15: New Policy Networks: Think Tanks
Pick three of the following think tanks and examine their positions on education reform.
Where do they fall on the political spectrum? Do they fall neatly into “left” “center” and
“right”? How do they define their mission? Do you recognize any of their board
members? How are the three you chose different form each other? Come to class with
notes, prepared to discuss these issues in detail.
The Heritage Foundation, Brookings Institute, Rethinking Schools (mostly K-12),
Education Sector Cato Institute, Economic Policy Institute, Black Alliance for
Educational Options (BAEO).
Required readings:
Haas, Eric (2007). Think Tanks. In G.L. Anderson, and K. Herr (Eds.) The Encyclopedia
of Activism and Social Justice. Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage Pub.
Right Ebbs, Left Gains as Media 'Experts': Think tank balance still skews right
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3857
See also (not required):
Anderson, G. and Montoro Donchik, L. (2014). The Privatization of Education and
Policy-Making: The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and the
emergence of New Network Governance. Journal of Education Policy.
April 22: New Policy Networks: Non-profits/NGOs; Social Justice Philanthropy
Due: double entry journal #3 on Scott article. (Upload to discussion board)
Required readings:
Scott, Janelle. (2009). The politics of venture philanthropy in charter school policy and
advocacy, Educational Policy, 23(1), 106-136.
Shaw, Eileen (2002). Social justice philanthropy: An overview. New York: Synergos.
http://www.synergos.org/knowledge/abstracts/02/socialjusticeoverview.htm
Korten, Alicia (2009). Change Philanthropy: Candid stories of foundations maximizing
results through social justice. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. (chapter 2: Supporting
citizen action and litigation for education reform).
April 29: Unionism
7
Rogers, J. and Terriquez, V. (2009). “More Justice”: The Role of Organized Labor in
Educational Reform, Educational Policy, 23(1), 216-241.
Special Interest? Teachers Unions and American Education--Terry Moe, Deborah Meier,
Heather Harding (TFA)
http://www.aei.org/events/2011/06/08/special-interest-teachers-unions-and-americaneducation-event/
May 6: Final class: panel
Appendix A
Two synthesis papers:
Synthesis Paper #1: Culture and Structure
Wilson (2009) discusses the relative importance of structural and cultural forces that
contribute to race and class inequality. Pasco (2003) and Stanton-Salazar (1997) see
social reproduction as partly involving students’ and families’ economic, cultural, and
social capital. Whitman (2008) sees a need for change mainly at the cultural level.
Berliner (2009) sees reducing poverty and addressing out-of-school factors as the most
effective approach to increasing educational achievement. Anderson (2009) promotes a
multilevel approach to school and social reform. Lakoff (2008) points out that many of
these debates are won not by those with the best argument or evidence, but rather those
who can frame the issues effectively.
Compare and contrast positions on the relative importance of Culture and Structure and
discuss how we might reconcile these views and how they might be re-framed. What
implications do these debates have for school reform and policy advocacy in general?
Your paper should demonstrate a deep understanding of the assigned readings by ALL of
the following authors as well as class lectures and discussions. You must cite (but not
necessarily quote) all of these authors. Use correct APA style. Paper should be 7-8
double-spaced pages in length (no more or less). This does not include references.
Anderson, Gary
Berliner, David.
Lakoff, George
8
Pasco, Rebecca
Stanton-Salazar, Ricardo
Whitman, David
Wilson, William Julius
Synthesis Paper #2: The State, Civil Society, the Market and Advocacy.
1) Discuss the relationship among Market, State, and Civil Society and how this
relationship has shifted during the last 50 years. 3) Compare and contrast the roles of all
of the following within civil society: a) community organizing, b) social movements c)
philanthropy d) think tanks d) organized labor/unionism and e) the media. In making your
argument, use ideas from the following course readings as well as videos, class lectures
and discussions. You can cite other readings as well, but you should cite ALL of the
following in your paper. Use correct APA style. Paper should be 7-8 double-spaced pages
in length (no more or less). This does not include references.
Anderson, G.L. (2007). Media’s Impact on Educational Policies and Practices: Political
Spectacle and Social Control The Peabody Journal of Education, 82(1), pp. 103120.
Anyon, J. (2009). Progressive social movements and Educational Equity, Educational
Policy, 23(1), 194-215.
Beyond Gay Rights: Lessons From Other Social Movements
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOWMjskmcrc
Ciobanu, Monica (2007). Civil society. In G.L. Anderson, and K. Herr (Eds.) The
Encyclopedia of Activism and Social Justice. Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage Pub.
Friedman, Milton. (Feb. 19, 1995). Public schools: Make them private The Washington
Post. http://www.friedmanfoundation.org/friedmans/writings/1995.jsp
Haas, Eric (2007). Think Tanks. In G.L. Anderson, and K. Herr (Eds.) The Encyclopedia
of Activism and Social Justice. Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage Pub. (On Blackboard)
Korten, Alicia (2009). Change Philanthropy: Andid stories of foundations maximizing
results through social justice. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. (chapter 2: Supporting
citizen action and litigation for education reform).
9
Klein, Naomi http://i3.democracynow.org/2008/10/6/naomi_klein
Wall Street Crisis Should Be for Neoliberalism What Fall of Berlin Wall Was for
Communism.
Obama, B. (1990). Why Organize? Problems and Promise in the Inner City. In P.
Knoepfle (Ed.). After Alinsky: Community Organizing in Illinois. Illinois Issues,
University of Illinois at Springfield.
Rogers, J. and Terriquez, V. (2009). “More Justice”: The Role of Organized Labor in
Educational Reform, Educational Policy, 23(1), 216-241.
Scott, J. (2009). The politics of venture philanthropy in charter school policy and
advocacy, Educational Policy, 23(1), 106-136.
Shaw, Eileen (2002). Social justice philanthropy: An overview. New York: Synergos.
http://www.synergos.org/knowledge/abstracts/02/socialjusticeoverview.htm
Wolff, Rick (2009). Economic Crisis from a Socialist Perspective. Socialism and
Democracy, 22(2), 3-20.
1
0