Political contestation and discourses of meaning: Revising Minnesota’s school integration revenue statute

The integration of students from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds in public schools has been an issue of educational policy concern for several decades. Most school desegregation programs implemented in the United States post-Brown that relied on student busing and race-based school assignment...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Allison Mattheis
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Arizona State University 2016-10-01
Series:Education Policy Analysis Archives
Subjects:
Online Access:https://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/2314
id doaj-4ecc63d36fc14fe2bff3adcdb3c2c258
record_format Article
spelling doaj-4ecc63d36fc14fe2bff3adcdb3c2c2582020-11-25T02:49:19ZengArizona State UniversityEducation Policy Analysis Archives1068-23412016-10-0124010.14507/epaa.24.23141552Political contestation and discourses of meaning: Revising Minnesota’s school integration revenue statuteAllison Mattheis0California State University - Los AngelesThe integration of students from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds in public schools has been an issue of educational policy concern for several decades. Most school desegregation programs implemented in the United States post-Brown that relied on student busing and race-based school assignment were discontinued by the 1990s. In Minnesota, these were replaced with an approach that encouraged voluntary school integration efforts, supported with funding provided through State Statute 124D.86 to districts with racially identifiable schools or whose schools were racially isolated relative to neighboring communities. A legislatively mandated Integration Revenue Replacement Advisory Task Force was convened from November 2011 to February 2012 to frame the role of the state’s schools in addressing racial inequities and to recommend changes to existing policy. This article applies Fairclough and Fairclough’s (2012) analytic framework of political discourse as argumentation to examine the revision of this statute as a site of ideological contestation. The appointed members of this task force included professional educators, former legislators, faith leaders, and lawyers, and presented distinct epistemological beliefs regarding the purposes and roles of schools and of policy. Two competing claims for action were identified, summarized as “Bipartisan Compromise” and “Conservative Dissent.” This analysis reveals the effect of underlying values on developing particular claims for action made by Task Force members, and connects these values to divergent understandings of the purpose of state educational funding and the outcomes that public schooling should achieve.https://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/2314Discourse analysispractical argumentationschool integration and desegregationdemocratic deliberationMinnesota
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Allison Mattheis
spellingShingle Allison Mattheis
Political contestation and discourses of meaning: Revising Minnesota’s school integration revenue statute
Education Policy Analysis Archives
Discourse analysis
practical argumentation
school integration and desegregation
democratic deliberation
Minnesota
author_facet Allison Mattheis
author_sort Allison Mattheis
title Political contestation and discourses of meaning: Revising Minnesota’s school integration revenue statute
title_short Political contestation and discourses of meaning: Revising Minnesota’s school integration revenue statute
title_full Political contestation and discourses of meaning: Revising Minnesota’s school integration revenue statute
title_fullStr Political contestation and discourses of meaning: Revising Minnesota’s school integration revenue statute
title_full_unstemmed Political contestation and discourses of meaning: Revising Minnesota’s school integration revenue statute
title_sort political contestation and discourses of meaning: revising minnesota’s school integration revenue statute
publisher Arizona State University
series Education Policy Analysis Archives
issn 1068-2341
publishDate 2016-10-01
description The integration of students from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds in public schools has been an issue of educational policy concern for several decades. Most school desegregation programs implemented in the United States post-Brown that relied on student busing and race-based school assignment were discontinued by the 1990s. In Minnesota, these were replaced with an approach that encouraged voluntary school integration efforts, supported with funding provided through State Statute 124D.86 to districts with racially identifiable schools or whose schools were racially isolated relative to neighboring communities. A legislatively mandated Integration Revenue Replacement Advisory Task Force was convened from November 2011 to February 2012 to frame the role of the state’s schools in addressing racial inequities and to recommend changes to existing policy. This article applies Fairclough and Fairclough’s (2012) analytic framework of political discourse as argumentation to examine the revision of this statute as a site of ideological contestation. The appointed members of this task force included professional educators, former legislators, faith leaders, and lawyers, and presented distinct epistemological beliefs regarding the purposes and roles of schools and of policy. Two competing claims for action were identified, summarized as “Bipartisan Compromise” and “Conservative Dissent.” This analysis reveals the effect of underlying values on developing particular claims for action made by Task Force members, and connects these values to divergent understandings of the purpose of state educational funding and the outcomes that public schooling should achieve.
topic Discourse analysis
practical argumentation
school integration and desegregation
democratic deliberation
Minnesota
url https://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/2314
work_keys_str_mv AT allisonmattheis politicalcontestationanddiscoursesofmeaningrevisingminnesotasschoolintegrationrevenuestatute
_version_ 1724744235463213056