education policy analysis archives
A peer-reviewed, independent,
open access, multilingual journal
EPAA Response Table
Manuscript Number: 2521
Title: Putting Political Spectacle to Work: Understanding Local Resistance to the Common Core
Manuscript re-submitted: September 11, 2016
Reviewer #1’s Comments:
1. Theory The author does a quite good job in covering issues of
the theory and should be commended for the effort. The
presentation is clear and complete. Including Foucault, however,
represents an unnecessary diversion and fails to contribute to
the paper. It should be acknowledged in the context of this
study that Edelman was a realist not an interpretivist or poststructuralist. In the kind of politics theorized in the political
spectacle participants are categorized in two groups. The
audience receives (and constructs) the drama set upon the stage.
Yet behind the curtain the actors rationally produce real benefits
according to their self-interests.
Responses:
I removed the discussion involving Foucault and streamlined the
discussion of political spectacle. The streamlining included removal
of the debate regarding the relative merits of political spectacle as a
theory and focus on the elements that go into the creation of a
political spectacle (construction of the problem, symbols, etc.) I
address Edelman as a realist who was seeking to provide an
alternative theory to the reality of the conservative ascendency he
experienced in the 1980’s. The theme of onstage versus backstage
presence is introduced in the synopsis of Edelman’s theory and
developed through the findings and conclusion sections.
2. Methods of the study need substantial work. Methods of data
collection are not sufficiently detailed and quite sketchy.
Qualitative studies require great care in showing exactly what
was done to generate and analyze the data and to describe the
context of the case. Methods of data analysis are poorly
described and not at all connected to the findings. The reader
My methods section is revised. Utilizing Reviewer #2’s suggestions,
I re-analyzed my data utilizing a qualitative media analysis protocol
(Altheide & Schneider, 2013). The protocol actually analyzes the
public documents: news reports, social media posts, radio talk show
appearance, governing board mintues, district communication, etc.
I also utilized Stake’s work on case studies rather than Yin’s. This
1
needs to be able to track the researchers’ logic in moving from
data through analysis to results. The author names the methods,
but that is not enough. Coding can mean many things and the
reader needs to know which one was actually used in this
instance.
3. Findings The findings were presented as a narrative that was
disjointed and repetitive. I had a hard time linking up political
spectacle theory to the findings. It was unclear what the policy
itself consisted of. Was it the adoption and implementation of
Common Core or textbook adoption? Common Core,
textbooks and materials, teacher training and capacity-building
events as well as the research basis of the policy ought to be
described. More details are needed to trace the history of what
happened to determine whether political spectacle theory even
applies. I agree it was a spectacle of some kind, but it seemed
the audience was anything but passive recipients of the policy.
Of course the Coalition failed to represent the interests of all
students but members did fight back (and indeed may have
exacerbated existing inequalities). The opportunities to “review”
the materials fit the theory, as efforts such as these are likely to
be symbolic rather than instrumental.
allowed a more accurate description of my role as Stake speaks of
“intrinsically motivated” case studies. Case study boundaries are
also redefined utilizing Stake. I also provide much more detail
regarding the study’s context.
The findings section is also completely re-written and now
incorporates much more specific details mainly drawn from the
policy actor’s own words drawn from the aforementioned sources.
The narrative is now thicker with quotes. I’ve also added much
more on the federal and state contexts along with a richer
description of the district itself. I restructured the findings section
along the lines of a typical story outline that is consistent with the
dramatic nature of this situation: exposition, rising action, climax,
denouement. Additionally, I add analysis periodically with the
findings thus explaining the findings as the story progresses. Finally,
additional elements of the spectacle are more substantively included
in the findings including quotes drawn from school documents. For
example, I analyze a power point presentation I gave at a parent
meeting between the text adoption and the first dramatic Governing
Board meeting. These additional documents help tie together the
various elements of the spectacle’s timeline.
4. Underlying these problems is a failure to provide adequate
presentation of concrete details. What were the contents of
memos and reports? What were the words the participants used
during the meetings (yes, some are provided but probably only
the juicy ones). The credibility of any report rests a great deal
on representation of the concrete particulars of the case.
Concrete particulars allow the reader to compare this case with
other cases, make naturalistic generalizations and judge the
credibility of the research. As the author acknowledges,
interviews would have made an important contribution. Even
though intentions and actions are likely to be only partially
2
revealed in interviews, the researcher would be in a better
position to piece together inferences about what was going on
backstage.
Reviewer #2’s Comments:
1. Introduction and Theory The author’s introductory pages detail
the elements of political spectacle theory according to Murray
Edelman’s work, as well as the work of Mary Lee Smith, Linda
Miller-Kahn, Walter Heinecke and Patricia Jarvis (2004), as
informing the case study of a common core mathematics
curriculum and textbook adoption change. The author also
refers to discourse analysis and policy formation process
literature as informing the theoretical framework for the case
study in the theory paragraph of the article. While both of these
sections (introduction and theory) are rich in detail, they
somewhat resemble a literature review one would expect in a
dissertation and would benefit from some more streamlining.
While they provide rich details for the theoretical framework,
the subsequent analysis does not necessarily reflect how the
author connected all elements of these two sections to the
analysis. I would recommend some more work on these two
sections, so that the themes and elements discussed in them are
clearly connected to the discussion of the elements and findings
in the case study. The author spends a significant amount of
detail on the description of the “multi-point framework”
advanced by Smith et al. to analyze political spectacles (p.10p.12). Again, the subsequent discussion and analysis of the case
study does not clearly connect to all the elements listed here and
could use revisiting.
Responses:
Consistent with Reviewer #1’s comments as well, these sections are
streamlined by removing detailed point-by-point summary of
political spectacle framework and removal of the debate regarding
the relative merits of the political spectacle theory. Instead, a
synopsis of the theory is provided along with explanation regarding
the parts of the theory that related to its actual construction. For
example, discussion of the construction of problems including
reference to Porter’s (1995) work is provided. I also incorporate
Miller-Kahn and Smith’s (2001) work into the literature review as it
also illustrates another example of a parent-led “spectacle.”
2. Methods The methods are well laid out and a significant
amount of time is spent on the author’s own role as
participant/observer in the study. The definition of the own role
in the process is not completely satisfying since the author
The reviewer’s suggestion to utilize the methods of qualitative media
analysis (Altheide & Schneider, 2012) was very useful. I literally
developed a new protocol following the methods in this work and
reanalyzed the public documents that compose the case. I also
3
seems to equate the “observer” role with being “unable to speak
and literally stood in the back of the crowded room,
observing”. I would encourage the author to revisit the notion
of the roles held in the process. As principal of the school, even
the role of silent bystander may very well have been a
participatory one. Edelman’s and Smith et al.’s commentary on
symbolic action may be of value in revisiting this section.
I also would recommend some more time spent on the
trajectory of the events that unfolded. The author mentioned
participation in the initial department meetings and
implementation as well as parent night and yet represents those
events as somewhat detached from the events the study focuses
on (the Governing Board Meetings). The author also states that
the “dramatic spectacle occurred primarily at two Governing
Board meetings in November and December of the new
material’s implementation” and that these two public discourse
windows were of primary focus to the study. I would suggest to
connect the context of the two meetings in more detail to the
larger discourse around the material adoption impetus as well as
the timeliness of those meetings in the larger context.
Alternatively, I would encourage a connection between the two
meetings in terms of an exploration around the building of the
discourse of discourse patterns in both meetings. The author
alludes to the challenges of defining political spectacle
boundaries (a thoroughly discussed concept in case study
methodology) and I would encourage some revisiting of that
literature to more clearly define the rational for the boundaries
of this case study.
3. Findings This section has many rich and detailed examples that
are descriptive and paint a comprehensive picture of the case
study. The author focuses mostly on the case’s particulars and
occasionally draws connections to a “larger spectacle” (p. 21).
utilize Stake’s work on case study methodology to better define the
boundaries and better explain my researcher identity in this case,
that is, as intrinsically motivated. I have also added substantive
detail regarding the case’s context including national and state
context along with more detail regarding the school district itself.
The trajectory of events is better delineated through the
reorganization of the findings and discussion section. The trajectory
follows the overall chronology of the spectacle.
I also revisit my own role in this spectacle in more detail. Using a
power point presentation I gave to a parent meeting shortly before
the first dramatic governing board meeting, I provide insight into
the text’s implementation at my school, my own role and the
administrative use of the globalization and pre-Common Core
discourses. The event further serves to link the initial adoption with
the later Governing Board meeting dramas.
More attention is paid through the now embedded analysis sections
addressing discourse, particularly as seen in how the Coalition and
the Administration constructed the problem in very different terms.
The Administration approached the problem through a discourse of
educational failure. The new text was needed due to education’s
current failure to adequately prepare students for globalized
competition. The Coalition approached the problem from a
discourse of success. They saw themselves as already successful in
globalized competition, they achieved this success with the old
math, and they saw no need for this massive change.
As suggested, I reanalyzed the spectacle’s documents and added
more detail from the actor’s own words thus providing a richer
description. I removed the awkward discussion regarding interviews
and instead, as my methodology suggests, utilized the actor’s public
4
In this section some re-organizing around the particulars of this
case, a clear connection to the elements in the introduction (see
above) and some editing around moving from the political
spectacle at hand to in how far this case may or may not reflect
a larger political spectacle, behind-the scenes vs. public drama,
and neo-liberal discourse would make the section more succinct.
It seems that a more detailed analysis of the stakeholders as well
as the larger implications or conversely the key policy actors and
the case particulars would create a more cohesive whole.
Discussion The discussion section could also benefit from an
additional dimension in the analysis of discourse patterns and
political spectacle: In particular the work of Theodore Porter (1996)
may add a dimension of how “rationality” is created and reinforced
in the political spectacle discourse. The discussion section would
also benefit from a more detailed analysis of the roles and keyholder motives and interactions during the meetings and with the
larger public. The social media aspect and website as another forum
for public discourse and political spectacle could underscore
relevant dimensions and add to the depth of the analysis.
4. Conclusion In this section the author states that “the
displays largely reflected a pattern for political spectacle
previously identified by Smith et al (2004) including the use
of symbolic language, casting actors as enemies, leaders and
allies; elements of dramaturgy, democratic participation as
an illusion; the illusion of rationality; the disconnection of
means and ends; and a distinction between onstage and
backstage action” (p.33) Even though the author states early
on that the focus of the analysis is on the onstage action,
once again a consideration of backstage action and its
implications for the public part of the discourse would be
helpful to create a richer and more detailed analysis. It
statements to gain insight into the backstage dealings. The section is
restructured along the lines of standard story elements and includes
analysis woven into the narrative. Essentially, I combine the findings
and discussion into one continuous narrative. I’ve referenced
Porter in context with Edelman and Smith regarding how problems
can be constructed. Analysis is embedded with the chronological
narrative thus explaining in a more timely manner the facts
presented. This organizational style is actually modelled on that
used by Miller-Kahn and Smith in their similar work on parent
resistance to district led changes.
The conclusion is re-worked to address the various elements of
political spectacle at play. Emphasis is given to the Coalition’s
construction of the problem (one of educational success) and the
resulting use of the new text as a symbol of a threat to their success.
Attention is given to the casting of enemies and allies including how
those roles can be subtle and how the subtlety can lead to changing
enemy and ally roles through the course of a spectacle. I also give
attention to the use of various stages particularly to gain additional
allies. Distinction is made the administration is not monolithic as
originally presented but includes at least two elements of district and
site level administration. Likewise, the Coalition’s leadership
ultimately negotiates behind closed doors with the district (not
5
would also be helpful to revisit each of the mentioned
elements and build upon each on richer detail. For example:
Who were the allies and leaders of each group and subgroup? How was the illusion of rationality created and
communicated? How did the website and /or social media
function? (as polling device? as communication platform to
garner support?) How did the disconnection between means
and ends express itself?
I would also like to offer a quote by Edelman: “Beliefs in
political enemies seem to influence public opinion most
powerfully when the enemy is not named explicitly, but
invoked through an indirect reference. Perhaps the most
subtle evocation is the advocacy of a course of action that
implies that a particular group is dangerous”.
Finally, this article will contribute very positively to the body
of case studies that further elucidate the implication of
political spectacle theory for educational practice and policy
processes.
school site) leadership to resolve the spectacle. I conclude with two
suggestions for further research: the extent to which parent groups
represent true community involvement and the extent to which the
Common Core itself might be spectacle in its own right.
Accept with Revisions Original Email: Copy/paste “accept with revisions” email with date here
June 21, 2016
Dear
We have reached a decision regarding your submission to Education Policy Analysis Archives, “Putting Political Spectacle to Work:
Understanding Local Resistance to the Common Core.”
Our decision is to: Accept the manuscript pending major revisions.
The editorial team obtained two blind reviews for your manuscript. Both saw promise in this piece, but both recommended that
we request major revision before considering this manuscript further. Hence, we decided to accept the submission pending all
major revisions are made, taking into consideration all reviewers’ comments and suggestions for improvement. Attending to the
6
reviewers’ comments in substantive ways would certainly strengthen your arguments and analysis, as well as the final revised
piece.
Please see the reviewers’ comments pasted below. Please also pay special attention to the revisions the editorial board wants to
underscore as you revise this manuscript for resubmission. These are as follows:
 See comments provided by both reviewers as specifically related to political spectacle, and your
conceptualization/interpretation of it, throughout the entire manuscript but also in certain places as noted. Please also
pay special attention to the extent to which actions and opportunities might be symbolic rather than instrumental, as also
noted by both reviewers.
 Both reviewers also note issues with the alignment of sections throughout this piece, more specifically with regards to
how you connected, and could certainly better connect all elements with your theoretical framework, especially in terms
of your findings. Reviewer #2 also suggests a more “streamlined” approach for your literature review, as also aligned with
your framework versus just what might be the relevant literature as more loosely connected.
 The methods and findings sections need much more detail and description, as noted by both reviewers, more specifically
as per the methods used for data collection and data analyses, the evidence in support of your findings (as appropriately
selected for inclusion), the background/context/particulars provided to explain this particular case, your role as the
researcher, etc. See also more specific comments provided by both reviewers.
If you agree to substantively revise this piece, please also do the following:
 Send me an email that you plan to revise the manuscript and will resubmit the revised version within 7-10 days of
receiving this email. Please note that we require that you resubmit your final manuscript and the revisions response table
(see bullet below) no later than 30 days from the reception of this letter. See *Note below.
 When you revise the manuscript, please detail the reviewers’ suggestions and your responses to their suggestions in the
attached EPAA_ResponseTable_Template.
 When you revise the manuscript, please also follow our publication’s style guidelines as detailed in the attached
EPAA_StyleInformation document, and please insert your revised draft directly into the attached EPAA_Template.
We ask all authors to do this prior to resubmission so as to simplify the publication process IF the revised version is
ultimately accepted for publication given the revisions made.
 Thoroughly edit the paper for grammar and consistency according to APA Publication Manual, 6th ed. As you revise, it is
particularly important that you also check for accuracy and format the tables, figures, and citations carefully.
o Insert the tables and figures directly into the text. Accurate tables and figures are vital to maintain the relevance
7
and prestige of EPAA/AAPE.
o Citations should be reconciled, whereas only the citations included within the manuscript should be referenced in
the reference section, and vice versa. Authors are also responsible to confirm the accuracy of all citations and
references before final publication.
o Please also revise the abstract and keywords to make sure that they accurately summarize your analysis.
o Also provide a short biography of the author(s) after the reference section.
 VERY IMPORTANT. All changes in title, abstracts, keywords, and authors’ information need to be incorporated into
the metadata of your submission. When you submit the revised version of this manuscript, along with the revisions
response table, upload both documents, visiting http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/ and log in as an author. Log into the site and
click on the “Active” link on the User Home page. DO NOT CREATE A NEW SUBMISSION. Click the title of
your active manuscript and go to the Summary tab. Here you will be able to upload the revisions response table by
“Add[ing] a supplementary file.” You may also check/update your title and abstract under Edit Article Metadata on the
Summary page. Then, go to the Review tab. At the bottom of the Review page, you will be able to upload the revised
manuscript using the “Choose file” button. It is VERY IMPORTANT THAT YOU UPLOAD YOUR FILES IN
THE APPROPRIATE SECTIONS, or it may delay the review process.
If your article is ultimately accepted for publication, we would estimate that the publication date would be July 4, 2016. The
preliminary citation of your submission is as follows:
Again, this request is neither a final acceptance of this manuscript nor a promise to publish a revised manuscript. Again, we ask
that you let us know as soon as possible if you plan to revise and resubmit, and we require that you resubmit your final
manuscript and the revisions response table no later than 30 days from the reception of this letter.
Thank you for your interest in publishing in EPAA/AAPE. We recognize the tremendous efforts made by authors and
reviewers to ensure the journal maintains it status as a source for policy makers, scholars, and practitioners in the field of
education.
Sincerely,
Audrey Amrein-Beardsley
8
Lead Editor – EPAA/AAPE
Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College
Arizona State University
[email protected]
Reviewer #1
Decision: Major revisions required
This manuscript has many positive features. It addresses an important topic that is relevant to the journal and one that would be
of interest to its readers. The topic of political spectacle is well-theorized in the literature but not often subjected to empirical
investigation. Therefore this study could make a contribution.
The author does a quite good job in covering issues of the theory and should be commended for the effort. The presentation is
clear and complete. Including Foucault, however, represents an unnecessary diversion and fails to contribute to the paper. It
should be acknowledged in the context of this study that Edelman was a realist not an interpretivist or post-structuralist. In the
kind of politics theorized in the political spectacle participants are categorized in two groups. The audience receives (and
constructs) the drama set upon the stage. Yet behind the curtain the actors rationally produce real benefits according to their
self-interests.
Methods of the study need substantial work. Methods of data collection are not sufficiently detailed and quite sketchy.
Qualitative studies require great care in showing exactly what was done to generate and analyze the data and to describe the
context of the case. Methods of data analysis are poorly described and not at all connected to the findings. The reader needs to
be able to track the researchers’ logic in moving from data through analysis to results. The author names the methods, but that
is not enough. Coding can mean many things and the reader needs to know which one was actually used in this instance.
The findings were presented as a narrative that was disjointed and repetitive. I had a hard time linking up political spectacle
theory to the findings. It was unclear what the policy itself consisted of. Was it the adoption and implementation of Common
Core or textbook adoption? Common Core, textbooks and materials, teacher training and capacity-building events as well as the
research basis of the policy ought to be described. More details are needed to trace the history of what happened to determine
whether political spectacle theory even applies. I agree it was a spectacle of some kind, but it seemed the audience was anything
but passive recipients of the policy. Of course the Coalition failed to represent the interests of all students but members did
9
fight back (and indeed may have exacerbated existing inequalities). The opportunities to “review” the materials fit the theory, as
efforts such as these are likely to be symbolic rather than instrumental.
Underlying these problems is a failure to provide adequate presentation of concrete details. What were the contents of memos
and reports? What were the words the participants used during the meetings (yes, some are provided but probably only the juicy
ones). The credibility of any report rests a great deal on representation of the concrete particulars of the case. Concrete
particulars allow the reader to compare this case with other cases, make naturalistic generalizations and judge the credibility of
the research. As the author acknowledges, interviews would have made an important contribution. Even though intentions
and actions are likely to be only partially revealed in interviews, the researcher would be in a better position to piece together
inferences about what was going on backstage.
To summarize the review, it seems to me that in its present form, the paper has problems with coherence (the parts fail to fit
together) and completeness of detail. Perhaps these problems might be addressed in a revision. However, in its present form I
do not recommend its acceptance.
Reviewer #2
Decision: Major revisions required
In the abstract of “Putting Political Spectacle to Work: Understanding local resistance to the common core”, the author states
that the subsequent article “provides insights to the mechanics of political spectacle, the constituencies to which spectacle
appeals, and who benefits from political spectacle” (p.1). The work is far reaching and offers valuable insights into the “unique
particulars” of a case of local politics, policy and community stakeholder interactions from a policy perspective. I enjoyed
reading this article and would like to offer a few suggestions by addressing first several sections of the article:
Introduction and Theory
The author’s introductory pages detail the elements of political spectacle theory according to Murray Edelman’s work, as well as
the work of Mary Lee Smith, Linda Miller-Kahn, Walter Heinecke and Patricia Jarvis (2004), as informing the case study of a
common core mathematics curriculum and textbook adoption change. The author also refers to discourse analysis and policy
formation process literature as informing the theoretical framework for the case study in the theory paragraph of the article.
While both of these sections (introduction and theory) are rich in detail, they somewhat resemble a literature review one would
expect in a dissertation and would benefit from some more streamlining. While they provide rich details for the theoretical
framework, the subsequent analysis does not necessarily reflect how the author connected all elements of these two sections to
10
the analysis. I would recommend some more work on these two sections, so that the themes and elements discussed in them are
clearly connected to the discussion of the elements and findings in the case study. The author spends a significant amount of
detail on the description of the “multi-point framework” advanced by Smith et al. to analyze political spectacles (p.10-p.12).
Again, the subsequent discussion and analysis of the case study does not clearly connect to all the elements listed here and could
use revisiting.
Methods
The methods are well laid out and a significant amount of time is spent on the author’s own role as participant/observer in the
study. The definition of the own role in the process is not completely satisfying since the author seems to equate the “observer”
role with being “unable to speak and literally stood in the back of the crowded room, observing”. I would encourage the author
to revisit the notion of the roles held in the process. As principal of the school, even the role of silent bystander may very well
have been a participatory one. Edelman’s and Smith et al.’s commentary on symbolic action may be of value in revisiting this
section.
I also would recommend some more time spent on the trajectory of the events that unfolded. The author mentioned
participation in the initial department meetings and implementation as well as parent night and yet represents those events as
somewhat detached from the events the study focuses on (the Governing Board Meetings). The author also states that the
“dramatic spectacle occurred primarily at two Governing Board meetings in November and December of the new material’s
implementation” and that these two public discourse windows were of primary focus to the study. I would suggest to connect
the context of the two meetings in more detail to the larger discourse around the material adoption impetus as well as the
timeliness of those meetings in the larger context. Alternatively, I would encourage a connection between the two meetings in
terms of an exploration around the building of the discourse of discourse patterns in both meetings. The author alludes to the
challenges of defining political spectacle boundaries (a thoroughly discussed concept in case study methodology) and I would
encourage some revisiting of that literature to more clearly define the rational for the boundaries of this case study.
Findings
This section has many rich and detailed examples that are descriptive and paint a comprehensive picture of the case study. The
author focuses mostly on the case’s particulars and occasionally draws connections to a “larger spectacle” (p. 21). In this section
some re-organizing around the particulars of this case, a clear connection to the elements in the introduction (see above) and
some editing around moving from the political spectacle at hand to in how far this case may or may not reflect a larger political
spectacle, behind-the scenes vs. public drama, and neo-liberal discourse would make the section more succinct. It seems that a
11
more detailed analysis of the stakeholders as well as the larger implications or conversely the key policy actors and the case
particulars would create a more cohesive whole.
Discussion
The discussion section could also benefit from an additional dimension in the analysis of discourse patterns and political
spectacle: In particular the work of Theodore Porter (1996) may add a dimension of how “rationality” is created and reinforced
in the political spectacle discourse. The discussion section would also benefit from a more detailed analysis of the roles and keyholder motives and interactions during the meetings and with the larger public. The social media aspect and website as another
forum for public discourse and political spectacle could underscore relevant dimensions and add to the depth of the analysis.
Conclusion
In this section the author states that “the displays largely reflected a pattern for political spectacle previously identified by Smith
et al (2004) including the use of symbolic language, casting actors as enemies, leaders and allies; elements of dramaturgy,
democratic participation as an illusion; the illusion of rationality; the disconnection of means and ends; and a distinction between
onstage and backstage action” (p.33) Even though the author states early on that the focus of the analysis is on the onstage
action, once again a consideration of backstage action and its implications for the public part of the discourse would be helpful
to create a richer and more detailed analysis. It would also be helpful to revisit each of the mentioned elements and build upon
each on richer detail. For example: Who were the allies and leaders of each group and sub-group? How was the illusion of
rationality created and communicated? How did the website and /or social media function? (as polling device? as
communication platform to garner support?) How did the disconnection between means and ends express itself?
I would also like to offer a quote by Edelman: “Beliefs in political enemies seem to influence public opinion most powerfully
when the enemy is not named explicitly, but invoked through an indirect reference. Perhaps the most subtle evocation is the
advocacy of a course of action that implies that a particular group is dangerous”.
Finally, this article will contribute very positively to the body of case studies that further elucidate the implication of political
spectacle theory for educational practice and policy processes.
Recommended sources:
Altheide, D.L. & Schneider, C.J. (2012). Qualitative Media Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
12
Barbaros, C. (2014). Constructing the Political Spectacle, Public Agenda and Public Opinion. Adenium.
Miller-Kahn, L. & Smith, M.L. (2001). School Choice Policies in the Political Spectacle. EPAA.
Porter, T.M. (1995). Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press
13