Topic: the rhetoric of equity and excellence OR us vs. them in Chicago

when I was thinking about what it was about NAR that most interested me, it was thinking
about how it eclipsed the language of equity that was out there that helped make things like Head Start possible. (Granted, that was wrapped in a larger civil rights discourse, but that's part of my point--how did the Global Economic Competitiveness frame so effectively shift the discourse from equity to "excellence"? If I had to sum up my interest in rhetoric in ed policy in general, it would be that key shift I'm interested in--that move from the key term being "equity" to "excellence".)

With Chicago, the 1988 reform was much more in the context of an equity frame; while test scores were there, etc. (i.e., we can point to neo-liberal discourse), the policy was largely centered around "democratic localism" rather than "efficiency" or "competitiveness" ideals. The 1995 reform was definitely about "efficiency" (either cloaked as "scaling up the successes of democratic localism" or "reining in out-of-control, rogue LSC's" or what have you). So as I
think about this, I'm interested in NAR as an example of the ability to shift the discourse, not necessarily in NAR itself (though I think it's one of the best examples of the rhetorical work of reframing a debate), maybe looking at MSM coverage of the time between the 1988 and the 1995 reforms to see how those reforms got framed to make 1995 happen might be a good place to look. I have no idea if that's any more marketable, since if anything, it's even more provincial, and it's historical. [Though I haven't studied it extensively, Villaregosa's (sp?) attempt to take over LAUSD might be a more contemporary version (though LA is a one-paper town). ]

What both reforms have in common, I guess, is the trope of anti-corruption. The premise in 1988 (much like the breakup of the Soviet Union) was that, "hey give us a shot; we can't screw it up worse than the central office has"; in 1995 it was, "those LSC's are all over the place; we need some way to get some way to make sure they're not squandering what we've given them". In both examples, "accountability" was the driving trope; the first said, "turn it over to those most directly affected and let them worry about policing it", and the second said "it's too complicated to let everyone police themselves; if everything's efficient it's easier to monitor--and businesses can be trusted, because if they try any funny business,
they're out of the market (which expresses a profound cynicism about the ability to get politicians 'out of the market', and a profound naivete about the workings of business--both the idea that it's easier to monitor, or that it won't be have more incentive to be corrupt, but nonetheless)".

So the key distinction in 1988 was an "us" rhetoric--let us work with our own money for our own kids in our own schools, while 1995 took on an "us" vs. "them" rhetoric of "what are 'they' doing with 'our' money?" (While an extensive look at the rhetoric will probably complicate such notions, I think they pass the smell test.) So my larger issue about rhetoric and the equity/excellence shift is to look at that move--how did the language of the elites (as expressed in the MSM) show them as part of the "us" in 1988, but as the "us" working against an unclean rabble in 1995.

[Another example: When Kozol publishes "Savage Inequalities", the answer isn't to regionalize education funding to address those issues, despite the use of New Trier and CPS as examples. While the book got big notice, even in the mainstream press, it didn't get policy traction (certainly not in the way he did when he first published "The Night Is Dark and I Am Far From Home" or "Death at an Early Age", even though so little had changed in the way of the examples in his books).]

How's that for a revision of thinking? Does it address the "relevance to what we're worried about today"? I see the framing issue (thanks to Frank Luntz and Karl Rove and George Lakoff over the past six years) having become pretty common in media reporting, so that part seems relevant, though I still don't see people talking about it in terms of education policy, only electoral politics. So that's how I see myself as relevant. I'm looking for a good example that will clearly show how different framings lead to different policies.