Dissertation Defense: Kathleen Shoup

Title: Framing School Choice: The Role of Legislative Narratives in School Choice Policy Decision Making

Program: Public Policy and Administration PhD

Committee Chair: Chris Birdsall

Committee: Chris Birdsall, Stephanie Witt, Jaclyn Kettler, Heather Williams

Abstract: This dissertation applies the Narrative Policy Framework to examine narrative strategies within the school choice legislative debate, specifically focusing on the devil-angel shift. The devil-angel shift is historically understood as a function of coalition status, with Shanahan et. al. (2013) hypothesizing that policy actors deploy this narrative device differently depending on whether they believe they are winning or losing the policy debate. In opposition to this hypothesis, Gottlieb et al. (2018) proposed an alternative hypothesis suggesting that a policy actor’s position, as opposed to their belief of winning or losing the policy debate, more accurately predicts the use of the devil-angel shift.

Using a quantitative content analysis of seven hundred nine legislative narratives from Idaho and Nevada education committee meetings, this study examines whether the devil-angel shift is present in school choice policy discussions and whether its use is associated with winning status, losing status, or policy position. Narrative elements were coded using an established modified codebook to identify heroes, villains, victims, and policy stances.

The findings indicate that the devil-angel shift is present in school choice policy debates, although hero and victim narratives appeared far more frequently than villain narratives. The results provide limited support for the argument that perceptions of winning or losing drive narrative strategy and stronger support for Gottlieb et al.'s (2018) alternative hypothesis that policy position is a more important predictor of narrative construction. The comparison between Idaho and Nevada also suggests that institutional context influences narrative element use and policy framing. The findings suggest that policy position and institutional context play a more significant role in shaping legislative narratives than previously theorized.