education policy analysis
archives
A peer-reviewed, independent,
open access, multilingual journal
Arizona State University
Volume 26 Number 76
July 2, 2018
ISSN 1068-2341
Forbes 30 Under 30 in Education: Manufacturing
“Edu-Preneur” Networks to Promote and Reinforce
Privatization/Marketization in Education
T. Jameson Brewer
University of North Georgia
Nicholas D. Hartlep
Metropolitan State University
&
Ian M. Scott
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
United States
Citation: Brewer, T. J., Hartlep, N. D., & Scott, I. M. (2018). Forbes 30 under 30 in education:
Manufacturing “edu-preneur” networks to promote and reinforce privatization/marketization in
education. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 26(76). http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.26.3563
Abstract: Each year Forbes bestows a handful of “edu-preneurs” with the 30 Under 30 Award in
Education (Under30), designating those individuals as the best hope for revolutionizing and
reforming education. Boasting low recipient rates, Forbes elevates the manufactured expertise of
awardees and the importance of their organizations and ventures. Further, Forbes employs the
language and norms of neoliberalism to articulate a pro-market vision of education reform. This
social network analytic (SNA) study seeks to untangle the edu-preneur network and critically
examine the connections between awardees, their organizations, judges, and the larger education
Journal website: http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/
Facebook: /EPAAA
Twitter: @epaa_aape
Manuscript received: 11/26/2017
Revisions received: 3/22/2018
Accepted: 5/12/2018
Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 26 No. 76
2
reform network. To this end, we utilized descriptive analyses and SNA. We find evidence that
Under30 serves as a mechanism for promoting social closure and ideological homophily within
education reform networks. Further, we consider the policy implications that such awards may have
on public discourse and policy creation.
Keywords: Education Policy; Privatization; Marketization; Social Closure; Neoliberalism;
Homophily; Echo Chamber; Edu-Preneur
Forbes 30 menores de 30 más destacados en educación: Fabricando redes “edupreneur” para promover y reforzar la privatización/marketización en la educación
Resumen: Cada año Forbes presenta una lista de “edu-prenuers” de los 30 más destacados
en educación (Under 30), designando a estos individuos como la mejor esperanza para
revolucionar y reformar la educación. Con bajas tasas de recepción, Forbes eleva la
experiencia fabricada de los premiados y la importancia de sus organizaciones y
emprendimientos. Además, Forbes emplea el lenguaje y las normas del neoliberalismo para
articular una visión pro-mercado de la reforma educativa. Este estudio de red social
analítica (SNA) busca desentrañar la red edu-preneur y examinar críticamente las
conexiones entre los premiados, sus organizaciones, jueces y la mayor red de reforma de la
educación. Para ello, se utilizaron análisis descriptivos y SNA. Encontramos evidencias de
que el sub-30 sirve como un mecanismo para promover el cierre social y la homofilia
ideológica en las redes de reforma de la educación. Además, consideramos las
implicaciones políticas que tales premios pueden tener en el discurso público y en la
creación de políticas.
Palabras clave: Política de Educación; la privatización; marketización; Cierre Social;
neoliberalismo; homophily; Cámara de Eco; Edu-Preneur
Forbes 30 under 30 em educação: Fabricando redes “edu-preneur” para promover e
reforçar a privatização/marketização na educação
Resumo: Todos os anos a Forbes concede um punhado de “educandos” com o 30 Under
30 Award em Educação (Under 30), designando esses indivíduos como a melhor esperança
para revolucionar e reformar a educação. Com baixas taxas de recebimento, a Forbes eleva a
expertise fabricada dos premiados e a importância de suas organizações e
empreendimentos. Além disso, a Forbes emprega a linguagem e as normas do
neoliberalismo para articular uma visão pró-mercado da reforma educacional. Este estudo
de rede social analítica (SNA) procura desvendar a rede edu-preneur e examinar
criticamente as conexões entre os premiados, suas organizações, juízes e a maior rede de
reforma da educação. Para tanto, foram utilizadas análises descritivas e SNA. Encontramos
evidências de que o sub-30 serve como um mecanismo para promover o fechamento social
e a homofilia ideológica nas redes de reforma da educação. Além disso, consideramos as
implicações políticas que tais prêmios podem ter no discurso público e na criação de
políticas.
Palavras-chave: Política de Educação; Privatização; Marketização; Fechamento Social;
Neoliberalismo; Homofilia; Câmara de Eco; Edu-Preneur
3
Forbes 30 Under 30 in Education
Introduction
The purpose of this social network analytic (SNA) study was to gain a deeper understanding
of the Forbes 30 Under 30 Award in Education (hereinafter referred to as Under30) and the
subsequent impact the network of the award has on generating “social closure” (Swartz, 2008) in
who receives the award and “echo chambers” (Goldie, Linick, Jabbar, & Lubienski, 2014) in
educational policy. Given Forbes’s national platform to cover (and promote) what is talked about – in
this case, in education – the creation and promotion of the Under30 in education, and who oversees
and receives the award, warrants investigation. With that in mind, our research questions were the
following: (1) What are the academic backgrounds and demographics of those individuals receiving
the Under30 award? (2) What are the backgrounds of the judges overseeing the award? and (3) To
what extent are the recipients connected to the judges and to each other (either as individuals or
through organizational connections)? In addition to answering these questions, we also provide a
discussion about the policy implications of those answers.
In this article, we argue that Under30 awardees serve as “edu-preneurs” – a term used by
Forbes (Howard, 2017) – because the creation of Under30 constructs them as experts and further
entangles these networks of supposed experts, simultaneously suggesting that the reformation of
schools be led by business and market-oriented ideals. Part of the reinforcement of the edu-preneur
network is the establishment of a façade of prestige. The façade of prestige is constructed by Forbes
who proudly advertises that less than 4% of those who are nominated for the Under30 receive it,
which, according to Forbes, is a rate that is competitive with getting into “Stanford (4.8%) or Harvard
(5.2%)” (Forbes, 2017). It is fundamental that the Under30 be constructed to appear prestigious in
order to create a false sense of reality which reinforces the supposed importance and expertise of the
award recipients, namely because most of them have little-to-no practical experience in public K–12
education. For example, while Stanford and Harvard are prestigious because they have low
admission rates, Forbes (2017) does not cite or mention colleges or universities such as College of the
Ozarks, which is more difficult to get into than Cornell University, Dartmouth University, the
University of Pennsylvania, and/or Brown University (see Henderson, 2016) because College of the
Ozarks is not as prestigious as the former universities.
Consequently, the purpose of this study was to break down the network of the recipients of
Under30 in education using SNA in order to understand more about their individual backgrounds as
well as how the awardees, their organizations, and the judges might connect to and fit within the
edu-preneur and education reform network. Edu-preneurs exist to sell educational products and
earn profits. When considering who receives the Under30, the vast majority are representatives of
education businesses that provide, for a cost, products and services to schools that purport to
reform pedagogical or assessment practices. Others represent the reform network more broadly;
they are affiliated with organizations connected to for-profit charter networks that, through the
marketing and promotion of a school “brand,” (e.g., Charter Schools USA) often seek to generate
profits through the education market (Bonner, Stancil, & Raynor, 2017; Robertson, 2015; Singleton,
2017). It is an unfortunate reality that edu-preneur reformers would put themselves out of business
if their products and policies actually cured what ailed public K–12 education because there would
be no need to purchase their products and services. It is important to point out that the term edupreneur—as a combination of the words education and entrepreneurship—focuses on businessoriented ways of knowing and being, such as competition (winners and losers) and earning financial
profits.
Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 26 No. 76
4
Given the shared language and aims of market-oriented reformers and the interconnected
network of the Under30 group, we situate our analysis against the backdrop of social closure theory.
Wright (2009) states the following:
In order for certain jobs to confer high income and special advantages, it is important
for their incumbents to have various means of excluding others from access to them.
This is also sometimes referred to as a process of social closure, in which access to a
position becomes restricted. (p. 104)
Social closure is not inherently partisan, liberal, or conservative. All political parties, people, and
individuals can carry out social closure in their various spaces. Indeed, our results suggest that the
Under30 is a mechanism through which social closure is established in the prestigious network of
edu-preneurs in an effort to promote ideological homophily—a sociological phenomenon described
as a “love for the same” in social networks (McPherson, Smith-Lovin, & Cook, 2001). In other
words, homophilous organizations and individuals seek out other organizations and individuals who
share a common ideology, look, status, way of being, etc. in an effort to expand that sameness.
Those who are labeled as edu-preneurs by Forbes may, as a result of their affiliation within the
network and the strengthening of their ties within the reform network, unwittingly ensure those who
hold similar perspectives and values receive the attention and business of those who share likeminded approaches to education reform. In essence, the award serves as a networking opportunity
and marketing tool.
When considered against the backdrop of the pervasive myth embedded within American
discourse about the “failed school” and “bad teachers” and the subsequent need to reform them, it
becomes clear that an award for reform would gain traction. More importantly, the combination of
the policy assumption that schools need to be reformed with the promotion of an elite group of
reformers should raise questions about the affiliations of those individuals. It is of little surprise that
an organization such as Forbes, with its focus on business, would take an interest in highlighting
reformers who approach education from the free-market tenets of Friedmanism. Accordingly,
developing an understanding of the demographics and educational backgrounds of the recipients as
well as understanding how the recipients and judges themselves are connected within the broader
education reform network will provide a clearer picture of how the award might help bolster
privatization efforts along free-market ideology.
Review of the Literature
In what follows, we briefly situate this study against the larger effort of neoliberalism to
privatize education then provide a discussion on social closure, echo chamber, and homophily.
These three concepts help to understand the findings as they assisted us in our data collection,
analysis, and interpretation.
Neoliberalism and Privatization
The marketization of public education in the era of neoliberalism elevates buzzwords like
“innovation,” “investments,” “return on investments,” and “technology integration.” Moreover,
within the context of education and schooling, the professional status of educators is challenged in
an effort to exalt the logic and norms of the business class. President Trump, a businessman,
appointed Betsy DeVos to be the Secretary of Education despite the fact she and her children have
never attended public schools. The message the White House sent to Americans is that experience
in education is not a necessary component of administrating education. Education reform, both
Forbes 30 Under 30 in Education
5
domestically and internationally, has been led by a consortium of organizations and individuals who
have expanded market-oriented reforms throughout schools. Those market-oriented reforms have
included charter schools, school vouchers, and alternative certification training for teachers. The
logic, as it were, is that government based training, organization, and control of schooling is woefully
inefficient and would benefit from market competition. Finding roots in Milton Friedman, marketoriented education reformers seek to inject competition (note the business terminology) into the
public sphere of public education. And, despite a growing body of research that suggests that charter
schools underperform traditional public schools (Miron, Mathis, & Welner, 2015) and exacerbate
segregation (Author & Lubienski, 2017; Frankenberg, 2011; Frankenberg & Lewis, 2012), and other
research raising concerns over alternative certification programs like Teach For America (Brewer,
2014; Anderson, 2013a, 2013b; Redding & Smith, 2016; Scott, Trujillo, & Rivera, 2016), these
reforms continue to expand. And these reforms are not conducted within a vacuum. The
disproportionate number of TFA alumni who have received the Under30 and the shared language of
neoliberal education reform highlight the common understandings and aims of market-oriented
reformers (Lahann & Reagan, 2011). Specifically, “neoliberalism calls for state policies that create
competitive entrepreneurs as opposed to policies that set them free to act for their own gain and, as
a result, society’s benefit” (Lahann & Reagan, 2011, p. 8).
Given Forbes’s ideological commitment to promoting business-oriented reforms in
education, the Under30 award itself—using the language of industry—highlights the role that
neoliberalism continues to play across education reforms. Grounded in the assumption that
government is both too ineffective and inefficient to oversee schools (Chubb & Moe, 1990;
Friedman, 1955, 1997, 2002; Greene, Forster, & Winters, 2005; Walberg & Bast, 2003),
neoliberalism asserts a solution of free-market competition and individualization (Ball, 1994, 2003,
2007, 2012; Giroux, 2004; Harvey, 2005). As explicated in our findings, the individuals who receive
the Under30 not only lack degrees in education, but the judges of the award and the majority of the
awardees have direct connections to organizations that operate along an ideological commitment to
competition, deregulation, and privatization (often, for-profit). In their discussion of alliances and
divisions within the policy landscape, DeBray-Pelot, Lubienski, and Scott (2007) outlined how
various types of ideological groups influence policy outcomes. Our analysis here adds to that work
by contributing further empirical evidence that the market-oriented landscape has become more
complex in that support for such reforms have shared connections across the ideological (and often
competing) stances of “Centrist/New Democratic,” (e.g., National Alliance for Public Charter
Schools) “Center/Left,” (e.g., Center for American Progress) “Neoliberal,” (e.g., Center for
Education Reform, Walton Foundation, Broad Foundation, New Schools Venture Fund, etc.) and
“States’ rights” (e.g., American Legislative Exchange Council) groups presented in their findings.
Despite the varied ideological dispositions of such groups within the reform network, they
find common ground in the neoliberal assumption that marketization and competition are necessary
components of reform as they seek to create advocacy coalitions (Scott, Jabbar, Goel, DeBray, &
Lubienski, 2015), to leverage state policies that are favorable to individual actors working towards
their own gain and, according to the logic, will benefit society (Lahann & Reagan, 2011). Given the
reform network’s ever-growing connection to governance bodies like the U.S. Department of
Education and local school boards, the realization of state policies that favor marketization and
privatization grows – especially given the close connection of venture philanthropy organizations
within the network who provide funding and advocacy for such reforms (Horn & Libby, 2011;
Reckhow, 2013; Reckhow & Snyder, 2014; Saltman, 2010). Social Closure Theory
Social closure refers to the intricate ways groups of individuals and organizations maintain
resources, power, and influence by making access exclusive. In the case of the Under30, how might
Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 26 No. 76
6
the creation of the prestigious award help maintain organizational power and resources? The
Under30 is not the first time an organization or entity created an award for what we are arguing here
as self-serving purposes or with ulterior motives. For example, the owner of “My Pillow” created a
fake foundation that supposedly endorsed the pillow. “My Pillow” was the official pillow of the
National Sleep Foundation. The problem was that the National Sleep Foundation was created by the
owner of “My Pillow” (see “My Pillow,” 2016). Some of the readers of this article may have seen the
advertisement for “My Pillow” seen in Figure 1 below.
Figure 1. MyPillow Gets a $1 Million Wake-Up Call (Truth in Advertising, 2016).
Note: Reprinted with permission.
But pillow salespersons are not the only entrepreneurs who attempt to sell products and positively
influence what people think of their products. The automobile manufacturing sector is equally guilty
of self-congratulation in their marketing. The (in)famous JD Power and Associates award is an
award that many people hear about and have seen. But as Morran (2010) points out, JD Power and
Associates charges “hundreds of thousands of dollars to car makers just for access to their survey
results and then charge another big-time fee for the right to mention their awards in ads” (para. 5).
Some may say that JD Power and Associates is just doing business. JD Power and Associates
conducts research that it sells to the automobile sector, which uses the information to help create
better and safer vehicles. Maybe. But what such comments miss, however, is that JD Power and
Associates is not independent of the automobile sector. Independence is important and can make
knowledge more democratic and available to all manufacturers. The automobile manufacturers are,
in essence, paying to “play.”
Advertising in the United States is estimated at $70 billion per year (Hollis, 2011).
Accordingly, successful advertisements do not center action on the part of the buyer as the target
response; rather, advertisements are specifically designed to create positive impressions about the
product or company being advertised (Hollis, 2011). The automobile companies would not value the
JD Power and Associate awards if they did not help their bottom line: selling vehicles and making
profit. The same truth guided the “My Pillow” CEO to create a fake foundation in order to endorse
the benefits of his pillow. And, along the same lines of creation of an award that aligns with Forbes’s
ideological commitments, provides fodder and reinforcement for the types of education reform that
Forbes supports—Forbes has a history of publishing stories that are critical of public schools, teachers,
and in support of education reforms like charter schools (see Kruse, 2017; Marr, 2016; Meyer, 2016;
Ozimek, 2015; Skorup & DeGrow, 2017; Sullivan, 2016)—while establishing positive impressions of
the reformers.
Forbes 30 Under 30 in Education
7
If we were to apply social closure theory to Under30, we might ask ourselves: “Who are the
judges, and who are the recipients?” The four judges for the 2017 competition were: (1) Stacey
Childress, the CEO of NewSchools Venture Fund, (2) Arne Duncan, the Managing Partner of
Emerson Collective, (3) Wendy Kopp, the Co-founder of Teach for America (TFA) and Teach for
All, and (4) Marcus Noel, the Founder of Heart of Man Ventures and a TFA alum (see Howard &
Conklin, n.d.). We might also ask, “Who were the recipients of the award?” If the award recipients
were found to be mostly from the organizations that were connected to the judges, then we might
be able to discern whether social closure is occurring. By nominating and awarding Under30 to
people like themselves, the judges effectively act as gatekeepers to the resources and benefits that
come to those who receive such a designation. Those benefits are national recognition, marketing of
the individual and the individual’s organization or business by Forbes, and networking connections
made during the Under30 Summit (a multi-day event of speeches and networking). Given that the
purpose of the Under30 is to identify and celebrate those who are leading in their industry, receiving
the Under30 designation stands to help recipients expand their business ventures.
Raymond Murphy (2001) points out that social closure is really about monopolization of
opportunities. What this means is social closure and closed networks lead to protecting power and
maintaining the same messages and signal ideologies. Within the realm of the Under30 network,
those ideologies are ones that elevate ideologies of pro-privatization and pro-marketization of
schools and education. These ideologies support the de-professionalization of teacher preparation.
The manifestation of social closure increases and is an outcome of echo chambers whereby
members of the closed network not only engage in self-congratulations but rely on the growing
network information and resources to further its shared ideology. Social closure is not a new area of
study; it has been documented to exist in higher education award systems, such as the American
Educational Research Association (AERA) Fellows program (Hartlep et al., 2017). However, the
present study contributes new knowledge to how social closure can lead to moving forward policies
that are pro-market and pro-privatization and that lead to bolstering edu-preneurship.
Echo Chamber and Homophily
In their research on echo chambers, Colleoni, Rozza, and Arvidsson (2014) investigated
political homophily on Twitter. The researchers used a combination of machine learning and social
network analysis; they classified users as Democrats or Republicans based on the political content
shared. They found the political homophily present in Republican networks was higher and stronger
than that of Democrats. Also, Boutyline and Willer (2016) found that homophily was more likely to
occur on Twitter among those who were more politically conservative. This may suggest that
Republicans find themselves in echo chambers, which can lead to more insular beliefs. Yet
homophily and echo chambers are not limited to political party affiliation as researchers have found
that Twitter, for example, has created an echo chamber through which intermediary actors and
individuals with limited expertise in education have worked to shape public discourse and the policy
landscape (Goldie, Linick, Jabbar, & Lubienski, 2014; Malin & Lubienski, 2015).
But what does this mean and what are the implications of echo chambers? The phenomenon
of a “backfire effect” occurs when individuals receive information that contradicts or goes against
their belief system, but instead of re-evaluating, double down on their original belief. In other words,
backfire effects are present when contradictory information does not cause someone to have an
open mind, but rather the opposite; people will become even more closed-minded when they hear
and/or come across information that opposes their worldview. Echo chambers are self-reinforcing
because of the phenomenon of backfire effects. Echo chambers encourage confirmation biases.
Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 26 No. 76
8
For instance, Williams, McMurray, Kurtz, and Lambert (2015) found that social media
discussions of climate change often occur within polarizing echo chambers. The researchers, not
surprisingly, found strong attitude-based homophily within these echo chambers. In other words,
activist groups were segregated from sceptic groups when it came to climate change. Their research
provides evidence that there is a virtuous cycle of reinforcement: echo chambers both produce and
are produced by homophily and that the backfire effect contributes to intergroup polarization.
Within education reform networks, leading reform organizations like TFA also engage in creating
echo chambers on social media platforms like Twitter to insulate themselves and their discourse
while attacking critics (Brewer & Wallis, 2015). According to the Harvard Business Review (2013),
“Decision makers need to tap diverse social networks. If your circle is too tight and the members of
it are too similar, you risk being trapped in an echo chamber where the same ideas keep circulating,
limiting the payoff of social learning (p. 5). Does the Under30 continue to value and extoll the same
ideas?
According to Stafford (2016), “One thing that drives echo chambers is our tendency to
associate with people like us” (para. 3). Homophily is interrelated with the concept of echo
chambers described above because the love or preference of sameness leads to exclusion and an
outcome of exclusion is concentration of likeminded communities. Likeminded communities often
create echo chambers because there are no dissenting voices, a situation that is nondemocratic and
indicative of an unfree society. A free society permits that it is safe to be unpopular. Thus, the
creation of and promotion of education awards like the Under30 present winners who share similar
academic backgrounds (notably not in education) to create a private network and attempt to drown
out dissenting voices who question the ideology and dispositions of market-oriented reform since
those reforms are presented as commonsensical. We now turn to a discussion of our data collection
and method of analysis.
Data and Methods
Considering our first research question: “What are the academic backgrounds and
demographics of those individuals receiving the Under30 award?” Demographic, academic, and
organizational information for all Under30 recipients was gathered from publicly available
resources—starting first with the announcement of winners published by Forbes. Age, gender, and
organizational affiliation at the time of award was provided by the award recipient’s official Forbes
biography. Information detailing the recipient’s undergraduate major, alma mater, year of
graduation, graduate training, and program participation (e.g., TFA) was collected from a
combination of the recipient’s LinkedIn page, organizational biographies, and press releases from
their alma mater. Similarly, our second research question of “What is the background of the judges
overseeing the award?” led us to collect the demographic information on the judges from their
Forbes profile, as well as their LinkedIn and/or their organizational websites. In order to answer our
final question: “To what extent are the recipients connected to the judges and to each other (either
as individuals or through organizational connections)?” a holistic network of connections was
developed as a matrix in Excel whereby the 2017 Under30 judges and recipients were listed along
with any personal or business connection they had. Once connections related to the 2017 judges and
awardees were exhausted, we repeated the process for 2016, 2015, 2014, and 2013 adding all
discovered connections to the holistic network. Once all annual cohorts were added, along with their
connections to the overall network, we returned to the 2017 cohort and reexamined their
connections to the entire network. That is, in an effort to create a standardized network, we returned
to each year to determine what additional connections (either direct or indirect) each cohort had to
Forbes 30 Under 30 in Education
9
the overall network. This additional process was repeated for all previous years. In total, our
network consists of 616 nodes: 178 Under30 recipients, 123 organizations, and 315 individuals who
were not an Under30 recipient. We have included figures in the Appendix (Figures A1-A5) that
show all Under30 recipients – both within and outside of the reform network – based on the year in
which they were named to Under30.
Information about an individual’s connections to organizations were gathered primarily from
LinkedIn profiles using a paid-subscription to the LinkedIn platform. Any registered user of
LinkedIn is able to access the public data that we used for this study, however, LinkedIn limits the
number of profiles that can be accessed in any given month. Purchasing a subscription to LinkedIn
lifted the cap on the amount of profiles that could be viewed in any given time frame. Information
and connections to organizations or companies were gathered from the organization’s website.
Additional individuals were added to the overall network if, in the process of gathering information
on connections from an organization, an individual also shared a connection to an organization or
person within the existing discovered network.
Unless there was a specific person-to-person connection (e.g., Wendy Kopp of TFA is
married to Richard Barth of the charter network Knowledge is Power Program, or KIPP), no direct
connections were drawn between individuals. Rather, as was mostly the case, individuals were
connected by way of a mutual organizational affiliation. For example, if individual A worked at
organization B along with individual C, individual A was connected to organization B and individual
C was also connected to organization B—individual A and individual C were not directly connected.
It is important to point out that connections were drawn only if the connection existed at the time
of the award. While there are individuals who received the award in years past who went on to join
the larger reform network those connections are not listed in this analysis. By way of an example,
Beth Schmidt (a 2014 Under30 recipient) is, as of 2017, affiliated with the Emerson Collective (as is
Arne Duncan who served as a judge in 2017); however, because Schmidt’s connection to the
Emerson Collective did not exist at the time of the award, no connection between her and the
organization is reported here. And while no connection is reported here in our analysis, the ongoing
social closure reinforced by the network is an artifact of the homophily that exists within the
network.
The SNA analysis of the network was conducted using UCINET and related figures were
created using NetDraw (Borgatti, Everett, & Johnson, 2013). Further, in large networks with
hundreds of individual actors and organizations, the identification of key players becomes
increasingly complex and requires the use of additional analytic techniques (Hanneman & Riddle,
2005). A commonly utilized set of techniques to conduct such key player analysis in large social
networks are centrality measures (Ortiz-Arroyo, 2010). For the purposes of this SNA, we calculate
three of the most widely utilized centrality measures: Freeman Closeness Centrality, Betweenness
Centrality, and Eigenvector Centrality. Closeness is found by calculating the average distance
between an individual node and all other nodes in the network. Key players in a network will tend
towards shorter average distances to other actors (Freeman, 1979). Betweenness represents a
quantified description of the instances one node serves as a bridge on the shortest path between two
other nodes in a network. Betweenness is an important measure for identifying actors in a network
who likely facilitate communication between other actors (Borgatti, 2005). The final measure,
Eigenvector, provides each node with a numerical value based on the number of connections a node
has to other highly connected nodes. This provides a more nuanced view of the number of
connections a node has by trying to ascertain the quality of a node’s connections by assuming key
players in a network will be connected to other key players (Bonacich, 1972). Taken together, these
three centrality measures help to illuminate the actors exerting substantial influence and power
Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 26 No. 76
10
through the control and facilitation of communication within a network. All calculations were
performed using the analysis tools built into UCINET (Borgatti, Everett, & Johnson, 2013).
Findings
Across various venues, Under30 has experienced a fair level of critique over the years
regarding the lack of gender and racial diversity in award recipients (cf. ELLE, 2015; Prince, 2011).
While our study provides insight into these demographic disparities among the award recipients, our
original interest in the education category—specifically within the context of education reform led
by edu-preneurs—is further situated within the context of privatization and marketization of public
education. We start by providing a descriptive analysis of recipients’ demographic information,
undergraduate major, and alma mater. Further, we visited recipients’ organizational affiliation
websites to classify network linkages. This information was converted into a matrix and analyzed
using UCINET to provide a visual analysis of the edu-preneur network (Borgatti, Everett, &
Johnson, 2013).
Under30 Recipient Academic Backgrounds and Demographics
For its 2017 cohort of Under30, Forbes received over 15,000 nominations (note: selfnominations are allowed) across 20 industries, ranging from Hollywood and Entertainment, to Law
and Policy, in which 600 were selected for the award—a 4% acceptance rate (Forbes, 2017). For this
study, we focus solely on the education industry, which admittedly, is a telling moniker for how
Forbes views each category, including education. To put the Forbes education industry component of
Under30 into perspective, of the 15,000 nominations that were received across the 20 industries in
2017, 450 were within the education category (see EAB, 2017). The Under30 began in 2011 and, in
2013, expanded its categories to include education as an industry, which promoted a list of edupreneurs who were, according to the Forbes’s judges, making lasting impacts on reforming education
in the United States. In fact, the 2017 headline announcing the Under30 cohort of awardees
suggested that the group was revolutionizing learning both inside and outside of the classroom
(Forbes, 2017; Howard, 2017).
Teaching and learning is a process facilitated by educators within the context of schools and
schooling; in the case of the Under30; however, teaching/learning occurs outside of professionally
prepared educators. Only four of 192 Under30 recipients over the last five years have had an
undergraduate degree that focuses on education. While 23 have master’s degrees in some field
connected to education, many of them completed that training through partnerships between
universities and Teach For America (TFA), which has some control over the courses their corps
members take. Some researchers have shown those individuals with a traditional undergraduate
degree and license in education outperform those teachers who are alternatively certified (Clotfelter,
Ladd, & Vigdor, 2007; Darling-Hammond, Holtzman, Gatlin, & Vasquez-Heilig 2005), while others
have concluded that the differences are insignificant (cf. Kane, Rockoff, & Staiger, 2008).
Notwithstanding a possibility of differences in outcomes based on undergraduate training, what is
clear is that background training in education strongly shapes the dispositions and approach to
pedagogy (Lahann & Regan, 2011; Nukic, 2011) and that teachers who are alternatively certified are
far more likely to have higher rates of turnover (Redding & Smith, 2016).
Rather than conceive of education as a profession that requires specialized training, such as
attending accredited teacher preparation programs that include lengthy practicum training and
restricted entry into the field, Forbes Under30 highlights individuals with no degree or training in
education as the best hope for “revolutionizing learning” (Forbes, 2017; Howard, 2017) and
reforming education.
11
Forbes 30 Under 30 in Education
Our findings indicate that the vast majority of recipients of Under30 in education are
individuals without degrees in education. In fact, the top undergraduate degree was computer
science followed by economics and political science (see Table 1). In total, only four of the 192
recipients had an undergraduate degree in education (23 have a graduate degree in a field connected
to education).
Table 1
Top 10 Undergraduate Educational Degrees of Under 30 Recipients
Undergraduate Degree
n
Computer Science
26
Economics
23
Political Science / Politics
22
Engineering
15
Business
11
History
11
Psychology
10
Accounting / Finance
8
Biology
8
International Affairs
7
Note: In total, 49 varying educational degrees were observed.
Considering the undergraduate institutional affiliation of the awardees, we found that of the top 10
institutions, eight were classified as either Ivy League or Ivy Plus.
Table 2
Top 10 Undergraduate Institutional Affiliations of Under30 Recipients
Undergraduate Institution
n
Classification
Stanford
19
Ivy Plus†
University of Pennsylvania
17
Ivy
Harvard
13
Ivy
Columbia University
10
Ivy
Princeton
10
Ivy
12
Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 26 No. 76
Table 2 cont.
Top 10 Undergraduate Institutional Affiliations of Under30 Recipients
Brown University
7
Ivy
Yale University
7
Ivy
University of Iowa
6
University of Oxford
6
*
Cornell University
5
Ivy
Note: In total, 111 undergraduate institutions were observed. †Ivy Plus is a classification given to Duke, M.I.T., Stanford,
and the University of Chicago (see Aisch, Buchanan, Cox, & Quealy, 2017). *While Oxford is not classified as an Ivy
League school, it is of comparable international classification.
Of notable interest among the recipients is the disparity of gender equality in the Under30. Of the
192 recipients of the award since 2013, 123 were male and 69 were female, and in many cases,
female winners shared awards with males.
Table 3
Gender of Awardees by Year and Sharing
14
Females with
Males
5
Females with
Females
2
Females as
Individuals
7
16
16
1
0
15
2015
26
16
1
6
9
2014
27
13
2
4
7
2013
24
10
1
2
7
Total
123
69
10
14
45
Year
Total Males
Total Females
2017
30
2016
Under30 Judge Backgrounds and Demographics
Wendy Kopp, the founder of TFA, and Stacey Childress, the CEO of NewSchools Venture
Fund, both have served as judges for the majority of the years that the Under30 award has included
the education industry. Additionally, other judges alongside Kopp and Childress have direct ties to
the individuals and organizations being recognized through the award. While there is no way to
know the academic background and connections of all of the Under30 nominees—that is, we do not
know if the majority of nominees are, for example, TFA alumni—it is clear from our analysis that
the majority of the recipients of the award have very close connections to the judges and their
organizations. And while we explore the specific connections below, because the judges are so
closely connected to the individuals that receive the award the Under30 serves as a mechanism
through which judges are able to highlight the individuals and alums of their organizations. The
Forbes 30 Under 30 in Education
13
recipients can, in turn, use the platform the Under30 award affords to further market and promote
their specific brand of education reform. This process feedback loop becomes reciprocal. For
example, Marcus Noel, who, having connections to TFA was awarded the Under30 in 2016, became
a judge in 2017. Additionally, Joe Vasquez, a judge for the newly announced 2018 cohort of
Under30, has direct connections to TFA and was, himself, a recipient of the award in 2017 when
Kopp was a judge (Kopp was also a judge in 2018).
In addition to the close connections that Under30 recipients have with the education reform
network (see Figures A1-A5 in the Appendix for per-year connections), our findings also indicate
that the judges for the Under30 often have very close connections either directly to individual
awardees or share some organizational affiliation (either directly or secondary). For example, Wendy
Kopp, the founder of TFA, served as a judge during 2016 and 2017. From those two years, there
were 16 TFA alumni from her organization who were among the awardees.
With that in mind, our interest in this project arose from recognizing that the judges of the
Under30 were primarily individuals associated with the domestic reform network (e.g., NewSchools
Venture Fund and TFA), see Figure 2 below.
Figure 2. Forbes Under30 Judges and their Direct Connections to the Reform Network
TFA makes an annual habit out of promoting those alumni of the organization who have been
selected for the award—seemingly to capitalize on the award in the same way that car dealerships
may capitalize on and promote a JD Power award. In fact, Forbes released its 2018 cohort of
Under30 recipients earlier than expected in 2017 (though, that cohort is not included in our analysis
here) and TFA bought advertisements on Facebook to promote a link to their website listing out the
newest winners who were alumni of TFA. Yet, over the scope of the project, while TFA became a
central node in the network developed, our primary interest was not necessarily to center TFA. We
Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 26 No. 76
14
expected TFA to compromise a significant portion of the network but to the extent that TFA was
connected was unclear at the outset of this study. That stated, what became increasingly clear is that
TFA serves as a central hub within the reform network with direct and numerous connections to
charter advocacy organizations, charter networks, intermediary organizations, and venture
philanthropic foundations—shown in Figure 3 using Scale/Ordinance measures where the size of
the node indicates the number of connections (the more connections that exist with the network,
the larger the node). This finding aligns with the work done by Kretchamr, Sondel, and Ferrare
(2014), which showed how TFA uses its connections to wield power and influence in the promotion
of charter schools.
Figure 3. Scale/Ordinance Measurement of the Education Reform Network. Top 25 organizations
labeled and top 1 individual labeled.
Because our analysis of the network suggested that TFA was the greatest connection throughout the
network, we isolated TFA in Figure 4 to show the first-level Ego-Net of TFA (organizations and
individuals with a direct connection to TFA).
Forbes 30 Under 30 in Education
15
Figure 4. TFA’s First-Level Ego Net within Our Discovered Network
As illustrated in Figure 3, TFA has direct connections to NewSchools Venture Fund (of which
Stacey Childress—an Under30 judge is the CEO), KIPP, the Gates Foundations, PilotEd Schools,
Aspire, Carnegie Corporation, Goldman Sachs, LEE, the Relay Graduate School, Google, Students
for Education Reform, Noble Charters, the Walton Foundation, the Broad Foundation, the
Robertson Foundation, EnrichEd Schools, Green Dot Schools, the Bezos Foundation, New
Leaders for New Schools, Springboard Collaborative, the USDOE, the Kemmons Wilson Family
Foundation, the Doris and Donald Fisher Fund, and Rocketship Education—all organizations that
also share many direct connections with one another. Additionally, TFA has direct connections to
43 Under30 recipients since Forbes began the education category.
Additional second and third-level connections between TFA and Under30 were also
discovered which, considered alongside the eigenvector analysis discussed below, reveals the level of
overrepresentation of TFA alumni amongst the award winners. Despite comprising less than 1% of
the national teacher force (Vasquez-Heilig & Jez, 2010), TFA alumni account for approximately
22% of award winners. Assumedly, an individual who taught with TFA most likely entered the field
of teaching through TFA and, thus, had their views and knowledge of education practice shaped by
TFA or joined TFA because of ideological similarities. This hints at how the Under30 network
functions as an echo chamber built on homophily. Organizations like TFA train individuals through
a particular ideological lens then reward those same individuals for designing programs and services
that parrot the ideology. Further elucidating these simple occupational associations are only one way
of looking for homophily within a network and evidence of homophilic ties can also emerge in
Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 26 No. 76
16
similarly focused organizational missions and public acknowledgement and promotion (Koch,
Galaskiewicz, & Pierson, 2015; McPherson, Smith-Lovin, & Cook, 2001;), which is also important
for identifying homophily amongst those award winners who did not work with TFA. With these
two points of emphasis in mind, it is easy to observe the common echo chamber award winners and
TFA reside in. First, the majority of award winners were recognized for their work in organizations
that focus on tech and computer science education, charter school promotion, and the use of
venture capital funding. As has been documented throughout the school reform and neoliberal
education literature, projects emphasizing STEM as an economic good and school privatization map
well onto TFA’s organizational mission and vision for school reform (Kretchmar, Sondel, & Ferrare,
2014; Lahann & Reagan, 2011; Lefebvre & Thomas, 2017). Second, public acknowledgement of a
connection comes from both award winners and TFA. Expectedly, award winners highlight their
affiliation with TFA in public biographies provided to Forbes and their employing organization. What
is important is the reciprocal nature of this acknowledgement. Each year, following Forbes’s
announcement of the new award winners, TFA issues a press release congratulating TFA alumni
included amongst the winners, taking care to note how their current endeavors are aligned with the
agendas promoted by TFA [for examples of these releases see: Teach for America (2016) and Teach
for America (2017)].
While it is not surprising that organizations like KIPP, PilotEd Schools, Aspire, LEE, and
others have a direct connection to TFA, given that many of the organizations were founded by TFA
alums or also have formal ties to TFA, it may not be readily clear why the U.S. Department of
Education shares similar connections. In short, the goal of TFA is not teacher preparation. In fact,
Wendy Kopp has stated that TFA is a “leadership development organization, not a teaching
organization” (Hootnick, 2014, para. 31).
Moreover, Wendy Kopp, despite being an Under30 judge and the founder of the most
connected organization with the reform network is, herself, not overly connected. Our analysis
suggests that outside of Under30, Kopp does not exert her influence directly within the network;
rather, she relies on the organizations she created. Further policy implications surrounding these
realities are taken up later in this article.
Connections Within Network
Large networks can obfuscate important connections and key actors as visual analysis
becomes more difficult. In situations where networks are so large as to make visual analysis
burdensome, measures of network centrality are helpful for identifying key actors within large
networks. The three centrality measures used in this study mentioned earlier––closeness,
betweenness, and eigenvector––uncover useful information about the flow of information and
influence within the Under30 network that would be undeterminable from visual analysis. We start
by examining each centrality measure in isolation to reveal what each measure reveals on its own
before looking across measures to understand how power and influence works throughout the
Under30 network.
The ranking of network actors by closeness centrality (see Table A1 in the Appendix) shows
TFA has the highest number of direct links to other actors in the network for all years under
examination. Rounding out the top-three actors with the most direct links in the network are KIPP
and the NewSchools Venture Fund (NSVF), a venture-capital firm that largely targets investments at
education reforms and charter schools. This representation of interests is common throughout the
top-15 highly connected actors in the network, of which seven are funding bodies, four are charter
school networks, and two are reform-oriented organizations. Only in one year, 2016, does an
individual break into the top-15 of most directly connected actors—an award winner from 2016
Forbes 30 Under 30 in Education
17
whose work focused on providing information about education technology. Within the network of
Forbes winners, perhaps unsurprisingly, large organizations that wield money and influence within the
education reform community possess high direct connectivity.
Looking at the rankings of actors by betweenness centrality (see Table A2 in the Appendix),
which is measuring the frequency with which an actor serves as a bridge on the shortest path
between two other actors, reveals observations similar to those found when looking at closeness.
Again, TFA occupies the top position in all award years, followed by KIPP and NSVF in the second
and third spots. Unlike in the closeness measure, the U.S. Department of Education is within the
top-five on betweenness centrality, which indicates an increased importance when it comes to
facilitating communication between actors in the network. Interestingly, the results of the
betweenness centrality analysis features the highest ranking of award winners, Tess Brustein and
Vinit Sukhija, each in the year their award was conferred. Both winners were TFA corps members
prior to their award and both worked for education focused venture capital firms. Similar to the
closeness measure, the top-15 ranking of actors measured on betweenness centrality is dominated by
private foundations like Walton and Broad, charter schools, and organizations advocating school
choice and neoliberal reforms.
Eigenvector centrality (see Table A3 in the Appendix), which looks at the strength of an
actor’s connections by accounting for the connectedness of an actor’s links, provides further
evidence for the network ascendency of a few actors. TFA, KIPP, and NSVF control the top-three
spots across all award years, as was the case with measures of closeness and betweenness. The rest
of the highly ranked spots are filled by charter schools and foundations that financially support
market-oriented solutions to the problems of public education. The USDOE’s ranking drops in this
measure, though they remain in the in the top-15 representing the only public agency exerting any
measurable influence over the network. Given the role that the government plays in developing and
regulating competitive markets within education, the U.S. Department of Education’s close
connection to the reform network (which is reinforced intentionally through alumni of reform
organizations as explicated above) raises questions about the ability for the governmental body to
provide unbiased oversight of the education marketplace. In fact, as the USDOE and local
governance bodies such as school boards become more closely connected to the reform network as
alumni enter elected and appointed roles, it positions the network to wield more and more influence
on the policymaking process.
Unlike the previously discussed centrality measures, there are no individuals who break into
the top-15 for eigenvector centrality, which indicates even those with a high number of individual
links are still mostly connected to individuals and organizations with few links of their own.
Considered together, the results of the closeness, betweenness, and eigenvector centrality
analyses highlight some important features of the Under30 award network. First, and perhaps most
obvious, is the same key players—TFA, KIPP, NSVF––hold the top spots in all three centrality
measures. More specifically, TFA is clearly the most influential and connected organization within
the network, holding the top spot for every measure in every year. No one else in the network
comes close to TFA’s level of influence. Moreover, most actors who rank highly on measures of
influence advocate for an ideologically homogeneous set of policies and practices. Charter schools,
school choice, punitive accountability measures, market-based reforms, and the further
economization of public education. are the main source of connection between groups as seemingly
disparate as TFA, the Broad Foundation, and Students for Education Reform.
Related to the previous observation, the centrality measures show that large, market-oriented
organizations and foundations are not only highly influential within the Under30 award network but
they are also structurally necessary for the flow of information and resources within the award
Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 26 No. 76
18
network. In other words, removing just the three most influential organizations––TFA, KIPP, and
NSVF––from a network of several hundred actors would radically reshape the entire network. This
inference is based on the consistency of top-rankings across award years. Valente, Coronges, Lakon,
and Costenbader (2008) used simulated network data to investigate the extent to which common
centrality measures are correlated. We found that having the same actors at the top of each measure
was not a sign of redundant information, but instead indicated that the different centrality measures
are related and, thus, similarity in rankings across measures speak to the importance of those actors.
In the context of the current study, observation of the same actors, in the same rank, across three
separate but related measures buttress the argument that organizations like TFA and KIPP exert an
exorbitant amount of influence within the Under30 network.
Finally, the centrality measures reveal the role of organizations within the Under30 network.
While the stated purpose of the award is to recognize the accomplishments of individuals, looking at
the network shows that it is organizations who feature prominently. When it comes to occupying
positions of influence within the network, individuals are largely lost under the weight of
entrenched, well-monied organizations and foundations. This is true even of individuals who occupy
positions of authority within top organizations. To cite one example: Wendy Kopp, who is the
founder and former-CEO of TFA and an Under30 judge for multiple years, does not feature in the
top rankings of any centrality measures even though her organization holds the top spot for every
measure. Arguably, this demonstrates that individuals, when compared to the influence wielded by
organizations, exert little influence over the network. This observation is at odds with the
celebration of individual accomplishment that lies at the heart of the Under30 award. Awards are
bestowed not to the organizations or technologies designed to benefit students, but the individuals
who conceived them. The exaltation of the accomplishments of individuals is in line with the
neoliberal project, which emphasizes a roll-back of the administrative state and social programs,
including systems of public education, to be replaced the self-sufficiency of the individual (Davies &
Bansel, 2007; Lipman, 2011). The political philosopher Wendy Brown (2005) noted that this
withdrawal of the state from public life under neoliberalism ultimately redefines the individual’s role
in society:
neoliberalism normatively constructs and interpellates individuals as entrepreneurial
actors in every sphere of life. It figures individuals as rational, calculating creatures
whose moral autonomy is measured by their capacity for “self-care” — the ability to
provide for their own needs and service their own ambitions. (p. 42)
While Forbes celebrates the individual, examining the underlying network of actors reveals a high
degree of social cooperation and communication amongst organizations advancing a privatized and
marketized vision of educational reform. Thus, the Under30 award ultimately provides an illusory
picture of the diversity of education reformers while reality shows that all of these individuals are
aligned with a small subset of likeminded organizations.
Discussion
Our findings suggest that the Forbes Under30 award, its judges, and the growing network that
the award creates both benefits from and reinforces social closure. The theory of social closure
examines the myriad ways in which individuals and institutions are able to restrict access while
simultaneously protecting the resources, power, and influence that members on the inside have and
share among each other. If we believe the Under30 award to be a prestigious award, as Forbes
suggests, then we should equally expect that those recommended for the award undergo a rigorous
Forbes 30 Under 30 in Education
19
and unbiased selection process. Yet, our findings suggest that the judges of the Under30 award
systematically select individuals who are either directly associated with the organizations that the
judges represent and/or those who share the same ideological commitments to education reform—
ideological homophily. Such a reality is suggestive of an echo chamber where individuals within, or
close to, the reform network are selected for the award as a means of self-congratulating the
ideology fueling their reforms and, in short, self-congratulating the judges since the recipients of the
awards largely come from the judge’s organizations. As the growing network of Under30 recipients
(and the further entanglement of that network) continues to grow and continues to be presented as
the nation’s best hope for educational reform, policy influence and business opportunities may very
well shift more towards individuals and organizations within that network which may further
insulate the network while protecting its monopolization over education reform. While we have
outlined the existence of a growing echo chamber here, it is important to point out that while they
do not represent the vast majority, there is a growing number of TFA alumni, for example, who
have been outspoken about their resistance to TFA’s agenda and theory of change and the
connected broader quest to privatize education through the reform network (see, for example,
Brewer & deMarrais, 2015; Brewer, Kretchmar, Sondel, Ishmael, & Manfra, 2016; Kretchmar,
Sondel, & Ferrare, 2014; Matsui, 2015; Scott, Trujillo, & Rivera, 2016).
Given the rampant rise of market-oriented educational reforms both domestically and
internationally, examination and scrutiny of those individuals who are being tapped to continue such
work is as important as examinations of who are currently leading such reforms. To that end, our
primary research question centering around the academic backgrounds and demographics of the
Under30 recipients raises significant questions about the individuals who are “revolutionizing
learning” (Forbes, 2017; Howard, 2017). The reinforcement of the purported goodness of marketoriented and privatization reforms through awards like the Under30 further secures the grip that
edu-preneurs have over not only policy creation but policy conversations. That is, the creation of the
Under30 in education reinforces the need for a specific business and market-oriented education
reform. The selection of awardees gives little attention to individuals who work in schools. This
reality bolsters the myth that educators cannot be trusted with the stewardship of their professions
or the education of their students. The market language implies—and awards like the Under30 in
education affirm—that privatization and marketization of our nation’s schools is the solution.
Public education is innately a democratic process and the science and art of teaching should
naturally suggest that teaching is a profession and should not be susceptible to fast-entry de-skilling
preparation characterized by alternative certification programs. Given the platform of Forbes and the
ability of the judges and awardees of the Under30 award to promote their brand of education reform
through the award this point becomes more salient. That is, the vast majority of the judges and
individuals who are associated with the Under30 award are directly associated with alternative
certification programs like TFA, New Leaders for NewSchools (now simply referred to as New
Leaders), The New Teacher Project (TNTP) that specifically seek to de-skill and de-professionalize
teaching by providing only 18 hours of student teaching (Brewer, 2014) when compared to
traditional certification offered through colleges of education that require at least one full semester,
if not two, of full-time student teaching. Additionally, the majority of the network has direct links to
the charter movement (e.g., 50CAN, KIPP, National Authorizers of Charter Schools, etc.), which
benefits from the “creaming” of students and intentional segregation (Brewer & Lubienski, 2017;
Frankenberg, 2011), practices that explicitly undermine the democratic process.
If we conceive of public education as a democratic process and a collective good, we must
question the infiltration of organizations that seek to privatize the learning process for profit and to
reconceive of education as a commodity to be sold by edu-preneurs and purchased by schools,
Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 26 No. 76
20
teachers, and students. The creation of illusory awards like the Under30 award seek to reify the goal
of privatizing education for profit while elevating edu-preneurs who operate in a homophilous
network as the saviors of public education. The creation of and advertising of the award situates
education reformers into a position where their motives for educational profits are not to be
challenged since the aim of the award, like any advertisement, is to create positive impressions of the
Under30 recipients and their organizations/businesses. Future work will continue to finalize the
catalogue of the reform network and untangle ongoing financial and ideological connections that
seek to further privatize and monetize education.
Limitations
We took great caution with our data collection, coding, and analysis. Yet our data collection
relied on self-reporting of affiliation with individuals and organizations. To those ends, the network
likely contains additional in-network connections and there are likely other individuals and
organizations not included in our analysis as a natural outcome of non-reporting on behalf of those
individuals and organizations included here. Additionally, we acknowledge that while some
affiliations may have not been reported, reported affiliations may have expired at the time we
collected data and the reporting of that affiliation online had not yet been updated. As a precaution,
we asked researchers who also conduct social network analysis research who were not affiliated with
this study to examine our UCINET data for consistency and accuracy.
During the final stages of this analysis, Forbes released its 2018 cohort significantly earlier
than previous years—the list was announced in early November of 2017 (Strauss, 2017). Due to
time constraints in the research process, the 2018 cohort is not included in this particular analysis.
However, a cursory glance over the list of winners and the judges show some immediate consistent
patterns with the award. Namely, among the newest cohort are seven TFA alums. Not only does
that align with the pattern we uncovered from the history of the award it is notable that Wendy
Kopp and Stacey Childress returned again to serve as judges. Additionally, Joe Vasquez (a 2017
awardee) served as a judge for the new 2018 cohort. It came with little surprise that Mr. Vasquez
himself has direct ties to TFA, Education Pioneers, Goldman Sachs, and Manhattan Prep—all
central players within the education reform network.
While we know the total number of individuals who were nominated to Forbes for
consideration, we are do not know what percentage of those nominations were self-nominations
(which are allowed), and those that were the result of a third-party nomination. Additionally, despite
the type of nomination, we are unable to know what the demographics of the total nominee
population were. That is to say: it is quite possible that the entire nomination pool was connected
within the reform network. If that were the case, it might suggest the perceived power that the
Under30 award carries within the network. It may also be the case that the nomination pool was a
diverse mix of educators not connected to the reform network and those edu-preneurs who are. If
that were the case, it might suggest—even more so than our analysis here—that the judges
specifically award individuals within their networks. While either scenario (or others) are a
possibility, we are simply unable to know who all of the nominees were and are therefore unable to
draw specific conclusions about how some are, or are not, chosen for the award as we are only able
to examine the academic backgrounds and connections of those that are chosen for the Under30.
21
Forbes 30 Under 30 in Education
Policy Implications
With the rapid growth of education reforms that favor privatization and marketization of
public education, it becomes clear(er) that researchers, policymakers, teachers, parents, and other key
stakeholders in education should raise questions about who is pushing such reforms and to what
extent are those individuals and organizations in collaboration—a cabal, as it were. The general
public has long bought into the myth of the failed school and the bad teacher stemming back to
both the launch of Sputnik (and the United States’ appearance of educational failure) and the release
of “A Nation at Risk” by the Reagan Administration suggesting that the mediocre nature of our
nation’s schools should be understood as synonymous with a foreign country declaring war on the
United States. Connected to the long history of perpetuating the myth of the failed school, partnered
with the conservative/neoliberal economic ideology and theories grounded in Friedmanism, many
individuals and organizations have risen to prominent power (both in terms of political capital and
large financial coffers at their disposal) calling for the deregulation of schools (reducing the role of
government) and injection of free-market competition. From our analysis, the Forbes Under30 award
is clearly a mechanism by which such individuals are not only recognized for their efforts at
privatization but a mechanism through which like-minded individuals and organizations engage in
self-congratulations and/or further reinforce network connections in such a way that entry into
group requires ideological homophily. Manufactured awards like the Under30 create the
opportunity to promote common interests by isolating disparate or competing ideas and individuals
as not being in the “in group” and, in the process, create echo chambers that serve to selfcongratulate those within the edu-preneur circle. According to Flaxman, Goel, and Rao (2016), echo
chambers are instances wherein “individuals are largely exposed to conforming opinions” (p. 299).
It is vitally important that when individuals and organizations are held up as exemplar
examples of reforms that the awardee being recognized is examined as well as their connections to
the awarding judges/organization be scrutinized. As we have shown here, the majority of Under30
recipients have a direct connection to the organizations that the Forbes’s judges represent. It appears
that the majority of individuals receiving the Under30 award are not only being recognized by the
judges (and Forbes) for their efforts to promote privatization but also for their ideological alignment
with the very organizations that the judges represent. Awards like the Under30 and its large public
audience given the reach of a periodical such as Forbes, reinforce the public’s understanding of
“problems” in education and the “solutions” that are “working.” That is, when Forbes identifies
individuals who have policy solutions, like charter schools for example, it reinforces in the mind of
the reader (parents, voters, etc.) that public schools need to be reformed through competition.
Additionally, policymakers who are attentive to the perceptions of their constituent’s expectations of
policy reforms, along with being reinforced by media outlets (Malin & Lubienski, 2015), may take
awards like the Under30 at face-value and adopt similar reforms. Implications for students may
mean that policy decisions surrounding educational reforms continue to elevate the importance of
the individual over the collective good while orienting educational policies to benefit those edupreneur reformers who stand to profit from their reforms. The isolation of TFA within the reformer
network highlighted the close connections between TFA and like-minded organizations such as
KIPP, LEE, Relay, Aspire, Students for Education Reform, etc. While it may be of little surprise
that like-minded organizations (often founded by TFA alums) remain in close connection with TFA,
the growing connections to the U.S. Department of Education are a cause for concern. A growing
body of evidence has started to provide a glimpse into the impact that TFA alumni have once they
move from the classroom to policymaking decisions (Brewer, Kretchmar, Sondel, Ishmael, &
Manfra, 2016; Jacobsen & Linkow, 2014; White, 2016; Williams, 2016) but little has been done
Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 26 No. 76
22
surrounding the implications of their infiltration into the U.S. Department of Education. Alumni of
TFA are actively encouraged and aided by TFA to transition from the classroom into policy making
positions like those at the U.S. Department of Education. And as the U.S. Department of
Education, as well as state-level governance bodies, become more populated with TFA alums, policy
creation and implementation that prioritizes privatization by way of deregulation, alternative
certification by way of de-skilling teaching, and the standardization of curriculum and the for-profit
testing that follows (e.g., Every Student Succeeds Act), will likely continue to expand—particularly
under administrations that are favorable to such reforms.
The present study offers evidence that there continues to be a convergence across political
ideologies towards market-oriented education reforms and a circling of the wagons, as it were, on
who is promoted and elevated within the reform network through manufactured awards like the
Under30. In essence, Forbes’s Under30 award presents a façade of prestige and uncritical
examination surrounding the individuals and organizations that are being bolstered to further blur
the lines between education and corporations as the insular reform network seeks to privatize
education.
References
Aisch, G., Buchanan, L., Cox, A., & Quealy, K. (2017). Some colleges have more students from
the top 1 percent than the bottom 60. Find yours. Retrieved March 15, 2017, from
https://http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/18/upshot/some-colleges-havemore-students-from-the-top-1-percent-than-the-bottom-60.html?_r=0
Anderson, A. (2013a). Teach For America and symbolic violence: A Bourdieuian analysis of
education's next quick-fix. Urban Review, 46(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-013-0241-x
Anderson, A. (2013b). Teach For America and the dangers of deficit thinking. Critical Education,
4(11), 1-20.
Ball, S. (1994). Education reform: A critical and post-structural approach. Bristol, PA: Open University
Press.
Ball, S. (2003). Class strategies and the education market: The middle classes and social advantage. New York,
NY: RoutledgeFalmer. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203218952
Ball, S. (2007). Education plc: Understanding private sector participation in public sector education. New York,
NY: Routledge.
Ball, S. (2012). Global education inc.: New policy networks and the neo-liberal imaginary. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Bonacich, P. (1972). Factoring and weighting approaches to status scores and clique
identification. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 2, 113-120.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0022250X.1972.9989806
Bonner, L., Stancill, J., & Raynor, D. (2017). How companies can turn a profit running public
schools. Retrieved May 7, 2018 from
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/education/article178438001.html
Borgatti, S. P. (2005). Centrality and AIDS. Connections, 18(1), 112-114.
Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Johnson, J. C. (2013). Analyzing social networks. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Boutyline, A., & Willer, R. (2016). The social structure of political echo chambers: Variation in
ideological homophily in online networks. Political Psychology, 38(3), 551-569.
https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12337
Forbes 30 Under 30 in Education
23
Brewer, T. J. (2014). Accelerated burnout: How Teach For America's academic impact model and
theoretical framework can foster disillusionment among its corps members. Educational
Studies, 50(3), 246-263.
Brewer, T. J., & deMarrais, K. (Eds.). (2015). Teach For America counter-narratives: Alumni speak up and
speak out. New York, NY: Peter Lang. https://doi.org/10.3726/978-1-4539-1556-1
Brewer, T. J., Kretchmar, K., Sondel, B., Ishmael, S., & Manfra, M. (2016). Teach For America's
preferential treatment: School district contracts, hiring decisions, and employment practices.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(15), 1-38. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.24.1923
Brewer, T. J., & Lubienski, C. A. (2017). NEPC review: Differences by design? Student composition in charter
schools with different academic models. Retrieved from Boulder, CO:
http://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/review-charters
Brewer, T. J., & Wallis, M. (2015). #TFA: The intersection of social media and education reform.
Critical Education, 6(14), 1-18.
Brown, W. (2005). Edgework: Critical essays on knowledge and politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University.
Chubb, J. E., & Moe, T. M. (1990). Politics, markets, and america's schools. Washington, DC: The
Brookings Institution.
Clotfelter, C., Ladd, H. F., & Vigdor, J. (2007). How and why do teacher credentials matter for student
achievement? https://doi.org/10.3386/w12828
Colleoni, E., Rozza, A., & Arvidsson, A. (2014). Echo chamber or public sphere? Predicting
political orientation and measuring political homophily in Twitter using big data. Journal of
Communication, 64, 317–332. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12084
Darling-Hammond, L., Holtzman, D. J., Gatlin, S. J., & Vasquez Heilig, J. (2005). Does teacher
preparation matter? Evidence about teacher certification, Teach For America, and teacher
effectiveness. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(42).
https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v13n42.2005
Davies, B., & Bansel, P. (2007). Neoliberalism and education. International Journal of Qualitative Studies
in Education, 20(3), 247-259. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518390701281751
DeBray-Pelot, E. H., Lubienski, C., & Scott, J. T. (2007). The institutional landscape of interest
group politics and school choice. Peabody Journal of Education, 82(2-3), 204-230.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01619560701312947
EAB. (2017, January 13). Education’s ‘30 under 30’: Rising stars changing student lives.
Retrieved from https://www.eab.com/daily-briefing/2017/01/13/educations-30-under-30
ELLE. (2015). Forbes’ 30 under 30: Where are the women? Retrieved from
http://www.elle.co.za/forbes-30-30-women/
Flaxman, S., Goel, S., & Rao, J. M. (2016). Filter bubbles, echo chambers, and online news
consumption. Public Opinion Quarterly, 80, 298–320. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfw006
Forbes. (2017). Forbes 30 under 30: Education. Retrieved from
http://www.forbes.com/30-under-30-2017/education/ - 71c4c1445e71
Frankenberg, E. (2011, Spring). Charter schools: A civil rights mirage? Kappa Delti Pi Record, 47, 100–
105. https://doi.org/10.1080/00228958.2011.10516571
Frankenberg, E., & Lewis, T. (2012). School segregation then and now. In R. Ognibene (Ed.), A
persistent reformer: Jonathan Kozol's work to promote equality in America (pp. 1–19). New York: Peter
Lang.
Freeman, L. C. (1979). Centrality in networks: Conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1,
215–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-8733(78)90021-7
Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 26 No. 76
24
Friedman, M. (1955). The role of government in education. Retrieved from
http://www.schoolchoices.org/roo/fried1.htm
Friedman, M. (1997). Public schools: Make them private.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09645299700000026Friedman, M. (2002). Capitalism and freedom.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226264189.001.0001
Giroux, H. A. (2004). The terror of neoliberalism: Authoritarianism and the eclipse of democracy. Aurora,
Ontario: Garamond Press.
Goldie, D., Linick, M., Jabbar, H., & Lubienski, C. (2014). Using bibliometric and social
media analyses to explore the “echo chamber” hypothesis. Educational Policy, 28(2), 281–
305. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904813515330
Greene, J. P., Forster, G., & Winters, M. A. (2005). Education myths: What special interest groups want you
to believe about our schools - and why it isn't so. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield
Publishers.
Hanneman, R. A., & & Riddle, M. (2005). Introduction to social network methods. Riverside,
CA: University of California, Riverside. Retrieved from
http://faculty.ucr.edu/~hanneman/
Hartlep, N. D., Hensley, B. O., Wells, K. E., Brewer, T. J., Ball, D., & McLaren, P. (2017).
Homophilly in higher education: Historicizing the AERA member-to-fellow pipeline using
theories of social reproduction and social networks. Policy Futures in Education, 15(6), 670-694.
Harvard Business Review. (2013). Spotlight on the art of decision making: Beyond the echo chamber.
Retrieved from
https://enterprisersproject.com/sites/default/files/Beyond%20the%20Echo%20Chamber.
pdf
Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Harvey, D. (2007). Neoliberalism as creative destruction. Annals of the American Academy of
Social Science, 610, 22–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716206296780
Henderson, K. (2016, February 29). 9 US colleges that are harder to get into than ivy league schools.
Business Pundit. Retrieved from http://www.businesspundit.com/9-us-colleges-harder-getinto-ivy-league-schools-02-2016/
Hollis, N. (2011). Why good advertising works (even when you think it doesn't). Retrieved from
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/08/why-good-advertising-workseven-when-you-think-it-doesnt/244252/
Hootnick, A. (2014). Teachers are losing their jobs, but Teach For America is expanding. What’s
wrong with that? Retreived from https://www.thenation.com/article/teachers-are-losingtheir-jobs-teach-americas-expanding-whats-wrong/
Horn, J., & Libby, K. (2011). Venture philanthropy and the newschools venture fund. In P. E.
Kovacs (Ed.), The gates' foundation and the future of u.S. Public education: A call for scholars to counter
misinformation campaigns (pp. 168-185). New York, NY: Routledge.
Howard, C. (2017). 30 under 30 education 2017: Revolutionizing learning inside the classroom, postcollege and online. Retrieved from
https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolinehoward/2017/01/03/30-under-30-education-2017revolutionizing-learning-inside-the-classroom-post-college-andonline/?ss=30under30#5f939abb6667
Howard, C., & Conklin, J. (n.d.). Inside Forbes: Making an under 30. Forbes. Retrieved from
https://www.forbes.com/30-under-30-2017/education/#4ca9a80e5e71
Forbes 30 Under 30 in Education
25
Jacobsen, R., & Linkow, T. W. (2014). National affiliation or local representation: When TFA
alumni run for school board. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22(69), 1-28.
https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v22n69.2014
Kane, T. J., Rockoff, J. E., & Staiger, D. O. (2008). What does certification tell us about teacher
effectiveness? Evidence from New York City. Economics of Education Review, 27(6), 615-631.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2007.05.005
Koch, B. J., Galaskiewicz, J., & Pierson, A. (2015). The effect of networks on organizational
missions. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 44(3), 510–538.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764014523335
Kretchmar, K., Sondel, B., & Ferrare, J. (2014). Mapping the terrain: Teach For America, charter
school reform, and corporate sponsorship. Journal of Education Policy, 29(6), 742-759.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2014.880812
Kruse, K. (2017). My kids are straight-a students and they know nothing. Retrieved from
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kevinkruse/2017/01/13/my-kids-are-straight-a-studentsand-they-know-nothing/- 4faef1fb198c
Lahann, R., & Reagan, E. M. (2011). Teach For America and the politics of progressive
neoliberalism. Teacher Education Quarterly, 38(1), 7–27.
Lefebvre, E. E., & Thomas, M. A. M. (2017). ‘Shit shows’ or ‘like minded schools’: Charter schools
and the neoliberal logic of Teach For America. Journal of Education Policy, 32(3), 357–371.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2017.1280184
Levy, L. (2015, July 24). Rise of the teacherpreneur. Retrieved from
http://www.edudemic.com/why-we-need-edupreneurs/
Lipman, P. (2011). The new political economy of urban education: Neoliberalism, race, and the right to the city.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Malin, J. R., & Lubienski, C. (2015). Educational expertise, advocacy, and media influence. Education
Policy Analysis Archives, 23(6), 1-32. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v23.1706
Marr, B. (2016). 5 vital skills schools are failing to teach well enough. Retrieved from
https://www.forbes.com/sites/bernardmarr/2016/10/04/5-vital-skills-schools-are-failingto-teach-well-enough/ - 7c2edd57106a
Matsui, S. (2015). Learning from counternarratives in Teach For America: Moving from idealism towards hope.
New York, NY: Peter Lang.
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social
networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27(1), 415–444.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415
Meyer, J. (2016). What the teachers' union doesn't want you to know about charter schools.
Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/jaredmeyer/2016/01/27/charter-schoolsstudents-teachers-unions-choice/ - 2e8f22b36b57
Miron, G., Mathis, W. J., & Welner, K. G. (2015, February). Review of separating fact & fiction.
Think Tank Review. Retrieved from http://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/review-separatingfact-and-fiction
“My Pillow.” (2016). My Pillow. Truth in advertising. Retrieved from
https://www.truthinadvertising.org/mypillow/
Morran, C. (2010, May 10). Can you trust those awards you see in auto ads? Consumerist.
Retrieved from https://consumerist.com/2010/05/10/can-you-trust-those-awards-you-seein-auto-ads/
Murphy, R. (2001). Social closure: The theory of monopolization and exclusion. Oxford University Press.
Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 26 No. 76
26
Nukic, B. (2011). A comparison of teacher perceptions of their teacher certification programs. (Senior Thesis),
Trinity College, Hartford, CT. Retrieved from http://digitalrepository.trincoll.edu/theses/24
Ortiz-Arroyo, D. (2010). Discovering sets of key players in social networks. In: A. Abraham, A.
E. Hassanien, & V. Snásel (Eds.), Computational social network analysis: Trends, tools, and research advances
(pp. 27–48). London, UK: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84882-229-0_2
Ozimek, A. (2015). The unappreciated success of charter schools. Retrieved from
https://www.forbes.com/sites/modeledbehavior/2015/01/11/charter-success/ 25e34e412dbf
Prince, R. (2011). No Blacks, Latinos on Forbes’ under-30 list. Retrieved from
http://journalisms.theroot.com/no-blacks-latinos-on-forbes-under-30-list-1790884067
Reckhow, S. (2013). Follow the money: How foundation dollars change public school politics. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Reckhow, S., & Snyder, J. (2014). The expanding role of philanthropy in education politics.
Educational Researcher, 43(186), 186-195. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X14536607
Redding, C., & Smith, T. (2016). Easy in, easy out: Are alternatively certified teachers turning over at
increased rates? American Educational Research Journal, 53(4), 1086-1125.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831216653206
Robertson, W. B. (2015). Mapping the profit motive: The distinct geography and demography of
for-profit charter schools. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 23(69).
https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v23.1864
Saltman, K. J. (2010). The gift of education: Public education and venture philanthropy. New York, NY:
Palgrave Macmillian. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230105768
Scott, J., Jabbar, H., Goel, P., Debray, E. H., & Lubienski, C. (2015). Evidence use and advocacy
coalitions: Intermediary organizations and philanthropies in Denver, Colorado. Educational
Policy Analysis Archives, 23(124). https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v23.2079
Scott, J., Trujillo, T., & Rivera, M. (2016). Reframing Teach For America: A conceptual framework
for the the next generation of scholarship. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 24(12), 1-33.
https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.24.2419Singleton, J. D. (2017). Putting dollars before
scholars? Evidence from for-profit charter schools in Florida. Economics of Education Review,
58, 43-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2017.03.004
Skorup, J., & DeGrow, B. (2017). The big picture on school choice in detroit. Retrieved from
https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2017/09/07/the-big-picture-on-school-choice-indetroit/- 21138748c664
Snyder, T. D., de Brey, C., & Dillow, S. A. (2016). Digest of education statistics 2015.
Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Stafford, T. (2016, December 12). How to check if you’re in a news echo chamber—and what to
do about it. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/how-to-check-if-youre-in-a-newsecho-chamber-and-what-to-do-about-it-69999.
Strauss, V. (2017). Forbes’ weird list of ’30 under 30’ in education: No classroom teachers made the
cut. Retrieved November 14, 2017, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answersheet/wp/2017/11/14/forbes-weird-list-of-30-under-30-in-education-no-classroomteachers-made-the-cut/?utm_term=.e0f38067fb5a
Sullivan, M. (2016). Hey, John Oliver: Here's the winner of the charter school contest. Retrieved
from https://www.forbes.com/sites/maureensullivan/2016/11/30/hey-john-oliver-heresthe-winner-of-the-charter-school-contest/ - 30b39bd43a91
Swartz, D. L. (2008). Social closure in American elite higher education. Theory and Society,
37(4), 409–419. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-008-9064-2
Forbes 30 Under 30 in Education
27
Teach For America. (2016). Forbes’ 30 Under 30 selects 8 Teach For America alumni. Retrieved from
https://www.teachforamerica.org/top-stories/forbes-30-under-30-selects-7-teach-americaalumni
Teach For America. (2017). Meet the 10 Teach For America alumni of the 2017 Forbes 30 Under 30.
Retrieved from https://www.teachforamerica.org/top-stories/forbes-30-under-30-features10-teach-for-america-alumni-class-2017
Truth in Advertising. (2016). MyPillow Gets a $1 Million Wake-Up Call. Retrieved from
https://www.truthinadvertising.org/mypillow-gets-1-million-wake-call/
Valente, T. W., Coronges, K., Lakon, C., & Costenbader, E. (2008). How correlated are Network
centrality measures? Connections (Toronto, Ont.), 28(1), 16–26.
Vasquez-Heilig, J., & Jez, S. J. (2010). Teach for America: A review of the evidence. Boulder and Tempe:
Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit. Retrieved from
http://epicpolicy.org/publication/teach-for-america
Walberg, H. J., & Bast, J. L. (2003). Education and capitalism: How overcoming our fear of markets and
economics can improve America's schools. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press.
White, T. (2016). Teach For America's paradoxical diversity initiative: Race, policy, and Black
teacher displacement in urban public schools. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 24(16), 1-42.
https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.24.2100
Williams, H. T. P., McMurray, J. R., Kurz, T., & Lambert, H. (2015). Network analysis reveals
open forums and echo chambers in social media discussions of climate change. Global
Environmental Change, 32, 126–138.
Williams, J. (2016). Kira Orange Jones, local TFA director, to leave post for larger role in company.
Retrieved from
http://www.theadvocate.com/new_orleans/news/education/article_a414c846-76e8-11e6ace2-03356f3ff803.html
Wright, E. O. (2009). Understanding class: Towards an integrated analytical approach. New Left
Review, 60, 101–116.
Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 26 No. 76
Appendix
Figure A1. 2017 Under30 Winners Within and Outside of Reform Network.
28
Forbes 30 Under 30 in Education
Figure A2. 2016 Under30 Winners Within and Outside of Reform Network.
Figure A3. 2015 Under30 Winners Within and Outside of Reform Network.
29
Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 26 No. 76
Figure A4. 2014 Under30 Winners Within and Outside of Reform Network.
30
Forbes 30 Under 30 in Education
Figure A5. 2013 Under30 Winners Within and Outside of Reform Network.
31
32
Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 26 No. 76
Table A1
Ranking of Freeman Closeness Centrality, by Year
Rank
2013
2014
1
TFA
TFA
2015
TFA
2016
TFA
2017
TFA
All Years
TFA
2
KIPP
KIPP
NSVF
KIPP
KIPP
KIPP
3
NSVF
NSVF
KIPP
NSVF
NSVF
NSVF
4
Gates Found.
Gates Found.
Gates Found.
Gates Found.
Gates Found.
Gates Found.
5
Walton Found.
Walton Found.
Walton Found.
Walton Found.
Walton Found.
Walton Found.
6
Broad Found.
Broad Found.
Broad Found.
Broad Found.
Broad Found.
Broad Found.
7
Relay
Relay
Relay
Relay
Relay
Relay
8
Carnegie Corp.
Rocketship
Carnegie Corp.
Carnegie Corp.
Carnegie Corp.
Rocketship
9
Rocketship
Carnegie Corp.
Rocketship
Rocketship
Rocketship
Carnegie Corp.
10
USDOE
USDOE
USDOE
USDOE
USDOE
USDOE
Note: The following acronyms are used in the table above: TFA (Teach For America), KIPP (Knowledge Is Power Program), NSVF (NewSchools Venture Fund). The
following shortened names used in the table above: Relay (Relay Graduate School), Gates Found. (Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation), Walton Found. (The Walton
Foundation), Carnegie Corp (Carnegie Corporation of New York), Broad Found. (Eli & Edythe Broad Foundation), Rocketship (Rocketship Public Schools – a
charter network), USDOE (United States Department of Education).
33
Forbes 30 Under 30 in Education
Table A2
Ranking of Betweenness Centrality, by Year
Rank
2013
2014
TFA
TFA
1
2015
TFA
2016
TFA
2017
TFA
All Years
TFA
2
KIPP
KIPP
KIPP
KIPP
KIPP
NSVF
3
NSVF
NSVF
NSVF
NSVF
NSVF
KIPP
4
USDOE
USDOE
USDOE
USDOE
USDOE
USDOE
5
Gates Found.
Gates Found.
Gates Found.
Gates Found.
Gates Found.
Vinit Sukhija
6
Tess Brustein
Broad Found.
Vinit Sukhija
Broad Found.
Broad Found.
Gates Found.
7
Broad Found.
Goldman Sachs
Broad Found.
NAPCS
NAPCS
Imagine K12
8
Smarter-Cookie
NAPCS
Imagine K12
Goldman Sachs
Goldman Sachs
Goldman Sachs
9
Imagine K12
Aspen-Pahara
NAPCS
Aspen-Pahara
Aspen-Pahara
Broad Found.
10
NAPCS
Walton Found.
Aspen-Pahara
Walton Found.
Walton Found.
Google
Note: The following acronyms are used in the table above: TFA (Teach For America), KIPP (Knowledge Is Power Program), NSVF (NewSchools Venture Fund). The
following shortened names used in the table above: Relay (Relay Graduate School), Gates Found. (Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation), Walton Found. (The Walton
Foundation), Carnegie Corp (Carnegie Corporation of New York), Broad Found. (Eli & Edythe Broad Foundation), Rocketship (Rocketship Public Schools – a
charter network), USDOE (United States Department of Education), NAPCS (National Alliance for Public Charter Schools).
34
Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 26 No. 76
Table A3
Ranking of Eigenvector Centrality, by Year
Rank
2013
2014
1
TFA
TFA
2015
TFA
2016
TFA
2017
TFA
All Years
TFA
2
KIPP
KIPP
KIPP
KIPP
KIPP
KIPP
3
NSVF
NSVF
NSVF
NSVF
NSVF
NSVF
4
Gates Found.
Gates Found.
Gates Found.
Gates Found.
Gates Found.
Gates Found.
5
Walton Found.
Walton Found.
Walton Found.
Relay
Walton Found.
Relay
6
Relay
Broad Found.
Broad Found.
Walton Found.
Broad Found.
Walton Found.
7
Broad Found.
Relay
Relay
Broad Found.
Relay
Broad Found.
8
Rocketship
Rocketship
Rocketship
Rocketship
Rocketship
Rocketship
9
Carnegie Corp.
Carnegie Corp.
Carnegie Corp.
Carnegie Corp.
Carnegie Corp.
Carnegie Corp.
10
Noble Charters
CSGF
CSGF
CSGF
CSGF
Noble Charters
Note: The following acronyms are used in the table above: TFA (Teach For America), KIPP (Knowledge Is Power Program), NSVF (NewSchools Venture Fund),
CSGF (Charter School Growth Fund). The following shortened names used in the table above: Relay (Relay Graduate School), Gates Found. (Bill & Melinda Gates
Foundation), Walton Found. (The Walton Foundation), Carnegie Corp (Carnegie Corporation of New York), Rocketship (Rocketship Public Schools – a charter
network).
Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 26 No. 76
About the Authors
T. Jameson Brewer
University of North Georgia
Jameson.Brewer@ung.edu
T. Jameson Brewer is an Assistant Professor of Social Foundations of Education at the
University of North Georgia and is a former K-12 teacher. Broadly conceptualized, his
research focuses on the impact of privatization and marketization of public education by way
of school vouchers, charter schools, homeschooling, and alternative teacher certification. He
is co-editor of the book Teach For America Counter-Narratives: Alumni Speak Up and Speak Out
(Peter Lang, 2015) which was named as a Teaching for Change Favorite Book of 2015. Follow
him on Twitter: @tjamesonbrewer
Nicholas D. Hartlep
Metropolitan State University, Saint Paul, Minnesota
Nicholas.Hartlep@metrostate.edu
Nicholas D. Hartlep is currently an Associate Professor of Urban Education and the Chair of
the Early Childhood and Elementary Education Department in the School of Urban
Education at Metropolitan State University in Saint Paul, Minnesota. He also serves as the
Graduate Program Coordinator within the School of Urban Education. His research focuses
on the model minority stereotype of Asian/Americans and critiques of neoliberalism and
student loan debt. He is the co-editor of The Neoliberal Agenda and the Student Debt Crisis in U.S.
Higher Education (Routledge, 2017) which was named a 2018 Outstanding Book by the Society
of Professors of Education. He is currently writing What Can Be Learned from Work Colleges?
An Education That Works (SUNY Press). Follow him on Twitter: @nhartlep
Ian M. Scott
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
iscott3@illinois.edu
Ian Scott is a PhD student in the Department of Educational Psychology at the University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. A former special education teacher, he has research interests
in policy and program evaluation methods, special education policy, and education in carceral
settings.
35
36
Forbes 30 Under 30 in Education
education policy analysis archives
Volume 26 Number 76
July 2, 2018
ISSN 1068-2341
Readers are free to copy, display, and distribute this article, as long as the
work is attributed to the author(s) and Education Policy Analysis Archives, it is
distributed for non-commercial purposes only, and no alteration or transformation is
made in the work. More details of this Creative Commons license are available at
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/. All other uses must be approved
by the author(s) or EPAA. EPAA is published by the Mary Lou Fulton Institute and
Graduate School of Education at Arizona State University Articles are indexed in CIRC
(Clasificación Integrada de Revistas Científicas, Spain), DIALNET (Spain), Directory of
Open Access Journals, EBSCO Education Research Complete, ERIC, Education Full Text
(H.W. Wilson), QUALIS A1 (Brazil), SCImago Journal Rank, SCOPUS, SOCOLAR
(China).
Please send errata notes to Audrey Amrein-Beardsley at audrey.beardsley@asu.edu
Join EPAA’s Facebook community at https://www.facebook.com/EPAAAAPE and
Twitter feed @epaa_aape.
37
Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 26 No. 76
education policy analysis archives
editorial board
Lead Editor: Audrey Amrein-Beardsley (Arizona State University)
Editor Consultor: Gustavo E. Fischman (Arizona State University)
Associate Editors: David Carlson, Lauren Harris, Eugene Judson, Mirka Koro-Ljungberg, Scott Marley,
Molly Ott, Iveta Silova (Arizona State University)
Cristina Alfaro San Diego State
Amy Garrett Dikkers University
Susan L. Robertson
University
of North Carolina, Wilmington
Bristol University
Gary Anderson New York
Gene V Glass Arizona
Gloria M. Rodriguez
University
State University
University of California, Davis
Michael W. Apple University of
Ronald Glass University of
R. Anthony Rolle University of
Wisconsin, Madison
California, Santa Cruz
Houston
Jeff Bale OISE, University of
Jacob P. K. Gross University of
A. G. Rud Washington State
Toronto, Canada
Louisville
University
Aaron Bevanot SUNY Albany
Eric M. Haas WestEd
Patricia Sánchez University of
University of Texas, San Antonio
David C. Berliner Arizona
State University
Henry Braun Boston College
Julian Vasquez Heilig California
State University, Sacramento
Kimberly Kappler Hewitt University
of North Carolina Greensboro
Janelle Scott University of
California, Berkeley
Jack Schneider College of the Holy
Cross
Casey Cobb University of
Connecticut
Aimee Howley Ohio University
Noah Sobe Loyola University
Arnold Danzig San Jose State
University
Steve Klees University of Maryland
Jaekyung Lee SUNY Buffalo
Nelly P. Stromquist University of
Maryland
Linda Darling-Hammond
Stanford University
Jessica Nina Lester
Indiana University
Benjamin Superfine University of
Illinois, Chicago
Elizabeth H. DeBray University of
Georgia
Amanda E. Lewis University of
Illinois, Chicago
Adai Tefera Virginia
Commonwealth University
Chad d'Entremont Rennie Center
for Education Research & Policy
Chad R. Lochmiller Indiana
University
Tina Trujillo University of
California, Berkeley
John Diamond University of
Wisconsin, Madison
Christopher Lubienski Indiana
University
Federico R. Waitoller University of
Illinois, Chicago
Matthew Di Carlo Albert Shanker
Institute
Sarah Lubienski Indiana University
Larisa Warhol
University of Connecticut
Sherman Dorn
Arizona State University
William J. Mathis University of
Colorado, Boulder
John Weathers University of
Colorado, Colorado Springs
Michael J. Dumas University of
California, Berkeley
Michele S. Moses University of
Colorado, Boulder
Kevin Welner University of
Colorado, Boulder
Kathy Escamilla University of
Colorado, Boulder
Julianne Moss Deakin
University, Australia
Terrence G. Wiley Center
for Applied Linguistics
Yariv Feniger Ben-Gurion
University of the Negev
Sharon Nichols University of Texas,
San Antonio
John Willinsky
Stanford University
Melissa Lynn Freeman Adams
State College
Eric Parsons University of
Missouri-Columbia
Jennifer R. Wolgemuth University of
South Florida
Rachael Gabriel
University of Connecticut
Amanda U. Potterton
University of Kentucky
Kyo Yamashiro Claremont Graduate
University
38
Forbes 30 Under 30 in Education
archivos analíticos de políticas educativas
consejo editorial
Editor Consultor: Gustavo E. Fischman (Arizona State University)
Editores Asociados: Armando Alcántara Santuario (Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México), Jason
Beech, (Universidad de San Andrés), Angelica Buendia, (Metropolitan Autonomous University), Ezequiel
Gomez Caride, (Pontificia Universidad Católica Argentina), Antonio Luzon, (Universidad de Granada), José
Luis Ramírez, Universidad de Sonora), Paula Razquin (Universidad de San Andrés)
Claudio Almonacid
Universidad Metropolitana de
Ciencias de la Educación, Chile
Miguel Ángel Arias Ortega
Universidad Autónoma de la
Ciudad de México
Xavier Besalú Costa
Universitat de Girona, España
Ana María García de Fanelli
Centro de Estudios de Estado y
Sociedad (CEDES) CONICET,
Argentina
Juan Carlos González Faraco
Universidad de Huelva, España
María Clemente Linuesa
Universidad de Salamanca,
España
Xavier Bonal Sarro Universidad
Autónoma de Barcelona, España
Jaume Martínez Bonafé
Universitat de València, España
Antonio Bolívar Boitia
Universidad de Granada, España
Alejandro Márquez Jiménez
Instituto de Investigaciones
sobre la Universidad y la
Educación, UNAM, México
María Guadalupe Olivier
Tellez, Universidad Pedagógica
Nacional, México
Miguel Pereyra Universidad de
Granada, España
José Joaquín Brunner
Universidad Diego Portales, Chile
Damián Canales Sánchez
Instituto Nacional para la
Evaluación de la Educación,
México
Gabriela de la Cruz Flores
Universidad Nacional Autónoma
de México
Marco Antonio Delgado
Fuentes Universidad
Iberoamericana, México
Inés Dussel, DIE-CINVESTAV,
México
Pedro Flores Crespo Universidad
Iberoamericana, México
Mónica Pini Universidad
Nacional de San Martín,
Argentina
Omar Orlando Pulido Chaves
Instituto para la Investigación
Educativa y el Desarrollo
Pedagógico (IDEP)
José Ignacio Rivas Flores
Universidad de Málaga, España
Miriam Rodríguez Vargas
Universidad Autónoma de
Tamaulipas, México
José Gregorio Rodríguez
Universidad Nacional de
Colombia, Colombia
Mario Rueda Beltrán Instituto
de Investigaciones sobre la
Universidad y la Educación,
UNAM, México
José Luis San Fabián Maroto
Universidad de Oviedo,
España
Jurjo Torres Santomé,
Universidad de la Coruña,
España
Yengny Marisol Silva Laya
Universidad Iberoamericana,
México
Ernesto Treviño Ronzón
Universidad Veracruzana,
México
Ernesto Treviño Villarreal
Universidad Diego Portales
Santiago, Chile
Antoni Verger Planells
Universidad Autónoma de
Barcelona, España
Catalina Wainerman
Universidad de San Andrés,
Argentina
Juan Carlos Yáñez Velazco
Universidad de Colima, México
39
Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 26 No. 76
arquivos analíticos de políticas educativas
conselho editorial
Editor Consultor: Gustavo E. Fischman (Arizona State University)
Editoras Associadas: Kaizo Iwakami Beltrao, (Brazilian School of Public and Private Management EBAPE/FGV, Brazil), Geovana Mendonça Lunardi Mendes (Universidade do Estado de Santa Catarina),
Gilberto José Miranda, (Universidade Federal de Uberlândia, Brazil), Marcia Pletsch, Sandra Regina Sales
(Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro)
Almerindo Afonso
Universidade do Minho
Portugal
Alexandre Fernandez Vaz
Universidade Federal de Santa
Catarina, Brasil
José Augusto Pacheco
Universidade do Minho, Portugal
Rosanna Maria Barros Sá
Universidade do Algarve
Portugal
Regina Célia Linhares Hostins
Universidade do Vale do Itajaí,
Brasil
Jane Paiva
Universidade do Estado do Rio de
Janeiro, Brasil
Maria Helena Bonilla
Universidade Federal da Bahia
Brasil
Alfredo Macedo Gomes
Universidade Federal de Pernambuco
Brasil
Paulo Alberto Santos Vieira
Universidade do Estado de Mato
Grosso, Brasil
Rosa Maria Bueno Fischer
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande
do Sul, Brasil
Jefferson Mainardes
Universidade Estadual de Ponta
Grossa, Brasil
Fabiany de Cássia Tavares Silva
Universidade Federal do Mato
Grosso do Sul, Brasil
Alice Casimiro Lopes
Universidade do Estado do Rio de
Janeiro, Brasil
António Teodoro
Universidade Lusófona
Portugal
Suzana Feldens Schwertner
Centro Universitário Univates
Brasil
Jader Janer Moreira Lopes
Universidade Federal Fluminense e
Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora,
Brasil
Debora Nunes
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande
do Norte, Brasil
Flávia Miller Naethe Motta
Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de
Janeiro, Brasil
Alda Junqueira Marin
Pontifícia Universidade Católica de
São Paulo, Brasil
Alfredo Veiga-Neto
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande
do Sul, Brasil
Dalila Andrade Oliveira
Universidade Federal de Minas
Gerais, Brasil
Lílian do Valle
Universidade do Estado do Rio de
Janeiro, Brasil