The institutional landscape of interest group politics and school choice

Peabody Journal of Education

Volumn 82, Issue 2-3, 2007, Pages 204-230

  DeBray Pelot, Elizabeth H ^a   Lubienski, Christopher A ^b   Scott, Janelle T ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO   (United States)

^c NEW YORK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 34547219419     PISSN: 0161956X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01619560701312947     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Belfield, C. R. (2006). The evidence on education vouchers: An application to the Cleveland scholarship and tutoring program (Occasional Paper No. 112). New York: National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education.
2. Callahan, D. (1999). $1 billion for ideas: Conservative think-tanks in the 1990s. Washington, DC: National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy
3. Carl, J. (1994). Parental choice as national policy in England and the United States. Comparative Education Review, 38(3), 294-399.
4. Covington, S. (1997). Moving a public policy agenda: The strategic philanthropy of conservative foundations. Washington, DC: National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy.
5. Davis, M. (2005, December 23). Federal aid goes to public, private schools hit by hurricanes Katrina and Rita [Electronic version]. Education Week.
6. DeBra Pelot, E. (2007). School choice and educational privatization initiatives in the 106th and 107th Congresses: An analysis of policy formation and political ideologies. Teachers College Record, 109(4), 927-972.
7. Donsky, R (2005, January 28). Fed-up Father joins suit for better schools. Atlanta Journal Constitution, pp. D1-D5.
8. Greene, J. P., Howell, W. G., & Peterson, P. E. (1997). An evaluation of the Cleveland scholarship program (Occasional Papers). Cambridge, MA: Program on Education Policy and Governance, Harvard University.
9. Greene, J. P., Peterson, P. E., & Du, J. (1998). School choice in Milwaukee: A randomized experiment. In P. E. Peterson & B. C. Hassel (Eds.), Learning from school choice (pp. 335-356). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
10. Greene, J. P., Peterson, P. E., & Du, J. (1999). Effectiveness of school choice: The Milwaukee experiment. Education and Urban Society, 31, 190-213.
11. Howell, W. G., Wolf, P. J., Peterson, P. E., & Campbell, D. E. (2001). Effects of school vouchers on student test scores. In P. E. Peterson & D. E. Campbell (Eds.), Charters, vouchers, and public education (pp. 136-159). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
12. Hoxby, C. M. (2004a). Achievement in charter school and regular public schools in the united states: Understanding the differences. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University and National Bureau of Economic Research.
13. Hoxby, C. M. (2004b). A straightforward comparison of charter schools and regular public schools in the United States. Cambridge, MA: Department of Economics, Harvard University.
14. Hoxby, C. M. (2005). Competition among public schools: A reply to Rothstein (2004) (NBER Working Paper No. 11216). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
15. Hsu, S. (2006). How vouchers came to D.C. In P. Peterson (Ed.), Choice and competition in American education (pp. 219-230. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
16. Kirst, M. (2006). Politics of charter schools: Competing national advocacy coalitions meet local politics. New York: National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education.
17. Krehely, J., House, M., & Kernan, E. (2004). Axis of ideology: spending by conservative think tanks. Washington, DC: National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy.
18. Krueger, A. B., & Zhu, P. (2004). Another look at the New York City school voucher experiment. American Behavioral Scientist, 47, 658-698.
19. Levin, H. M., & Belfield, C. (2004). Vouchers and public policy: When ideology tnunps evidence. American Journal of Education, 111(4), 548-568.
20. Lubienski, C. (2003). Innovation in education markets: Theory and evidence on the impact of competition and choice in charter schools. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 395-443.
21. Lubienski, C. (2005). Public schools in marketized environments: Shifting incentives and unintended consequences of competition-based educational reforms. American Journal of Education, 111, 464-486.
22. Lubienski, C., & Lubienski, S. T. (2006). Charter, private, public schools and academic achievement: New evidence from NAEP mathematics data. (Occasional Paper No. 111). New York: National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education, Teachers College, Columbia University.
23. Luntz, F. (1998). Language of the 21st century (Rev. ed.). Washington, DC: The Luntz Research Companies.
24. Metcalf, K., West, S. D., Legan, N. A., Paul, K. M., & Boone, W. J. (2003). Evaluation of the Cleveland scholarship and tutoring program: Summary report 1998-2002. Bloomington: Indiana University.
25. Moe, T. (2001). Schools, vouchers, and the American public. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
26. National Education Association. (2005). 2005-2006 NEA Resolutions. Retrieved May 2, 2006, from http://www.nea.org/annualmeeting/raaction/ resolutions.html
27. Nelson, F. H., Rosenberg, B., & Van Meter, N. (2004). Charter school achievement on the 2003 national assessment of educational progress. Washington, DC: American Federation of Teachers.
28. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).
29. Paige, R. (2002, June 28). A win for America's children. The Washington Post, p. A29.
30. People For the American Way. (2003, November 21). Funding a movement (Press release). Available from http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw /general/default.aspx?oid=12856
31. Peterson, R E., & Howell, W. G. (2003). Efficiency, bias, and classification schemes: Estimating private-school impacts on test scores in the New York City voucher experiment. Cambridge, MA: Program on Education Policy and Governance, Harvard University.
32. Pogrebin, R. (2006, May 12). Breaking ranks over education, G.O.P. lawmakers deal a setback to Governor Bush in Florida. New York Times, p. A1.
33. Rich, A. (2004). Think tanks, public policy, and the politics of expertise. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
34. Rich, A. (2005, Spring). War of ideas: Why mainstream and liberal foundations and the think tanks they support are losing in the war of ideas in American politics. Stanford Social Innovation Review, pp. 18-25.
35. Robelen, E., & Davis, M. (2006, January 11). Hurricane aid is on the way to districts, private schools. Education Week, p. 1.
36. Rouse, C. (1998). Schools and student achievement: More evidence from the Milwaukee parental choice program. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University and the National Bureau of Economic Research.
37. Sabatier, R, & Jenkins-Smith, H. (1999). The advocacy coalition framework: An assessment. In P. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 117-166). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
38. Smith, J. A. (1991). The idea brokers: Think tanks and the rise of the new policy elite. New York: Free Press.
39. Spring, J. (2005). Political agendas for education from the religious right to the Green Party. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaurn Associates, Inc.
40. Sweeney, J. (2002, July). Voucher case expected to have little impact on federal programs. Title I Report.
41. Viteritti, J. (2002). Vouchers on trial. Education Next, 2, 25-33.
42. Washington Partners. (2005, November). NCLB Insider, 1. Washington, DC: Author.
43. Witte, J. F. (1996). Reply to Greene, Peterson and Du: "The effectiveness ofschool choice in Milwaukee: A secondary analysis of data from the program's evaluation." Madison: Department of Political Science and The Robert La Follette Institute of Public Affairs, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
44. Witte, J. F. (2000). The market approach to education: An analysis of America's first voucher program. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.