Understanding Education Policy Change in the American States: Lessons from Political Science

Handbook of Education Politics and Policy

Volumn , Issue , 2008, Pages 30-51

  McLendon, Michael K ^a   Cohen Vogel, Lora ^b  

^a VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85145516679     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9780203887875-10     Document Type: Chapter

References (110)

1. Allen, M. S., Pettus, C., and Haider-Markel, D. (2004). Making the national local: Specifying the conditions for national government influence on state policymaking. State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 4, 318-344.
2. Bailey, M. A., and Rom, M. C. (2004). A wider race: Interstate competition across health and welfare programs. Journal of Politics, 66, 326-347.
3. Baird, K. L. (1998). The NIH and FDA new medical research policies. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.
4. Balla, S. J. (2001). Interstate professional associations and the diffusion of policy innovations. American Politics Research, 29, 221-245.
5. Baumgartner, F. R., and Jones, B. D. (1991). Agenda dynamics and policy subsystems. Journal of Politics, 53, 1044-1074.
6. Baumgartner, F. R., and Jones, B. D. (1993). Agendas and instability in American politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
7. Beck, N., Katz, J. N., and Tucker, R. (1998). Taking time seriously: Time series-cross-section analysis with a binary dependent variable. American Journal of Political Science, 42, 1260-1288.
8. Berry, F. S., and Baybeck, B. (2005). Using geographic information systems to study interstate competition. American Political Science Review, 99(4), 505-519.
9. Berry, F. S., and Berry, W. D. (1994). The politics of tax increases in the states. American Journal of Political Science, 52(1), 167-196.
10. Berry, F. S., and Berry, W. D. (1999). Innovation and diffusion models in policy research. In P. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 160-200). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
11. Berry, F. S., and Berry, W. D. (in press). Innovation and diffusion models in policy research. In P. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (2nd ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview.
12. Blaukenau, J. (2001). The fate of national health insurance in Canada and the United States: A multiplestreams explanation. Policy Studies Journal, 29(1), 38-55.
13. Boehmke, F. J., and Witmer, R. (2004). Disentangling diffusion: The effects of social learning and economic competition on state policy innovation and expansion. Political Research Quarterly, 57, 39-51.
14. Canon, B. C., and Baum, L. (1981). Patterns of adoption of tort law innovations: An application of diffusion theory to judicial doctrines. American Political Science Review, 75(4), 975-987.
15. Clark, J. (1985). Policy diffusion and program scope: Research directions. Publius, 15(4), 61-70.
16. Clarke, H., Wilson, M., Cummings, M., and Hyland, A. (1999). The campaign to enact New York City’s Smoke-Free Air Act. Journal of Public Health Management Practice, 5, 1-13.
17. Cobb, R. W., and Elder, C. D. (1983). Participation in American politics: The dynamics of agenda building. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
18. Cohen, M., March, J., and Olsen, J. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Sciences Quarterly, 17, 1-25.
19. Cohen-Vogel, L. and Ingle, K. (2007). When neighbors matter most: Innovation, diffusion and state policy adoption in tertiary education. Journal of Education Policy, 22(3), 241-262.
20. Cohen-Vogel, L., Ingle, K., Albee, A., and Spence, M. (2005). The “spread” of merit-based college aid: Politics, policy consortia and interstate competition. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.
21. Collier, D., and Messick, R. E. (1975). Prerequisites versus diffusion: Testing explanations of social security adoption. American Political Science Review, 69, 1299-1315.
22. Cooper, J. (1977). Congress in organizational perspective. In L. Dodd and B. Oppenheimer (Eds.), Congress reconsidered (pp. 140-163). New York: Praeger.
23. Dolowitz, D., and Marsh, D. (1996). Who learns from whom: A review of the policy transfer literature. Political Studies, 44, 343-357.
24. Doyle, W. R. (2006). Adoption of merit-based student grant programs: An event history analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28(3), 259-285.
25. Doyle, W., McLendon, M.K., and Hearn, J.C. (2005, November). Policy adoption of prepaid tuition and col lege savings programs in the American states: An event history analysis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Philadelphia, PA.
26. Durant, R. F., and Diehl, P. F. (1989). Agendas, alternatives, and public policy: Lessons from the U.S. foreign policy arena. Journal of Public Policy, 9(1), 179-205.
27. Dye, T. R. (1990). American federalism: Competition among governments. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
28. Easton, D. (1965). A systems analysis of political life. New York: Wiley.
29. Ehrenberg, R.G. (2006). The perfect storm and the privatization of public higher education. Change, 38(1), 46-50.
30. Eldredge, N., and Gould, S. J. (1972). Punctuated equilibria: An alternative to phyletic gradualism. In T. Schopf (Ed.), Models in paleobiology (pp. 82-115). San Francisco: Freeman.
31. Gerber, B. J., and Teske, P. (2000). Regulatory policymaking in the American States: A review of theories and evidence. Political Research Quarterly, 53(4), 849-886.
32. Glick, H. R., and Hays, S. P. (1991). Innovation and reinvention in state policymaking: theory and the evolution of living will laws. Journal of Politics, 53(3), 835-850.
33. Gould, S. J. (2002). The structure of evolutionary theory. Cambridge, MA: Belknap.
34. Grattet, R., Jenness, V., and Curry, T. R. (1998). Innovation and diffusion in U.S. Hate Crime Law. American Sociological Review, 63, 286-307.
35. Gray, V. (1973). Innovation in the states: A diffusion study. American Political Science Review, 67(4), 1174-1185.
36. Gray, V. (1994). Competition, emulation, and policy innovation. In L. Dodd and C. Jillson (Ed.), New perspectives on American politics (pp. 230-248). Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.
37. Hearn, J. C. (1993). The paradox of growth in federal aid for college students: 1965-1990. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 9, pp. 94-153). New York: Agathon.
38. Hearn, J. C., and Griswold, C. P. (1994). State-level centralization and policy innovation in U.S. postsecondary education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 16(2), 161-190.
39. Jenkins-Smith, H., and Sabatier, P. A. (1993). The study of public policy processes. In P. A. Sabatier and H. Jenkins-Smith (Eds.), Policy change and learning: An advocacy coalition approach (pp. 1-12). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
40. Jones, B. D., Baumgartner, F. R., and True, J. L. (1998). Policy punctuations: U.S. budget authority, 1947-1995. Journal of Politics, 60(1), 1-30.
41. Jordan, M. M. (2003). Punctuations and agendas: A new look at local government budget expenditures. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 22(3), 345.
42. Kamieniecki, S. (2000). Testing alternative theories of agenda setting. Policy Studies Journal, 28(1), 176-189.
43. Kawar, A. (1989). Issue definition, democratic participation, and genetic engineering. Policy Studies Journal, 17(4), 719-744.
44. Kelly, S. Q. (1994). Punctuated change and the era of divided government. In L. Dodd and C. Jillson (Eds.), New perspectives on American politics (pp. 162-190). Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press.
45. King, D. C. (1994). John Kingdon as an agenda item. Policy Currents, 4(3), 17-20.
46. Kingdon, J. W. (1984). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Boston: Little, Brown.
47. Kingdon, J. W. (1994). Agendas, ideas, and policy change. In L. Dodd and C. Jillson (Eds.), New perspectives on American politics (pp. 215-229). Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press.
48. Kingdon, J. W. (1995). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (2nd ed.). New York: Harper-Collins.
49. Kirst, M. (2006). A forty year perspective on the politics of education and its association. PEA Bulletin, 31(1). Available electronically from http://www.fsu.edu/~pea/bulletin.html.
50. Larson, T. E. (2004, November 3). Decentralization in U.S. public higher education: A comparative study of New Jersey, Illinois, and Arkansas. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Kansas City, MO.
51. Leslie, D. W., and Berdahl, R. A. (2006, September 3). More freedoms, more controls simultaneously in U.S. state accountability patterns: The Virginia experience. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for Institutional Research.
52. Lindblom, C. E. (1965). The intelligence of democracy: Decision making through mutual adjustment. New York: Free Press.
53. Lutz, J. M. (1987). Regional leadership patterns in the diffusion of public policies. American Politics Quarterly, 15(3), 387-398.
54. Lyall, K., and Sell, K. (2005). The true genius of American at risk: Are we losing our public universities to de facto privatization? Washington, D.C.: ACE/Praeger.
55. March, J., and Olsen, J. P. (1989). Rediscovering institutions: The organizational basis of politics. New York: Free Press.
56. Mazzoni, T. (1991). Analyzing state school policy making: an arena model. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 13(2), 115-138.
57. McDermott, K. (2005). In MINT condition? The politics of alternative certification and pay incentives for teachers in Massachusetts. In L. Cohen-Vogel and C. Herrington (Eds.), The politics of teacher and administrator training: The quality controversy (pp. 44-62). Thousand Oaks, CA: Yearbook of the Politics of Education Association.
58. McLendon, M. K. (2001, April). Problem-definition, redefinition, and state policymaking to decentralize higher education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
59. McLendon, M.K., and Eddings, A.S. (2002). Direct democracy and higher education: The state ballot as an instrument of higher education policymaking. Educational Policy, 16(1), 193-218.
60. McLendon, M. K. (2003a). Setting the governmental agenda for state decentralization of higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 74(5), 479-516.
61. McLendon, M. K. (2003b). State governance reform of higher education: Patterns, trends, and theories of the public policy process. In J. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 18, pp. 57-143). London: Kluwer.
62. McLendon, M. K. (2003c). The politics of higher education: Toward an expanded research agenda. Educational Policy, 17(1), 165-191.
63. McLendon, M. K., and Hearn, J. C. (2007). Incorporating political indicators into comparative-state research on postsecondary policy: Opportunities and limitations of space and time. In K. Shaw and D.E. Heller (Eds.), The challenges of comparative state-level higher education policy research. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
64. McLendon, M. K., Hearn, J. C., and Deaton, R. (2006). Called to account: Analyzing the origins and spread of state performance-accountability policies for higher education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28(1), 1-24.
65. McLendon, M. K., Heller, D. E., and Young, S. P. (2005). State postsecondary education policy innovation: Politics, competition, and the interstate migration of policy ideas. Journal of Higher Education, 76(4), 363-400.
66. Mills, M. (2007). Stories of politics and policy: Florida’s higher education governance reorganization. Journal of Higher Education, 78(2), 162-187.
67. Mintrom, M. (1997). Policy entrepreneurs and the diffusion of innovation. American Journal of Political Science, 41(3), 738-770.
68. Mintrom, M. (2000). Policy entrepreneurs and school choice. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
69. Mintrom, M., and Vergari, S. (1998). Policy networks and innovation diffusion: The case of state education reforms. The Journal of Politics, 60(1), 126-148.
70. Mooney, C. Z. (2001). Modeling regional effects on state policy diffusion. Political Research Quarterly, 54(1), 103-124.
71. Mooney, C. Z., and Lee, M. H. (1995). Legislating morality in the American states: the case of pre-Roe abortion regulation reform. American Journal of Political Science, 39(3), 599-627.
72. Morgan, D. R., and Watson, S. S. (1991). Political culture, political systems characteristics, and public policies among the American states. Publius, 21(2), 31-43.
73. Mucciaroni, G. (1992). The garbage can model and the study of policy making: a critique. Polity, 24(3), 460-482.
74. National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.
75. Ness, E. C. (2005, November 15). Deciding who earns HOPE, PROMISE, and SUCCESS: Toward a comprehensive model of the merit aid eligibility policy process. Paper presented at the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Philadelphia, PA.
76. New Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce. (2007). Tough choice or tough times. Washington, D.C.: National Center on Education and the Economy.
77. Nice, D. C. (1994). Policy innovation in state government. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.
78. Nicholson-Crotty, S., and Meier, K. P. (2002). Size doesn’t matter: In defense of single case studies. State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 2(4), 411-422.
79. Oliver, T. R. (1991). Health care market reform in Congress: The uncertain path from proposal to policy. Political Science Quarterly, 106(3), 453-477.
80. Olsen, J. P. (2001). Garbage cans, new institutionalism, and the study of politics. The American Political Science Review, 95(1), 191-198.
81. Orr-Bement, D. M. (2002, November 21). A theoretical perspective of the state policy process for higher education policy decisions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Sacramento, CA.
82. Perry, J. L., and Kraemer, K. L. (1979). Technological innovation in American local governments: The case of computing. New York: Pergamon Press.
83. Peters, G. (1994). Agenda setting in the European Community. Journal of European Public Policy, 1(3), 9-26.
84. Peterson, P. E., and Rom, M. C. (1990). Welfare magnets. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.
85. Pollack, M. A. (1997). Delegation, agency, and agenda setting in the European Community. International Organization, 51(1), 99-134.
86. Polsby, N., and Schickler, E. (2002). Landmarks in the study of Congress since 1945. Annual Review of Political Science, 5, 333-367.
87. Portz, J. (1996). Problem definitions and policy agendas: Shaping the educational agenda in Boston. Policy Studies Journal, 24(3), 371-386.
88. Protopsaltis, S. (2004, November 3). Political and policy dynamics of higher education governance and finance reform: The shaping of the first college voucher system. Paper presented at the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Kansas City, MO.
89. Robertson, D. B., and Waltman, J. L. (1993). The politics of policy borrowing. In D. Finegold, L. McFarland, and W. Richardson (Eds.), Something borrowed, something learned (pp. 42-65). Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.
90. Robinson, S. E. (2004). Punctuated equilibrium, bureaucratization, and budgetary changes in schools. Policy Studies Journal, 32(1), 25-39.
91. Rockman, B. (1994). The new institutionalism and the old institutions. In L. Dodd and C. Jillson (Eds.), New perspectives on American Politics. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.
92. Rogers, E.M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.
93. Rose, R. (1991). What is lesson drawing? Journal of Public Policy, 11, 3-30.
94. Sabatier, P. A. (Ed.). (1999a). Theories of the policy process. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
95. Sabatier, P. A. (1999b). The need for better theories. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 3-17). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
96. Sabatier, P. A. (Ed.). (2007). Theories of the policy process (2nd ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
97. Sabatier, P. A., and Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (1999). The advocacy coalition framework: An assessment. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 117-166). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
98. Samuels, B., and Glantz, S. A. (1991). The politics of local tobacco control. Journal of the American Medical Association, 266(15), 2110-2117.
99. Savage, R. L. (1985). Diffusion research traditions and the spread of policy innovations in a federal system. Publius, 15, 1-27.
100. Simon, H. A. (1997). Administrative behavior (4th ed.). New York: Free Press.
101. Sims, C. H., and Miskel, C. G. (2001). The punctuated equilibrium of national reading policy: Literacy’s changing images and venues. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
102. Sims, C. H., and Miskel, C. G. (2003). The punctuated equilibrium of national reading policy: Literacy’s changing images and venues. In W. Hoy and C. G. Miskel (Eds.), Studies in leading and organizing schools (pp. 1-26). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
103. Soule, S., and Earl, J. (2001). The enactment of state-level hate crime law in the United States: Intrastate and interstate factors. Sociological Perspectives, 44(3), 281-305.
104. Stout, K., and Stevens, B. (2000). The case of the failed diversity rule: A Multiple Streams analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22(4), 341-355.
105. True, J. L., Jones, B. D., and Baumgartner, F. R. (1999). Punctuated-equilibrium theory. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the Policy Process (pp. 97-115). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
106. Van Der Slik, J. (1999). Beyond incrementalism: changing higher education governance in Illinois. Paper presented at the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.
107. Walker, J. L. (1969). The diffusion of innovations among the American states. American Political Science Review, 67, 1174-1185.
108. Zahariadis, N. (1999). Ambiguity, time, and multiple streams. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 73-93). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
109. Zahariadis, N., and Allen, C.S. (1995). Ideas, networks, and policy streams: Privatization in Britain and Germany. Policy Studies Review, 14(1), 71-88.
110. Zumeta, W. (2001). Public policy and higher education accountability: Lessons from the past for the new millennium. In D. Heller (Ed.), Access, affordability, and accountability (pp. 155-197). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.