The College of William and Mary Educational Policy, Planning, and Leadership Course Syllabus EPPL 601: Educational Policy: Development and Analysis Fall, 2012 Monday, 7:15-9:45 pm School of Education, Room 2060

EPPL

http://www.doe.virginia.gov/news/news_releases/2011/feb23.shtml 601 Educational Policy: Development and Analysis

Instructor: Pamela Eddy Office: Office 3082 blackboard.wm.edu

3 cr.

Campus Telephone: 757.221.2349 E-mail: [email protected]

Office Hours: By appointment Course Description: This course provides the opportunity for students to have a clear understanding of how policy works in education, how to analyze and formulate educational policies, and who the key interest groups and players are in the making of policy. Relationship of This Course to Program and Professional Standards: This course is a required core course for graduate students working toward the doctoral degree in Educational Planning, Policy, and Leadership. It is related to NCATE standards Area IV, Educational Language, Public Policy, and Political Systems, and Political and Community Leadership A #1-4, B#3-7. Course Purposes: This course involves an overview of the process by which education policy is formed, implemented, evaluated, and changed. It will equip students with basic knowledge to enter and participate in policy formation, explore how political systems respond to needs and initiatives, and generate ideas about how to evaluate policy implementation and provide useful feedback to policy makers. Course Objectives: Upon completion of the course, students will be able to: 1. Understand the social, cultural, and political forces shaping the evolution of contemporary education programs and institutions. 2. Show knowledge of important reports on education and to compare premises and conclusions for their policy implications. 3. Demonstrate an understanding of who decides and how decisions are affected by multiple forces in a pluralistic democracy. EPPL 601--1

4. Understand alternative approaches (methodological and conceptual) to policy-oriented inquiry. 5. Describe the basic functions of government and the roles of federal, state, and local agencies in education policy. 6. Compare and contrast alternative conceptualizations of educational policy making. 7. Explain the direct and indirect ways in which government action affects the operation of schools and school systems. (And to show the intended and unintended outcomes of policies.) 8. Describe and analyze networks of policy leaders and the roles their organizations play in the transmission, interpretation, and evaluation of state-level policy experiments. 9. Explain the limits on governmental power and the protections afforded individuals in pursuit of their constitutional and statutory rights. 10. Analyze cases of policy making in a dynamic system and understand that problems, solutions, and the system itself are loosely coupled in time and space. 11. Explain how symbols, language, information, and media relate to the distribution of power and allocation of results in the political arena. 12. Understand the political complexities of policy implementation. ---------------------Course activities: The following course activities will be employed: Lecture Assigned and recommended readings Discussion Assigned projects related to policy and policy research. Texts: Fowler, F. (2012). Policy studies for educational leaders: An introduction (4th Ed.). Boston: Prentice Hall. (W & M Bookstore) K-12 recommended: Manna, P. (2010). Collision course: Federal education policy meets state and local realities. Washington, DC: CQ Press (W & M Bookstore) EPPL 601--2

Higher Education recommended: Shaw, K. M., & Heller, D. E. (Eds.) (2007). State postsecondary education research: New methods to inform policy and practice. (W & M Bookstore) Course outline: Given the assignments of this course, the student will demonstrate, in discussion, oral and written presentations, and product development, knowledge and comprehension of each of the following topics as well as the ability to apply that knowledge to analysis of educational programs and practices. Date September 3-1

Topic: Introductions Review of the syllabus Creation of groups Review of perceptions of policy

September 10-2

Topic: Democratic foundations of American education Read: Fowler: Chapter 12 and Chapter 3 Shelly: Flexible Response Sunderman & Kim: The Expansion of Federal Power (Optional) Burns et al.: American Federalism

Goal: To understand the social, cultural, and political forces shaping the evolution of contemporary education programs and institutions. September 17-3

Topic: Framework for analyzing the policy process Read: Fowler: Chapter 1 Bragg: Examining Pathways Culver: The Virginia Example Weick: Educational Organizations as Loosely Coupled Systems Birnbaum: How Colleges Work

Goal: To appreciate alternative perspectives in understanding educational policy making. September 24-4

Topic: The language and symbols of policy Read: Fowler: Chapter 6 Smircrich & Morgan: Leadership: The Management of Meaning Tan: Variation Theory EPPL 601--3

Brookings Institute (West, Whitehurst, & Dionne): Invisible: 1.4 Percent Coverage for Education is Not Enough Due: Journal Checkpoint #1 Goal: To understand how language, information, and media relate to the distribution of power and allocation of results in the political arena.

October 1-5

Topic: Governmental structure and the development of education policy Read: Fowler: Chapter 8 Maassen & Stensaker: The knowledge triangle Griffiths et al.: Policy ‘partnerships’ Hearn et al.: Accounting for student success Virginia Administrative Code: http://leg1.state.va.us/cgibin/legp504.exe?000+reg+8VAC20 William & Mary BOV: http://www.wm.edu/about/administration/bov/?&=&svr=web SCHEV: http://www.schev.edu/SCHEV/HigherEducationSysOvervie w.asp? Due:

Policy Paper

Goal: To describe the basic functions of government and the roles of local, state, and federal agencies in education policy.

October 8-6

Topic: Competing desires—equity, quality, efficiency Read: Fowler: Chapters 2 and 5 Strike: Centralized Goal Formation http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v5n11.html Timmers, Willemsen & Tijdens: Gender diversity policies in universities: A multi-perspective framework of policy measures

Goal: To explain the direct and indirect ways in which government action affects the operation of schools and the school systems. (And to show the intended and unintended outcomes of policies.) October 15-7

Mid-Term Break EPPL 601--4

October 22-8

NO CLASS Due: Team Research Critique-Part A

October 28

TRIP to Washington DC

October 29-9

Topic: Government and public policy in a democratic state. Read: Fowler: Chapter 4 DeBray & Houch: A Narrow Path Leslie & Berdahl: The Politics of Restructuring in VA Baker and Friedman-Nimz: State Policies and Equal Opportunity: The Example of Gifted Education

Goal: To understand who decides and forces affecting outcomes in a pluralistic democracy. Due: Journal Checkpoint #2 November 5-10

Topic: Policy “levers” and the control of education. Read: Fowler: Chapter 9 and 11 Walker: The Politics of school-based management http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n33.html Pechar & Anders: Higher Education Policies… McLendon et al.: Called to Account

Goal: To describe and analyze networks of policy leaders and the roles their organizations play in the transmission, interpretation, and evaluation of state-level policy experiments. November 12-11

Topic: Interest groups and “players” in policy development: Agenda Setting Read: Fowler: Chapter 7 Baumgartner & Leech: Interest Niches & Policy Bandwagons Nownes & Freeman: Interest Group Activity in the States Tanberg: Interest groups and government institutions

Goal: To analyze cases of policy making in a dynamic system and understand that problems, solutions, and the system itself are loosely coupled in time and space. Due: Team Research Critique-Part B November 19-12

Topic: Constraints on educational policy/Contemporary issues in educational policy Read: Morgan: Power EPPL 601--5

Davies: Setting a Public Agenda for Higher Ed Kober & Rentner: Year 2—Common Core Standards

Goal: To show knowledge of important reports on education and to compare premises and conclusions for their policy implications. DUE: Advocacy

November 26-13

Topic: Implementation Read: Fowler: Chapter 10 Chrispeels: Educational Policy Implementation Sunderman: The unraveling of NCLB Domina: What works in college outreach Due: Journal Checkpoint #3

Goal: Understand the political complexities of policy implementation. December 3-14

Topic: International Context for Policy Read: Bologna Report—Implementation Report Spring: Research on Globalization and Education Grek: What PISA Knows Tubbeh & Williams: Framing Issues of International Education

Goal: Explain the limits on governmental power and the protections afforded individuals in pursuit of their constitutional and statutory rights. December 10-15

Topic: Policy-related inquiry Review of Policy Briefs in Teams; Course Evaluation/Reflection

Sample Comp question—group project. Due: Individual Policy Brief—Part C Goal: To understand alternative approaches (methodological and conceptual) to policyoriented inquiry. December 17-16

NO CLASS MEETING

Due: Metareflection paper EPPL 601--6

Assignments:

1. Policy Paper- The System (15%): Select either the Common Core Standards or the Higher Education Act 2011. Analyze these initiatives/policies using context and meaning making as your orientation. Assume that the educational system is loosely coupled. Reflect on the following questions: 1) How might these policies have been formulated differently in a tightly coupled system? 2) How do symbols, language, and the media roles influence the ways in which these policies are understood by the public? (4 pp. max.) DUE: October 1

2. Policy Reflections-Reflective Journal (35%): Reflective writing provides a means to think about what you are learning and creates a forum in which to process new information to incorporate into your practice. This semester you will keep an ongoing reflective journal. The format of this can be in hardcopy or electronic based on your preference. Several components comprise this activity: A. Reading Questions: One section of your journal should contain a reading summary and reflection. Use a two-column format in which column A contains a brief summary of the reading (key points, take away facts) and column B contains your reaction to the article (e.g., reflect on how you will find use with knowing this material, what questions you might have, how this links to other course material). React to at least one reading per class—preferably include all readings. B. Class Reflection: One section of your journal should be devoted to a reflection of the class meetings and discussion. This section of the journal does not have to have a particular structure. You may write a short paragraph, set up a list that addresses the key learning points for you, create a concept map to summarize connections, etc. C. Book Reflection: You will pick either one of the recommended books for the term or another policy related book (make sure to let me know what book you are choosing so we can determine if this is an appropriate option). After reading the book, provide a critique and review of the book relative to the other readings and frameworks you have been presented this term. Did the frameworks used in the book reflect what you have learned this term? Did the author(s) provide a critical review of the topic or did they bring particular assumptions to the material? This book reflection should be approximately 3 pages long and may be turned in at any of the journal reflection points. C. Metareflection: Thinking about your thinking is termed metacognition; reflecting on your reflections is metareflection. Transformational learning occurs when we think about the assumptions we bring to situations and involves critical reflection. At the end of the semester, you will create a final reflection that is a reflection of the reflections you have created during the term. This paper should be 3-5 pages long. Possible questions to consider in creating this final reflection might be: What assumptions did you have initial about policy? How have these changed over the course? What did you learn? How does this class make you think differently about educational leadership? What actions will you take now given what you have learned? EPPL 601--7

DUE: Check points for journal: September 24th; October 29th; November 26th Metareflection paper: December 17th

3. INDIVIDUAL Advocacy (15%): Policy formation, implementation, and evaluation are critical components for educational leaders. You have gained knowledge on the role of policy regarding accountability. Your advocacy actions may take a variety of formats (e.g., a letter to the editor regarding state or local policy; a letter to a state or federal representative; a workshop for parents/community members to educate on their rights and options; a professional development session or brownbag to inform other educators on their important role in the policy process, etc.). The format of this option dictates what you will hand in—a copy of the letter/response and your reflection on both; a copy of the agenda and participant evaluation for the workshop, etc. and a reflection of the process You may opt to align your advocacy with the session we will have in Washington DC and engage with a policy topic that emerges during the visit or you may present a formal proposal to the speaker during our visit and provide a reflection on the outcome. Due: November 19th

4. Policy Brief (35%). As Fowler (2013) points out, a number of stages are involved in creating public policy. One way in which policy makers become aware of issues and understand particular viewpoints is through reading policy briefs. Likewise, policy makers write policy briefs to help educate the public and stakeholders about key elements of policy and to aid in implementation. Synthesizing and critiquing information becomes a critical component in the policy process. This project consists to a variety of stages as outlined below: 4A. TEAM (10%): Six (6) teams will be created for this project. Each team will have be assigned to a Policy Group on Mendeley. More information on how to set up a Mendeley account is available on the Blackboard site. Each group has three current research articles in their Mendeley folder. The first part of the project involves a joint critique of the research article. This critique should contain the following points: a. Highlighting of the article of key points b. Comments inserted by each team member that critique the article c. An overall group summary of the main points of the article, tie ins with policy development, and veracity of the authors’ arguments. Due: Posted in your group—Monday, October 22th 4B. TEAM contributions (10%): Each team will have an overarching policy focus. Possible topics might include: Workforce/Career Development; Developmental Education; College/Career Readiness; Achievement Gap; Financial Aid; Low-Income Student high school/college persistence; Increasing graduates for STEM careers, Partnerships, etc. Each team member will post two new articles to their Mendeley Group. Their posting must include highlighting/commentary. Team members must read other group contributions and provide a two paragraph summary on the connections/contradictions between the the EPPL 601--8

cumulative posted articles. This summary should be posted to the group’s discussion board on Blackboard. Due: November 12th 4C. Individual. (15%): Each person must write a 4-5 page policy brief on the group’s chosen topic. The policy briefs will be posted to the team’s Bb group. During the final class meeting, teams will meet together to discuss similarities/differences in their briefs and point out the most effective arguments, anticipated reactions by policy makers and the public, and discuss learning outcomes from the project. Due: December 10th Evaluation: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Policy Reflection #1 Policy Reflective Journal Advocacy Policy Brief: a. Article Critique b. Group Articles c. Individual Brief Total:

15% 35% 15% 10% 10% 15% 100%

A = Excellent work: well-conceived, logically developed, thoroughly documented, clearly written. Fully meets the Goal of the assignment. B = Competent work: Needs further development on one or more of the above dimensions. Generally meets the Goal of the assignment. C = Flawed work: One or more serious problems are noted; work is generally not acceptable at the graduate level. Expectations: Students will be expected to prepare written assignments with care. Written work should reflect both a professional level of understanding and attention to clear and logical presentation. Questions posed in the assignment must be answered clearly and concisely. Course assignments are due at the by midnight on the due date. Late work will not be accepted except under extenuating circumstances or with prior approval of the instructor. Do not wait until the last minute to submit your paper as technical problems are not an acceptable excuse. Late work will receive an automatic deduction of 10%.

ACADEMIC HONESTY: William and Mary is a community of trust in which the conduct of its members is assumed to be honorable. Your course work must be a product of your own efforts and must align with professional ethics. Plagiarism, cheating, and other forms of dishonest behavior is prohibited. Be attentive to plagiarism since careless presentation of others’ ideas without proper citation still constitutes plagiarism and will be EPPL 601--9

sanctioned through the honor code. Students are reminded to review terms of the Honor Code at: http://web.wm.edu/so/honor-council/honorcode.htm

Accommodation: The instructor will accommodate students with disabilities. Please inform me of any limitations and discuss necessary accommodations.

Civility Statement: Each William and Mary student is encouraged to help create an environment during class that promotes learning, dignity, and mutual respect for everyone. Students who speak at inappropriate times, sleep in class, display inattention, take frequent breaks, interrupt the class by coming to class late, engage in loud or distracting behaviors, use cell phones or pagers in class, use inappropriate language, are verbally abusive, display defiance or disrespect to others, or behave aggressively toward others could be asked to leave the class and subjected to disciplinary action under the Code of Student Rights, Responsibilities and disciplinary Procedures.

Cell Phones, Laptops, and Other Electronic Devices: If you bring a cell phone or other electronic device to class, please assure that is it either off or on silent mode and out of sight. In the very unusual event that you must take a call during class, please sit near the door and leave the room quietly. Laptops can provide a good learning tool when used appropriately. Please refrain from personal use during class such as checking e-mail, chatting, surfing, or playing games. There will be times in class discussion that a “technology free” time will be imposed. There will also be opportunities for laptop use for individual and group activities. I expect prudent use of technology in class.

Class Expectations: You are responsible for completing the required readings in advance of the designated class session. Come to class prepared to engage in critical analysis and critique of the reading materials. Your contributions add to the learning experiences of others, please take this responsibility seriously.

Written Assignments: All written assignments must be submitted electronically via the Blackboard site or via e-mail to me ([email protected]). Paper format should be double-spaced with one-inch margins. References should be scholarly and cited in appropriate APA format. Please note you should be using the 6th edition of the APA Manual. References for APA style are available on the class website.

EPPL 601--10

Bibliography Adelman, C. (1987). War and peace among the words: Rhetoric, style, and propaganda in response to national reports. Journal of Higher Education, 58, 371-403. Baker, B. D., & Freidman-Nimz, R. (2004). State policies and equal opportunity: The example of gifted education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26(1), 39-64. DOI: 10.3102/01623737026001039 Bathon, J. M., & McCarthy, M. M. (2008). Student expression: The uncertain future. Educational Horizons, 86(2), 75-84. Baumgartner, F. R., & Leech, B. L. (2001). Interest niches and policy bandwagons: Patterns of interest group involvement in national politics. The Journal of Politics, 63(4), 1191-1213. Beigel, S. (1995). School choice policy and Title VI: Maximizing equal access for K-12 students in a substantially deregulated educational environment. Hastings Law Journal, 1533. Birnbaum, R. (1988). How colleges work: The cybernetics of academic organization and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bragg, D. (2011). Examining pathways to and through community colleges for youth and adults. In L. Hagedorn (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 355-393). New York: Springer. Breneman, D. W., & Kneedler, H. L. (2005). Negotiating a new relationship with the state: The Virginia experience. New York: The TIAA-CREF Institute. http://www.tiaacrefinstitute.org/research/articles/docs/030106_05_Breneman.pdf#s earch=%22lane%20kneedler%20david%20breneman%22 Burke, J. C., & Modarresi, S. (1999). Performance funding and budgeting: The third survey. Albany, NY: Rockefeller Institute of Government, State University of New York. Burbridge, L. C. (2002). The impact of political variables on state education policy: An exploration. Journal of Education Finance. 28(2), 235-259. Burns, J. M., Peltason, J. W., Cronin, T. E., & Magleby, D. B. (1997). American federalism. In L. F. Goopdchild, C. D. Lovell, E. R. Hines, & J. I. Gill (Eds.), Pubic policy and higher education (pp. 46-73). Needham Heights, MA: Pearson Press. Chatterji, M. (2002). Models and methods for examining standards-based reforms and accountability initiatives: Have the tools of inquiry answered pressing questions on improving schools? Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 345-386.

EPPL 601--11

Chrispeels, J. H. (1997). Educational policy implementation in a shifting political climate: The California experience. American Educational Research Journal, 34(3), 453-481.

Christal, M. (1997). State tuition and fee policies, 1996-97. Denver, CO: State Higher Education Executive Officers. Clune, W. H. (1993). The best path to systemic educational policy: Standard/centralized or differentiated/decentralized. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(3), 233 - 254. Coburn, C. (2005). The role of nonsystem actors in the relationship between policy and practice: The case of reading instruction in California. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27(1), 23 – 49. Colburn, C. B., & Horowitz, J. B. (2003). Local politics and the demand for public education. Urban Studies, 40(4), 797-807. Couturier, L. K. (2006). Checks and balances at work: The restructuring of Virginia’s public education system. San Jose, CA: National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. Cremin, L. (1988). American education: The metropolitan experience, 1876 – 1980. New York: Harper & Row. Culver, S. (2010). Educational quality, outcomes assessment, and policy change: The Virginia example. International Education, 40(1), 6-20. Davies, G. K. (2006). Setting a public agenda for higher education in the states: Lessons learned from the national collaborative for higher education policy. Denver, CO: The Education Commission of the States. DeBray, E., & Houck, E. A. (2011). A narrow path through the broad middle: Mapping institutional considerations for ESEA reauthorization. Peabody Journal of Education, 86(3), 319-337. Domina, T. (2009). What works in college outreach: Assessing targeted and schoolwide interventions for disadvantaged students. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(2), 127-152. DOI: 10.3102/0162373709333887 Epper, R. M. (1999). State policies for distance education: A survey of the states. Denver, CO: State Higher Education Executive Officers. Firestone, W. A., & Nagle, B. Differential regulation: Clever customization or unequal interference? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 17(1), 97 - 112.

EPPL 601--12

Grek, S. (2012). What PISA knows and can do: Studying the role of national actors in the making of PISA. European Educational Research Journal, 11(2), 243-254. Griffiths, J., Vidovich, L., & Chapman, A. (2009). Policy ‘partnerships? Power dynamics in curriculum reform. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 41(2), 193-208. Hearn, J. C., McLendon, M. K., & Mokher, C. G. (2008). Accounting for student success: An empirical analysis of the origins and spread of state student unit-record systems. Research in Higher Education, 49, 665-683. DOI 10.1007/s11162-008-9101-z Hrebenar, R. J., & Scott, R. V. (1990). Interest group politics in America. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Herbst, J. (1996). The once and future school: Three hundred and fifty years of American secondary education. New York: Routledge. Hess, F. M. (2008). Making sense of the P-16 push. Phi Delta Kappan, 89(7), 511-514. Honig, M. L. (2004). The new middle management: Intermediary organizations in educational policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26( 1), 65 – 87. Howlett, M., & Ramesh, M. (2003). Studying public policy: Policy cycles and policy subsystems. New York: Open University Press. Hunt, S. L., & Staton, A. Q. (1996). The communication of educational reform: A Nation at Risk. Communication Education, 45(4), 271 – 292. King, F. K. (2000). The changing face of accountability: Monitoring and assessing institutional performance in higher education. The Journal of Higher Education, 71(4), 411-431. Lavertu, S., & Witte, J. (2009). The impact of Milwaukee charter schools on student achievement. Brookings Institute Issues in Governance Studies, No. 23. Layzell, D. T., & Lyddon, J. W. (1990). Budgeting for higher education at the state level: Enigma, paradox, and ritual. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports, #4. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Leslie, D. W., & Berdahl, R. O. (2008). The politics of restructuring higher education in Virginia: A case study. The Review of Higher Education, 31(3), 309-328. Leslie, D. W., & Routh, D. K. (1991). A critical analysis of the cultural and linguistic distinctions between policymakers and researchers: A case study of policy development in Florida. Educational Policy, 5, 279-295. EPPL 601--13

MacTaggart, T. J., & Associates. (1996). Restructuring higher education: What works and what doesn't in reorganizing governing systems. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. MacTaggart, T. J., & Associates. (1998). Seeking excellence through independence: liberating colleges and universities from excessive regulation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Majchrzuk, A. (1984). Methods for Policy Research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Manna, P. (2006). School’s in: Federalism and the national education agenda. Washington: Georgetown University Press. Maassen, P., & Stensaker, B. (2010). The knowledge triangle: European higher education policy logics and policy implications. Retrieved August 20, 2010, Higher Education, DOI 10.1007/s10734-010-9360-4. McBain, L. (2008). Balancing student privacy, campus security, and public safety: Issues for campus leaders. Perspectives: American Association of State Colleges and Universities. McDermott, K. A. (2003). What causes variation in states' accountability policies? Peabody Journal of Education, 78(4), 153-176. McLendon, M. K. (2003). 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. XVIII. New York: Agathon Press. McLendon, M. K., Hearn, J. C., & 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. Morgan, G. (1997). Images of organizations (2nd Ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Nownes, A. J., & Freeman, P. (1998). Interest group activity in the states. The Journal of Politics, 60(1), 86-112. Okoroma, N. S. (2006). Educational policies and problems of implementation in Nigeria. American Journal of Adult Learning, 46(2), 243-263. Pechar, H., & Andres, L. (2011). Higher education policies and welfare regimes: International comparative perspectives. Higher Education Policy, 24(1), 25-52. Richard, A. (2006). Executive agendas. Education Week, 25(28), S1-S4.

EPPL 601--14

Richardson, R. C., Bracco, K. R., Callan, P.M., & Finney, J. E. (1999). Designing state higher education systems for a new century. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press. Rosenzweig, R. M. (2001). The political university: Policy, politics, and presidential leadership in the American Research University. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Rudolph, F. (1962). The American college and university: A History. New York: Vintage. Schwartz, R. B., & Robinson, M. A. (2000). Goals 2000 and the standards movement. In D. Ravitch (Ed.). Brookings papers on education policy: 2000. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. http://brookings.nap.edu/books/0815773579/html/173.html#pagetop Shelly, B. (2012). Flexible spending: Executive federalism and the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Educational Policy, 26(1), 117-135. DOI: 10.1177/0895904811425912 Smircrich, L., & Morgan, G. (1982). Leadership: The management of meaning. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 18(3), 157-273. Spring, J. (2005). Conflict of interests: The politics of American education (5th ed.). NY: McGraw-Hill, 2005. Spring, J. (2008). Research on globalization and education. Review of Educational Research, 78(2), 330-363. Stringfield, S. C., & Yakimowski-Srebnick, M. E. (2005). Promise, progress, problems, and paradoxes of three phases of accountability: A longitudinal case study of the Baltimore city public schools. American Educational Research Journal, 42(1), 4375. Strike, K. A. (1997). Centralized goal formation and systemic reform: Reflections on liberty, localism and pluralism. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11(5). Sunderman, G. L. (2006). The unraveling of No Child Left Behind: How negotiated changes transform the law. Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University. Sunderman, G. L., & Kim, J. S. (2007). The expansion of federal power and the politics of implementing the No Child Left Behind Act. Teachers College Record, 109(5), 1057-1085. Swanson, C. B., & Barlage, J. (2006). Influence: A study of factors shaping educational policy. Editorial Projects in Education Research Center. http://www.edweek.org/media/influence_study.pdf

EPPL 601--15

Tan, K. (2009). Variation theory and the different ways of experiencing educational policy. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 8, 95-109. DOI 10.1007/s10671008-9060-3. Tanberg, D. (2010). Interest groups and governmental institutions: The politics of state funding of public higher education. Educational Policy, 24(5), 735-778. Terkildsen, N., Schnell, F. I., & Ling, C. (1998). Interest groups, the media, and policy debate formation: An analysis of message structure, rhetoric, and source cues. Political Communication, 15(1), 45-61. Timmers, T. M., Willemsen, T. M., & Tijdens, K. G. (2010). Gender diversity policies in universities: A multi-perspective framework of policy measures. Higher Education, 59, 719-735. DOI 10.1007/s10734-009-9276-z. Tubbeh, L., & Williams, J. (2010). Framing issues of international education. In P. L. Eddy (Ed.), In P. L. Eddy (Ed.), International collaborations: Opportunities, challenges, strategies. New Directions for Higher Education (pp.7-16). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Urban, W. J.,& Wagoner, J. L., Jr. (1996). American education: A history. New York: McGraw-Hill. Veysey, L. (1965). The emergence of the American university. Chicago: University of Chicago Pres. Virginia’s P-16 Education Council. (2007). Report to the Governor and general assembly. Richmond, VA: Virginia Department of Education. Walker, E. M. (2002). The politics of school-based management: Understanding the process of developing authority in urban school districts. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(33). http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n33.html Weick, K. E. (2000). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. In M. C. Brown, II (Ed.), Organization & Governance in Higher Education (5th Ed.) (pp. 3649). Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing. Welsh, P. J., & Frost, D. (2000). Understanding the reorganization of secondary schooling: A political games approach. Journal of Education Policy, 15(2), 217-235. West, D. M., Whiteshurst, G. J., & Dionne, E. J. (2009). Invisible: 1.4 percent coverage for education is not enough. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute. Wildavsky, A. (1979). Speaking truth to power: The art and craft of policy analysis. Boston: Little, Brown.

EPPL 601--16

Wirt, F., & Kirst, M. (1997). The political dynamics of American education. Berkeley, CA : McCutchan Pub. Corp. Witte, J. F., Shober, A. F., Schlomer, P. A., & Engle, P. J. (2004). The political economy of school choice. La Follette School of Public Affairs Working Paper Series. No. 2004-002. Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin-Madison. Young, M. D. (1999). Multifocal educational policy research: Toward a method for enhancing traditional educational policy studies. American Educational Research Journal, 36(4), 677 – 714.

EPPL 601--17