Legislative Decision Making on Education Issues: A Qualitative Study

Introduction The United States Constitution contains no specific reference to education. Therefore, the power and responsibility for establishing and maintaining an educational system rests with each state. Campbell, Cunningham, Nystrand, and Usdan (1990) write, "The dismay with which many state legislatures view the school bills of each legislative session is, in a sense, inevitable: the basic decisions regarding education cannot be made anywhere else" (p. 85). In the last 25 years school policy-making has dominated state legislative agendas. McDonnell (1988) points out: One of the most striking characteristics of state educational policy over the last three or four years has been the extent to which its substantive direction has been shaped by governors and legislators, rather than by education specialists such as chief state school officers. Those in general government who traditionally focused almost solely on the allocation of fiscal resources to schools are now enacting policies that directly affect the substance of education - what is taught and who teaches it. (p. 92) The extent of legislative involvement in public school matters suggested by McDonnell is confirmed by Marshall, Mitchell, and Wirt (1989) in a cross-state comparative study of education policy-making in Wisconsin, Illinois, California, Arizona, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania. In another study Griffin (1994) reported that legislators who responded to the National Council of State Legislator's (NCSL) Annual Survey prioritized the formation of education policy second behind health care. Also, in the 1990s many state Governors became more active participants in state education policy regimes (Gittell & McKenna, 1999). Epstein (2004) further adds, "There is no doubt, for example, that the dominant trend has been to centralize power over education in state and federal hands" (p. 3). The belief and practice of early twentieth century reformers, educators, and political scientists that politics and education should remain separate slowed the development of research in state education policy-making. Many factors contributed to the merger of education and political research: (a) the behavioral era in political science; (b) the heightened role of education and policies; (c) the 1950s school desegregation movement; (d) the ascent of Sputnik in 1957; (e) the establishment of collective bargaining; (f) increased inquiry of public school productivity by taxpayers; and (g) the continuing development of a competitive two-party political system (Mitchell, 1989). Studies in state education policy-making first appeared during the early 1960s. Although they lacked consistent theories, frameworks and methodologies, these research endeavors reinforced the need for political awareness by educators. They also established a foundation upon which future state education policy-making research would expand. Increased state legislative activity in public school matters during the early 1970s led researchers to seek other theoretical models. Most studies of education policy-making in state legislatures fall into one of three types: (a) institutional, (b) process, and (c) behavioral. Institutional studies focus upon specific rules and procedures assumed to direct and control legislative actions. The process model is used to analyze how inputs or pressures are converted into outputs or policy outcomes. Due to the descriptive nature of the process model, many investigations enlist case study research designs. In the behavioral model, legislators become the focus of analysis: Who they are, how they function, and why they make certain decisions are questions behavioral researchers ask about lawmakers. Researchers have examined legislators' role orientations, policy attitudes, and decision-making patterns to address these questions. Mitchell (1981) described the three theories of influence, constraint, and role orientation to explore decision-making. …