Recent involvement in teacher education policy around a proposed stand-alone phonics course in Mississippi revealed important guidelines for researchers aiming to influence policy, including (a) build relationships with policy makers; (b) help to define problems by framing issues and proactively put forth solutions rather than waiting to respond to proposals; (c) avoid dichotomization, but instead work to build common ground; and (d) use a strategy of small wins to achieve small successes, thereby learning to negotiate the policy environment.
References
1.
AllingtonR. L. (1999). Crafting state educational policy: The slippery role of research and researchers. Journal of Literacy Research, 31, 457–482.
2.
AppleM. (2000). Official knowledge: Democratic education in a conservative age. New York: Routledge.
3.
DillonD. R. (2003). In leaving no child behind have we forsaken individual learners, teachers, schools, and communities? In FairbanksC.WorthyJ.MalochB.HoffmanJ. V.SchallertD. (Eds.), 52nd Yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 1–31). Oak Green, WI: National Reading Conference.
4.
EdmondsonJ. (2005). Asking different questions: Critical analyses and reading research. In ShannonP.EdmondsonJ. (Eds.), Reading education policy (pp. 284–297). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
5.
ElliotE. J. (1996). Literacy: From policy to practice. Journal of Literacy Research, 28, 590–595.
6.
HartG. K. (1996). A policy maker's response. Journal of Literacy Research, 28, 596–601.
7.
HaydenC. (2004, February 12). The reading wars: Teaching phonics topic of national debate. Clarion Ledger, pp. 1A, 10A.
8.
ManzoK. K. (2004, September 8). Select group ushers in reading policy. Education Week, 24(2), 1. Retrieved July 31, 2006. from Academic Search Premier (EBSCO) database.
9.
McGill-FranzenA. M. (1993). Shaping the preschool agenda: Early literacy, public policy, and professional beliefs. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
10.
MosenthalP. B. (1999). Critical issues: Forging conceptual unum in the literacy field of pluribus: An agenda-analytic perspective. Journal of Literacy Research, 31, 213–254.
11.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
12.
RainesS. C. (2005). Educators influencing legislators: Commentary and the Kentucky case. In ShannonP.EdmondsonJ. (Eds.), Reading education policy (pp. 278–280). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
13.
ReinkingD. (2004). Why literacy researchers have little influence on policy and what to do about it: A commentary. In FairbanksC.WorthyJ.MalochB.HoffmanJ. V.SchallertD. (Eds.), 53rd Yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 296–307). Oak Creek, WI: National Reading Conference.
14.
RollerC. M.LongR. M. (2001). Sounding like more than background noise to policy makers: Qualitative researchers in the policy arena. Journal of Literacy Research, 33, 707–725.
15.
ShannonP.EdmondsonJ. (2005). Critical policy action. In ShannonP.EdmondsonJ. (Eds.), Reading education policy (pp. 281–283). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
16.
WeickK. (1984). Small wins: Redefining the scale of social problems. American Psychologist, 39(1), 40–49.
