The state-level services arena for the young child has been subjected to little systematic study, especially that focused on early childhood policy people themselves. Using analysis from state kindergarten through twelfth grade educational policymaking, the present effort focuses on the interaction patterns among key policy groups in three states: Michigan, California, and New York. Respondents include people within state agencies, nonagency governmental people, and early childhood specialists. The findings suggest that agency and interest groups are cooptative and that proprietary child care providers are the most active participants in policymaking.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Leon Keyserling , “Making Politics Work for Children,”Child Welfare, 53:483-492 (Oct. 1974).
2.
Sheila Kamerman and Alfred Kahn, “The Day-Care Debate: A Wider View,”Public Interest, 54:79-93 (Winter 1979).
3.
3. Gilbert Steiner, The Children's Cause (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1976).
4.
4. William Bridgeland and Edward Duane, “The Politics of Pre-Kindergarten Education: An Inquiry in Three States,”Education and Urban Society, 12:211-226 (Feb. 1980); idem, “Pre-Kindergarten Educational Politics as a Policy Arena in the 1980s,”Child Care Quarterly, 9:149-157 (Fall 1980); idem, “Policymaking Styles in State Early Childhood Education” (unpublished, 1979).
5.
5. See Duane and Bridgeland, “Pre-Kindergarten Educational Politics as a Policy Arena in the 1980s.”
6.
6. Gabriel Almond and James Coleman, The Politics of Developing Areas (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1960), pp. 33-38.
7.
7. Laurence Iannaccone, “State Politics of Education,” in The Politics of Education at the Local, State and Federal Levels, ed. Michael Kirst (Berkeley, CA: McCutchon, 1969), pp. 284-299.
8.
8. See Bridgeland and Duane, “The Politics of Pre-Kindergarten Education” and “Pre-Kindergarten Educational Politics” for a more extensive discussion.
9.
9. Edward Duane and William Bridgeland, “Report to the National Consortium for Families and Children on Federally Funded Child Programs in Michigan” (unpublished); ERIC-ED 171 414, 1980, p. 8.
10.
10. Michael Kirst, “Children's Services in California: A First Look” (unpublished, 1977), p. 21.
11.
11. Walter Garms, “New York State Programs for Children” (unpublished, 1977), p. 4.
12.
12. American Federation of Teachers (AFT)Task Force on Educational Issues, “Putting Early Childhood and Day Care Services into the Public Schools,”Winter1976.
13.
13. Meredith Larson, “Federal Policy for Pre-School Services: Assumptions and Evidence,” Research Memorandum ERPC 2158-24, SRI International, Jun.1979, p. 11.
14.
14. At the national level, the NAEYC has begun attempting to mobilize its members through its Policy Alert news sheet.
15.
See also AFT Task Force on Educational Issues, 1976, pp. 5-6; Advisory Committee on Child Development Assembly of Behavioral and Social Sciences National Research Council, Toward a National Policy for Children and Families (Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences, 1976), p. 68.
16.
16. See Duane and Bridgeland, “Report to the National Consortium” for additional discussion.
