Purpose: Extant reports on states'policy differences are mostly descriptive and largely ignore the pervasive role of political culture on their educational policy-making processes. This article examines the effect of policy culture on states' policy-making mechanisms. There is evidence that a state's political culture is a significant mediating influence on its educational policy making and leadership practices at the state, district, and local level.
Data Collection and Analysis:We conducted an empirical, comparative case study of educational leadership and policy-making mechanisms in three states—Indiana, Nebraska, and Oregon. Those three states, chosen because of their similarities in size but differences in educational policy histories, were part of a larger leadership study of nine states. Within each state, researchers interviewed between 8 and 11 educational policymakers who represented a diverse array of positions and organizations. The interviews were 1 hr in length, conducted in a semistructured format, and revolved around their states' accountability and school leadership policies, key educational stakeholders, and levels of collaboration among those stakeholders.
Findings: Each state in the study had very different means through which they pursued educational policies. Indiana had centralized decision-making structures that sought to promote leadership and accountability through policies that revolved around equity and efficiency. Oregon had a high level of participation and collaboration at all levels in the state's mostly decentralized but very open educational policy-making process that emphasized quality. Nebraska's policy culture, which was more independent and decentralized than Oregon's, was highly collaborative but had comparatively low levels of support for state-supported leadership and accountability initiatives.Conclusions: Our findings suggest that political culture is a mediating factor for states' responses to increasing demands for leadership and accountability initiatives; it is therefore necessary to account for the impact of each state's unique political culture when planning for and explaining results of these initiatives.
Amrein, A.L., & Berliner, D.C. (2002). High-stakes testing, uncertainty, and student learning. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(18). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n18/
2.
Andrain, C.F. (1984). Capitalism and democracy reappraised: A review essay. The Western Political Quarterly, 37(4), 652-664.
3.
Berezin, M. (1997). Politics and culture: A less fissured terrain . Annual Review of Sociology, 23, 361-383.
4.
Bryk, A.S., & Hermanson, K.L. (1993). Educational indicator systems: Observations on their structure, interpretation, and use. Review of Research in Education, 19, 451-484.
5.
Carnoy, M., & Loeb, S. (2002). Does external accountability affect student outcomes? A cross-state analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(4), 305-331.
6.
Chilton, S. (1988). Defining political culture. The Western Political Quarterly, 41(3), 419-445.
7.
Clune, W.H. (1987). Institutional choice as a theoretical framework for research on educational policy. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(2), 117-132.
8.
Dexter, L.A. (1970). Elite and specialized interviewing. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
9.
Dutro, E., Fisk, M.C., Koch, R., Roop, L.J., & Wixon, K. (2002). When state policies meet local district contexts: Standards-based professional development as a means to individual agency and collective ownership. Teachers College Record, 104(4), 787-811.
10.
Elazar, D.J. (1970). Cities of the prairie. New York: Basic.
11.
Elmore, R.F., & Fuhrman, S. (1995). Opportunity-to-learn standards and the state role in education. Teachers College Record, 96(3), 432-457.
12.
FairTest. (2006, August). Nebraska addresses federal NCLB requirements. Cambridge, MA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.fairtest.org/nebraska-addresses-federal-nclb-requirements
13.
Gordon, M.M. (1981). Models of pluralism: The new american dilemma . Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science , 454(America as a Multicultural Society), 178-188.
14.
Hanushek, E., & Raymond, M. (2004). The effect of school accountability systems on the level and distribution of student achievement. Journal of the European Economic Association, 2(2), 406-441.
15.
Herzik, E.B. (1985). The legal-formal structuring of state politics: A cultural explanation. The Western Political Quarterly, 38(3), 413-423.
16.
Hess. F.M. (1998). Spinning wheels: The politics of urban school reform. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
17.
Jacobs, D.M. (1970). The nineteenth century struggle over segregated education in the boston schools. The Journal of Negro Education , 39(1), 76-85.
18.
Kingdon, J.W. (2003). Agendas, alternatives and public policies. New York: Longman.
19.
Lee, J. (1997). State activism in education reform: Applying the Rasch model to measure trends and examine policy coherence. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(1), 29-43
20.
Leithwood, K., Louis, K.S., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership influences student learning: A review of research for the Learning from Leadership project. New York: Wallace Foundation.
21.
Leithwood, K., & Prestine, N. (2002). Unpacking the challenges of leadership at the school and district level. In J. Murphy (Ed.), Challenges of school leadership (NSSE yearbook) (pp. 42-64). Chicago : University of Chicago Press.
22.
Lieske, J. (1993). Regional subcultures of the United States. The Journal of Politics, 55(4), 888-913.
23.
Louis, K.S. (1998). A light feeling of chaos: Educational reform and policy in the United States. Daedalus, 127(4), 13-40.
24.
Louis, K.S., Febey, K., Gordon, M., Meath, J., & Thomas, E. (2006, June). Educational leadership in the states: A cultural analysis. Minneapolis: Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement, University of Minnesota . Available from http://education.umn.edu/CAREI/Leadership/Reports.html
25.
Malen, B. (2003). Tightening the grip? The impact of state activism on local school systems. Educational Policy, 17(2), 195-216.
26.
March, J.G., & Olsen, J. (1986). Garbage can models of decision making in organizations . In J. March & R. Weissinger-Baylon (Eds.), Ambiguity and command: Organizational perspectives on military decision making (pp. 11-52). Marshfield, MA: McCutcheon.
27.
Marshall, C., Mitchell, D., & Wirt, F. (1986). The context of state-level policy formation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 8(4), 347-378.
28.
Mazzoni, T. (1993). The changing politics of state education policy making: A 20-year Minnesota perspective. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(4), 357-379.
29.
McDonnell, L.M., & Elmore, R.F. (1987). Getting the job done: Alternative policy instruments . Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(2), 133-152.
30.
Mertens, D.M. (1998). Sampling: Definition, selection, and ethics, research methods in education and psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage.
31.
O'Toole, L.J., & Meier, K.J. (2004). Parkinson's law and the new public management? Contracting determinants and service-quality consequences in public education . Public Administration Review, 64(3), 342-352.
32.
Quality counts: A decade of standards-based education: Indiana highlight reports . (2006, January 5). Education Week. Retrieved October 13, 2006, from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2006/01/05/17shr.in.h25.html?state=IN
33.
Reeves, M.M. (1990). The states as polities: Reformed, reinvigorated, resourceful. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 509(American Federalism: The Third Century), 83-93.
34.
Rogers, J.S. (2004). Creating a public accountability for California schools. Teachers College Record, 106(11), 2171-2192.
35.
Rossman, G.B., & Wilson, B.L. (1996). Context, courses, and the curriculum: Local responses to state policy reform. Educational Policy, 10(3), 399-421.
36.
Sacken, D.M., & Medina, M., Jr. (1990). Investigating the context of state-level policy formation: A case study of Arizona's bilingual education legislation . Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(4), 389-402.
37.
Sunderman, G. (2003). Federal-state relationships and the implementation of No Child Left Behind: First impressions. PEA Bulletin, 28(1), 1-13.
38.
Swanson, C.B., & Stevenson, D.L. (2002). Standards-based reform in practice: Evidence on state policy and classroom instruction from the NAEP state assessments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis , 24, 1-27.
39.
Timar, T.B., & Kirp, D.L. (1988). State efforts to reform schools: Treading between a regulatory swamp and an English garden. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 10(2), 75-88.
40.
Whitty, G., & Power, S. (2000). Marketization and privatization in mass education systems. International Journal of Educational Development , 20(2), 93-107.
41.
Wirt, F., Mitchell, D., & Marshall, C. (1988). Culture and education policy: Analyzing values in state policy systems. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 10(4), 271-284.
42.
Wong, K.K. (1989). Fiscal support for education in American states: The "parity-to-dominance" view examined. American Journal of Education, 97(4), 329-357.
43.
Wood, B.D., & Theobald, N.A. (2003). Political responsiveness and equity in public education finance. Journal of Politics , 65(3), 718-738.
44.
Woodside, K. (1986). Policy instruments and the study of public policy . Canadian Journal of Political Science, 19(4), 775-793.
45.
Youngs, P. (2001). District and state policy influences on professional development and school capacity. Educational Policy, 15(2), 278-301.
