Interest Groups and the Changing Environment of State Educational Policymaking: Developments in Pennsylvania

Abstract

To explore the consequences for education interest groups of Reagan's "New Federalism, "the "excellence"movement prompted by A Nation At Risk, and the increased role of governors and legislators in educational policy, 33 key policy participants in Pennsylvania were interviewed. They were asked about changes since 1980 in lobbying activities and tactics, in points of access to policymaking, and about which groups now seemed most influential. The study revealed major changes in the state educational policy environment. When a strong governor seized the initiative and placed the education interest groups in a reactive position, they responded by reducing their infighting and formed a large coalition to present a unified position on school funding.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Emery, F. E. , & Trist, E. L. (1965). The causal texture of organizational environments. Human Relations, 18, 21-32.

Fuhrman, S. (1981). Introduction. In S. Fuhrman & A. Rosenthal (Eds.), Shaping education policy in the states. Washington, DC: Institute for Educational Leadership.

Groups seek more school subsidies (1987, January 13). Centre Daily Times, State College, PA.

Guinther, J. (1984). Getting it together in Harrisburg. Philadelphia Magazine, 75 (2), 151-159.

lannaccone, L. (1967). Politics in education. New York: Center for Applied Research in Education.

Karper, J. H. (1987). Interest groups and educational policy-making in Pennsylvania: Developments in the 1980s. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.

Katz, E. (1981). Pennsylvania. In S. Fuhrman & A. Rosenthal (Eds.), Shaping educational policy in the states (pp. 17-37). Washington, DC: Institute for Educational Leadership.

Kirst, M. W. , & Meister, G. (1983). The role of issue networks in state agenda-setting (Project Report No. 83-Al). National Institute of Education.

Kirst, M. W. , & Somers, S. A. (1981). California education interest groups: Collective action as a logical response to Proposition 13. Education and Urban Society, 13(2), 235-256.

10.

Kuriloff, P. J. (1985). The distributive and educational consequences of Chapter 2 block grants in Pennsylvania. Economics of Education Review, 4(3), 197-214.

11.

Marshall, C. (no date). Case study: Pennsylvania. Unpublished paper. Peabody College, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.

12.

McGivney, J. H. (1984). State educational governance patterns. Educational Administration Quarterly, 20(2), 43-63.

13.

Olson, M., Jr. (1965). The logic of collective action. New York: Schocken.

14.

Riker, W. H. (1962). The theory of political coalitions. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

15.

Terreberry, S. (1968). The evolution of organizational environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12, 590-613.