This single case study uses the Advocacy Coalition Framework and Multiple Streams Framework to understand the ways higher education policy actors at the city-, state-, and system-level used information to build coalitions and change admission standards during the remediation debate at the City University of New York. By examining what information was used, when it was presented, by whom, and for what purposes, this study helps improve our understanding of the policymaking process and the role information can play in high-stakes debates with major consequences, including limiting student access to baccalaureate degrees. Implications for policy and future research are discussed.
AlexanderF. K. (2000). The changing face of accountability: Monitoring and assessing institutional performance in higher education. The Journal of Higher Education, 71(4), 411–431.
2.
ArensonK. W. (1999, January6). Hearing brings out city university’s staunchest defenders. New York Times.
3.
ArensonK. W. (2006, August10). CUNY reports fewer blacks at top schools. New York Times, p. B1.
4.
BaumgartnerF. R.JonesB. D. (2015). The politics of information: Problem definition and the course of public policy in America. University of Chicago Press.
5.
BettingerE. P.LongB. T. (2009). Addressing the needs of underprepared students in higher education does college remediation work?The Journal of Human Resources, 44(3), 736–771.
6.
CairneyP. (2016). The politics of evidence-based policy making. Palgrave Pivot.
7.
CalcagnoJ. C.LongB. T. (2008). The impact of postsecondary remediation using a regression discontinuity approach: Addressing endogenous sorting and noncompliance (Working Paper No. 14194). National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), Cambridge, MA.
8.
Duncan-PoitierJ. (2005). Report on the CUNY Master Plan Amendment. In State Education Department (Ed.). The University of the State of New York.
GillB. P. (2000). The governance of the City University of New York: A system at odds with itself. RAND.
11.
HendricksonR. M.LaneJ. E.HarrisJ. T.DormanR. H. (2013). Academic leadership and governance of higher education: A guide for trustees, leaders, and aspiring leaders of two- and four-year institutions. Stylus.
12.
Jenkins-SmithH.NohrstedtD.WeibleC. M.SabatierP. A. (2014). The advocacy coalition framework: Foundations, evolution and ongoing research. In SabatierP. A.WeibleC. M. (Eds.), Theories of the policy process (3rd ed., pp. 183–283). Westview Press.
13.
JepsenC. (2006, April). Basic skills in California’s community colleges: Evidence from staff and self referrals. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Education Research Association (AERA), San Francisco, CA.
14.
JonesB. D.BaumgartnerF. R. (2005). The politics of attention: How government priorities problems. The University of Chicago Press.
15.
JonesD.PaulsonK. (2001). Developing and maintaining the information infrastructure for state level higher education policymakers. National Center for Higher Education Management Systems.
KingdonJ. W. (1995). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.
18.
KingdonJ. W. (2003). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (2nd ed.). Pearson.
19.
LavinD. E. (2000). Policy change and access to 2- and 4-year colleges: The case of the City University of New York. American Behavioral Scientist, 43(7), 1139–1158.
20.
LavinD. E.CrookD. B. (1990). Open admissions and its outcomes: Ethnic differences in long-term educational attainment. American Journal of Education, 98(4), 389–425.
21.
LavinD. E.WeiningerE. (1999). New admissions policy & changing access to CUNY’s senior and community colleges: What are the stakes?Higher Education Committee New York City Council.
22.
LeslieD. W.NovakR. J. (2003). Substance versus politics: Through the dark mirror of governance reform. Educational Policy, 17(1), 98–120.
23.
Mac DonaldH. (1994, Summer). Downward mobility. City Journal.
MartorellP.McFarlinI. (2011). Help or hindrance? The effects of college remediation on academic and labor market outcomes. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 93(2), 436–454.
26.
McLendonM. K.NessE. C. (2003). The politics of state higher education governance reform. Peabody Journal of Education, 78(4), 66–88.
27.
NewmanM. (1994, March14). Failure to replace Trustees weakens CUNY, critics say. New York Times, p. B3.
28.
NienhusserK. H. (2015). Undocumented immigrants and higher education policy: The policymaking environment of New York State. The Review of Higher Education, 38(2), 271–303.
29.
OstromE. (2007). Institutional rational choice: An assessment of the institutional analysis and development framework. In SabatierP. A. (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (2nd ed., pp. 21–64). Westview Press.
30.
ParkerT. L. (2005). Changing the rules for access and equity: The elimination of remedial education. New York University.
31.
ParkerT.Sterk BarrettM.BustillosL. T. (2014). The state of developmental education: Higher education and public policy priorities. Springer.
32.
ParkerT. L.RichardsonR.C. (2006). Ending remediation at CUNY: Implications for access and excellence. Journal of Educational Research and Policy Studies, 5(2), 1–22.
33.
Public Hearing: The Future of the City University of New York. (1998). New York State Assembly 363.
34.
RenfroS.Armour-GarbA. (1999). The history of open admissions and remedial education at the City University of New York. Mayor’s Advisory Task Force on the City University of New York.
35.
SabatierP. A. (1993). Policy change over a decade or more. In SabatierP. A.Jenkins-SmithH. C. (Eds.), Policy change and learning: An advocacy coalition approach (pp. 13–39). Westview Press.
36.
SabatierP. A. (1998). The advocacy coalition framework: Revisions and relevance for Europe. Journal of European Public Policy, 5(1), 98–130.
37.
SabatierP. A. (2003, September4–6). From policy implementation to policy change: A personal odyssey. Paper presented at the Reform and Change in Higher Education: Renewed Expectations and Improved Performance?Porto, Portugal.
38.
SabatierP. A.Jenkins-SmithH. C. (1999). The advocacy coalition framework: An assessment. In SabatierP. A. (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 117–166). Westview Press.
39.
SchmidtB. C.BadilloH.BradyJ. V.MacDonaldH.OhrensteinM.RobertsR. T.SchwartzR. (1999). The City University of New York: An institution adrift (Report of the Mayor’s Task Force on the City University of New York). New York City Mayoral Office.
40.
Scott-ClaytonJ.RodriguezO. (2015). Development, discouragement, or diversion? New evidence on the effects of college remediation (Working Paper No. 18328). National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), Cambridge, MA.
41.
ShakespeareC. (2008). Uncovering information’s role in the state higher education policy-making process. Educational Policy, 22(6), 875–899.
42.
ShapiroD.DundarA.HuieF.WakhunguP. K.YuanX.NathanA.HwangY. (2017). Tracking transfer: Measures of effectiveness in helping community college students to complete bachelor’s degrees (Signature Report No. 13). National Student Clearinghouse.
43.
SimonH. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99–118.
44.
TverskyA.KahnemanD. (1974). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131.
