This article summarizes a study that focused on the influence of special interest groups on the formulation of educational policy at the state level. A total of forty-six respondents, ranging from legislators to lobbyists, were interviewed in order to trace the behind-the-scenes decision-making process as members of the Texas legislature put together an omnibus bill that included, among its provisions, a change in per pupil funding designed to encourage the inclusion of students with severe and profound disabilities in regular classrooms throughout the state.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BaxtV. P. (1997). Inclusion and the legislature in Texas: A historical case study of the legislative process advancing inclusion in Texas. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Houston. UMI Dissertation Services, 58:2913.
2.
BrantlingerE. (1997). Using Ideology: Cases of Nonrecognition of the Politics of Research and Practice in Special Education. Review of Educational Research, 67(4): 425–459.
3.
BrouilletteL. (December, 1997). Revisiting an Innovative High School: What Happens When the Principal Leaves?Educational Administration Quarterly.
4.
BrouilletteL. (Spring/Summer, 1997). Who Is In Charge Here?: Juggling School Board and Consensus-Based Priorities as a School District Implements Shared Decision Making. Planning and Changing.
5.
ChapmanJ. (1996). A New Agenda for a New Society, International Handbook of Educational Leadership and Administration, Boston: Kluwer Academic. pp. 27–59.
6.
CiglerA. J., and LoomisB. A. (1995). Interest Group Politics (4th ed.). Washington, D.C.: CQ Press (A division of Congressional Quarterly. Inc.).
7.
Educational Economic Policy Center (1991). The fifty-state SEA survey. Prepared for the Legislative Education Board and the Legislative Budget Board. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University.
8.
FirestoneW., FuhrmanS., and KirstM. (1989). An Appraisal of State Education Initiatives.New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Policy Research in Education.
9.
FuchsD., and FuchsL. S. (1994). Inclusive Schools Movement and the Radicalization of Special Education Reform. Exceptional Children, 60(4): 294–309.
10.
FuchsD., and FuchsL. S. (1997). Editorial: Lessons from Welfare “Reform.”Journal of Special Education, 30(3): 229–231.
11.
GottliebJ. (1981). Mainstreaming: Fulfilling the Promise?American Journal on Mental Deficiency, 86: 115–126.
12.
GreshamF. M., and MacMillanD. L. (1997). Social Competence and Affective Characteristics of Students with Mild Disabilities. Review of Educational Research, 67(4): 377–415.
13.
HallenbackB., and KauffmanJ. (1995). How Does Observational Learning Affect the Behavior of Students with Emotional or Behavioral Disorders? A Review of Research. The Journal of Special Education, 29: 45–71.
14.
KauffmanJ. M. (1995). Why We Must Celebrate a Diversity of Restrictive Environments. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 10(4): 225–232.
15.
KauffmanJ. M., and HallahanD. P. (1992). Deinstitutionalization and Mainstreaming, Exceptional Children. Encyclopedia of Educational Research, AlkinMarvin C. (Ed.), Vol. 4, New York: Macmillan, pp. 299–303.
16.
KirstM., and WirtF. (1992). State Role, Legislative and Executive. Encyclopedia of Educational Research, AlkinMarvin C. (Ed.), Vol. 4, New York: Macmillan, pp. 1267–1275.
17.
LeithwoodK. A. (1992). The Move toward Transformational Leadership. Educational Leadership, 49(5): 8–12.
18.
LillyM. S. (1986, March). The Relationship between General and Special Education: A New Face on an Old Issue. Counterpoint, p. 10.
19.
LipskyD. K., and GartnerA. (1987). Capable of Achievement and Worthy of Respect: Education for Handicapped Students as if They Were Full-Fledged Human Beings. Exceptional Children, pp. 5469–5474.
20.
LipskyD. K., and GartnerA. (1996). Equity Requires Inclusion: The Future for All Students with Disabilities. In ChristensenC., and RizviF. (eds.), Disability and the Dilemmas of Education and Justice, Philadelphia: Open University Press, pp. 145–155.
21.
LowiT. J. (1964, July). American Business, Public Policy, Case-Studies, and Political Theory. World Politics, 16(4): 677–715.
22.
LowiT. J. (1967, March). The Public Philosophy: Interest-Group Liberalism. American Political Science Review, 61(1): 5–24.
23.
LowiT. J. (1971). The Politics of Disorder.New York: Basic Books.
24.
LowiT. J. (1974, May). Interest Groups and the Consent to Govern: Getting the People Out, for What?Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 413: 86–100.
25.
LowiT. J. (1979). The End of Liberalism. (2nd ed.). New York: Norton.
26.
LowiT. J. (1988, Summer). An Assessment of Kellow's “Promoting Elegance in Policy Theory.”Policy Studies Journal, 16(4): 725–728.
27.
McDonnellL. M., and PascalA. (1987). Teacher Unions and Educational Re-Form, Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.
28.
McGill-FranzenS., and AllingtonR. L. (1993). Flunk'em or Get Them Classified: The Contamination of Primary Grade Accountability Data. Educational Researcher, 22(1): 19–22.
29.
MurphyJ. (1993). Restructuring: In Search of a Movement. In MurphyJ., and HallingerP. (eds.), Restructuring Schooling: Learning from Ongoing Efforts, Newbury Parks, CA: Corwin Press, pp. 1–31.
30.
OlsonM. (1982). The Rise and Decline of Nations: Economic Growth, Stagflation, and Social Rigidities.New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
31.
PalincsarA. S. (1997). Introduction. Review of Educational Research, 67(4): 373–375.
32.
PayzantT. W. (1992). Advocacy Groups Role in Educational Decision Making. Encyclopedia of Educational Research, New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, pp. 35–39.
33.
PugachM. (1988). Special Education Categories as Constraints on the Reform of Teacher Education. Journal of Teacher Education, 39(3): 52–59.
34.
SealK. (1996, August 12). Activist Groups Set Sights on ADA Compliance; Americans with Disabilities Act. Advanstar Communications Inc., 211(14): 20.
35.
SemmelM. I., GerberM. M., and MacMillanD. L. (1995). A Legacy of Policy Analysis Research in Special Education. In KauffmanJ. M., and HallahanD. P. (eds.), The Illusion of Full Inclusion: A Comprehensive Critique of a Current Special Education Bandwagon, Austin, TX: Pro-Ed, pp. 39–57.
36.
StainbackS., and StainbackW. (1988). Educating Students with Severe Disabilities in Regular Classes. Teaching Exceptional Children, 21: 16–19.
37.
StainbackS., and StainbackW. (1992). Schools as Inclusive Communities. In StainbackW., and StainbackS. (eds.), Controversial Issues Confronting Special Education: Divergent Perspectives, Boston: Allyn & Bacon, pp. 29–44.
38.
StainbackS., and StainbackW. (Eds.) (1996). Inclusion: A Guide for Educators.Baltimore: Paul H. Brooks.
39.
U.S. Department of Education. (1993). Fifteenth Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.Washington, DC: Author.
40.
U.S. Department of Education. (1994). Sixteenth Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.Washington, DC: Author.
41.
WillM. C. (1984). Let Us Pause and Reflect—But Not Too Long. Exceptional Children, 51: 11–16.
42.
WirtF., and KirstM. (1989). Schools in Conflict.Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
43.
WolfensbergerW. (1972). The Principle of Normalization in Human Services.Toronto: National Institute on Mental Retardation.
44.
WolfensbergerW. (1983). Social Role Valorization: A Proposed New Term for the Principle of Normalization. Mental Retardation, 21: 234–239.
