ED 221A: ISSUES IN EDUCATION POLICY ANALYSIS
STANFORD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
Winter Quarter 2007
ED 221A – Monday and Wednesday, 1:15-3:05 pm
Units: 4-5
Professor Milbrey McLaughlin = , 433 CERAS
Teaching Assistants
Anne Newman =
Aurora Wood =
Course Description
Policy analysis is an art, a craft, and some think a science. Its subjects are public problems and what governments or the representatives of government have chosen to do about them. Policy analysis differs from other forms of research-based inquiry in many ways. The focus of policy analysis includes both the content and technical aspects of policy and the institutional context in which policy is developed, carried out, and supported.
“Policy” involves much more than specific plans or resources. It involves values and expectations; it involves multiple and competing objectives; it involves actors located in many parts of the policy system; and it involves the allocation and re-allocation of resources and opportunities. Policy analysis, then, must be cast broadly to include these multiple and disparate interests, actors, processes, and contingencies.
One important concern of policy analysis is with describing what is known about different conditions or concerns in the arena under study and what might happen under different behavioral and resource assumptions. Thus a primary goal is often explanation rather than prescription. In addition, policy analysis is carried out and used in the inherently political arena of policymaking and practice.
This course examines issues in education policy analysis. What features of education policy formation, implementation and outcomes must an analyst consider when providing advice or assessment to policymakers or other decision makers in the education arena?
There are three primary objectives of this course:
· To provide a general understanding of the education policy system and of the policy process, including policy goals, problems and solutions, as well as implementation processes, sustaining policy initiatives, and assessment of policy consequences
· To consider the choices faced by policy analysts in framing problems for analysis and the role of the policy analyst
· To help students develop and critique policy with an understanding of the education system, the nature of policy paradoxes, and the utility of various policy tools for different kinds of problems
Course Requirements
Reading
All required reading must be done in advance of class meetings. We expect that you will come to class prepared to participate actively in discussion and to raise and answer questions. Some students may find it useful to form reading groups of 3-4 that meet to discuss course readings in advance of class.
There are three kinds of reading for this course: (1) Policy Paradox by Deborah Stone provides a theoretical framework for understanding complex policy analysis, (2) literature related to policy development and policy analysis in education, and (3) literature you will gather to inform your policy memos (relevant to the specific issue you select). In discussion you will be asked to draw on these readings to frame problems, provide evidence in support of an argument, and make policy recommendations. These tasks assume a depth of knowledge about the field of education, about the research, and about the nature of policy. We recommend that you review all readings within the first two weeks of class, particularly if you are unfamiliar with them, and then read them carefully in preparation for the day on which they are formally assigned.
Assignments
Strong, concise, analytical writing and public speaking are essential skills for any policy analyst, as is the ability to work under demanding deadlines. Accordingly, this course has been designed to help you develop and practice these skills. Please email all assignments [excepting reading reactions] to ; ; and .
Reading Reactions: To ensure that class discussion focuses on your ideas, questions and insights, please submit two questions or comments about the readings each week. Your questions may be a challenge of the material, a comparison with other articles you have read, a point of clarification, or a personal experience you would like to share. These questions/comments count toward your participation grade and are due by 5pm Sunday. Post in Discussion Forum on Coursework.
Introductory Essay: Please write a 1-page statement that describes your background and expectations for this class and two or three questions about public policy you hope to explore in this quarter. The purpose of this assignment is to inform us about the experiences you bring to this course and to encourage you to reflect on your current questions about public policy. Due Monday, January 15th by 12p.m.
Policy Analysis: The primary assignment for this course is a two-part policy analysis that focuses on a particular policy issue. Each part of your analysis should be 7-10 pages, (double spaced), well-argued, and focused. In selecting your policy issue, you will choose from one of the following content areas (additional areas may be identified by the class): Accountability; Alternative Governance/Public-Private Partnerships; School Finance; Curriculum/Assessment; Teacher Development; and High School Reform. You will select a specific policy issue or strategy within one content area. For example, if you are working in the area of teacher development, you might choose alternative certification as the specific issue. Other examples include charter schools, beginning teacher support programs, small schools, high school exit exams, school improvement, etc.
You choose to evaluate a specific policy in a particular place (e.g. Texas’ testing and accountability policy; Connecticut teacher recruitment policies) or a broader policy implemented in multiple places (e.g. grade retention policies). Resources for this analysis can include core readings from the class and studies about the implementation of policies in specific locales. You will have the option to revise both papers, but revisions are not required.
Policy Analysis, Part I – Policy Problems, Goals and Solutions
In the first analysis, you will be asked to identify your particular policy issue, and evaluate the nature of the problem and goals represented on both sides of the issue. Then, you will describe a solution that has emerged in response, and evaluate that solution in light of its theory of action and behavioral assumptions. For example, if you are looking at the content area of curriculum, you might choose “standards” as a solution to the problem of inconsistent expectations or the achievement gap (notice how the problem may be framed in different ways). You will use the readings and discussions in the course to date, additional evidence/literature specific to your policy issue, and the following questions to frame your analysis.
a. What are the underlying goals of your policy issues? How do those goals get defined?
- Stone, like Kingdon, describes a policy context where conflicting values vie for attention and expression. What are the value positions behind the goals of your policy issue? Are there relevant tradeoffs between equity, efficiency, liberty and security?
c. What problem(s) does the policy seek to address? How is the problem defined?
d. Schneider and Ingram argue that the social position or construction of a target population influences the definition of a policy problem and strategy. How does the social construction of target populations affect the framing of your policy issue and solution?
e. What theories of action does the policy rely upon?
f. What specific strategies and policy instruments does the policy employ to achieve its objectives? What are the behavioral assumptions underlying the policy strategies?
g. How is power exercised through this policy? Who has authority to enact the policy?
Due: Monday, February 12th. Revision (optional) due no later than February 28th.
Policy Analysis, Part II – Implementation, Unintended Consequences, Non-System Actors and Sustainability
In Part II of your analysis you will address issues of implementation and sustainability/scale, the role of non-system actors, and unintended consequences associated with your specific policy issue. Following from where you left off at Part I, you will address the following questions:
a. What levels of the system need to be involved in implementing the policy (e.g., federal, state, district, school)?
b. What implementation challenges confront the policy? How might the polis create challenges for implementation? Challenges from the market? How do the behavioral assumptions of the target population intersect with knowledge about implementation processes and the role of “street-level bureaucrats”?
c. To what extent do non-system actors play a role in implementing or supporting this policy? Do these actors offer benefits, or present any paradoxes or dilemmas?
d. What evidence is there about the intended and unintended outcomes of the policy? If you have no outside evidence of outcomes, describe intended outcomes and analyze potential unintended consequences.
Due: March 7th. Revision (optional) due no later than March 21st.
Policy Briefing: Students examining the same policy area will form a group to provide expert analysis and recommendations to a Congressional Panel. Based on your individual analyses of specific issues you will work together to create a coherent presentation. You will be responsible for:
· providing an overview of the tensions and paradoxes of the issue
· framing one or more key problems
· identifying a number of solutions and evaluating the pros and cons of each
· offering appropriate evidence
· responding to questions from the panel
Grading:
Attendance, participation in class and in group assignments, and timely completion of written assignments are factors in final course grading. Papers will be returned with comments and a grade. You may revise your papers and resubmit them for a revised grade, but this is not required. The weighting for these different factors is as follows:
Attendance and participation (including weekly questions): 20%
Policy analyses: 35% each
Policy Briefing: 10%
Course materials:
Please purchase Deborah Stone's Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making, Revised Edition (2002). All other course materials will be available on Coursework.
CLASS CALENDAR AND READINGS
THE POLICY PROCESS
WED January 10, Class #1
Course overview
The Policy System and Educational Practice
What is policy? What is a policy problem?
Introduction to Stone's Policy Paradox
In-class viewing of the video, Classes: A Documentary on Compton Schools
Assignment for next class: Bring an example of a policy paradox (from recent news or current issues in policy debates)
MON January 15 – No Class: MLK holiday
WED January 17, class #2: What is policy analysis?
Politics and Policy Paradox in Action from Stone
Stokey, Edith and Richard Zeckhauser. (1978) “Thinking about policy choices” and "Putting analysis to work" in Stokey and Zeckhauser, A primer for policy analysis New York: W.W. Norton and Company, pp.3-7; pp.320-329.
In class: Sign up for the content area in which you will conduct your policy analysis writing and group briefing.
MON January 22, class #3: How are policy problems framed?
Kingdon, John W. (1995). “The policy primeval soup.” In Agendas, alternatives, and public policies, NY: Longman. pp. 109-144.
Schneider, Anne and Ingram, Helen (1993). “Social Construction of Target Populations: Implications for Politics and Policy,” American Political Science Review, 87 (2): pp.334-347.
Moore, Mark H. (1990) “What Sort of Ideas Become Public Ideas?” In The Power of Public Ideas, edited by Robert B. Reich. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. pp.55-83.
Campbell, John L. (2004). Ch. 4: "The Problem of Ideas," in Institutional Change and Globalization. Princeton: Princeton University Press. pp.90-123.
GOALS
WED January 24, class #4
Stone chapter on Goals
Levin, Henry (2002). “A Comprehensive Framework for EvaluatingEducational Vouchers,” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24 (3): pp. 159-174.
Tough, Paul. "What it Takes to Make a Student." The New York Times Magazine, November 26, 2006.
PROBLEMS
MON January 29, class #5
Stone on Problems (skim)
Kingdon, John W. (1995). “Problems” (excerpted) In Agendas, alternatives, and public policies, pp. 109-144. NY: Longman.
In-class viewing of Merrow Report, From First to Worst
WED January 31, class #6
Darling-Hammond, Linda and McLaughlin, Milbrey (1999). “Investing in Teaching as a Learning Profession: Policy Problems and Prospects.” In L. Darling-Hammond and G. Sykes (eds.) Teaching as the Learning Profession: A Handbook of Policy and Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Weiss, Carol (1995). “Nothing as practical as good theory: Exploring theory-based evaluation for comprehensive community initiatives for children and families.” In Connell, Kubisch, Schorr, & Weiss, Eds. New approaches to evaluating community initiatives. Washington: The Aspen Institute, pp. 65-92.
SOLUTIONS
MON February 5, class #7
Stone on Solutions
Jencks, Christopher (1988). "Whom Must We Treat Equally for Educational Opportunity to be Equal?" Ethics, Vol. 98, No. 3, pp. 518-533.
Malen, B., Croniger, R., Muncey, D, Redmond-Jones, D. (2002). “Reconstituting schools: ‘Testing’ the theory of action.” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24. (2). pp. 113-132.
Pierson, P. (2000) “Not just what, but when: Timing and sequence in political processes.” Studies in American Political Development. 14 (Spring), 72-92.
WED February 7, class #8
McDonnell, Lorraine and Elmore, Richard (1987). “Getting the Job Done: Alternative Policy Instruments,” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9 (2): pp. 133-152.
Datnow, Amanda (2006). "Connections in the Policy Chain: The Co-construction of Implementation in Comprehensive School Reform." in Honig, M. (ed.), New Directions in Education Policy Implementation: Confronting Complexity, SUNY Press: Albany.
Burch, Patricia & Spillane, James (2004). Executive summary of “Leading from the Middle: Mid-Level District Staff and Instructional Improvement.” Chicago, IL: Cross City Campaign for Urban School Reform.
IMPLEMENTATION
MON February 12, class #9
Chrispeels, J. H. (1997). “Educational policy implementation in a shifting political climate: The California experience,” American Educational Research Journal, 34(3), pp. 453-481.
McLaughlin, Milbrey (2006). "Beyond “misery research”—New opportunities for implementation research, policy and practice." Working paper.
Weatherley, Richard and Lipsky, Michael (1977). “Street-Level Bureaucrats and Institutional Innovation: Implementing Special Education Reform,” Harvard Educational Review, 47 (2): 171-197. (skim)
Grossman, P. & Thompson, C. (2004). "District policy and beginning teachers: A lens on teacher learning." Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26(4), 281-301.
UNITS OF ANALYSIS
WED, February 14, class #10