EDUCATION VOUCHER PROPOSALS: A COMPARATIVE POLITICAL ANALYSIS OF SUCCESSFUL AND UNSUCCESSFUL ATTEMPTS AT LEGISLATION IN COLORADO AND PENNSYLVANIA
Open Access
- Author:
- Reese, Jillian P
- Graduate Program:
- Educational Leadership
- Degree:
- Doctor of Philosophy
- Document Type:
- Dissertation
- Date of Defense:
- February 27, 2007
- Committee Members:
- Dr William L Boyd, Committee Chair/Co-Chair
Nona Ann Prestine, Committee Member
Dr John W Tippeconnic, Committee Member
Edgar Paul Yoder, Committee Member - Keywords:
- school choice
vouchers
voucher proposals
policy analysis
Kingdon
policy agenda setting - Abstract:
- This study focused on the politics and policy specifics surrounding voucher proposals and the factors affecting their legislative outcome. The central questions guiding this research were: (1) What factors contributed to the successful voucher bills? (2) How were these factors present or absent in unsuccessful proposals? (3) What was different in the political process, "policy windows," and circumstances surrounding the successful bills? (4) Why were the opponents not able to defeat the successful bills? In short, why did a few voucher proposals succeed where the others failed? In order to address these questions, a comparative case study was conducted. The study used interviews and document analysis to collect data about the political environment and events surrounding education voucher proposals in Colorado and Pennsylvania. Interviews with twenty four individuals identified by various sources as key voucher actors in the two states provided much insight to the events surrounding each proposal. Coverage from major newspapers and legislative archives offered additional data. A review of the literature on successful proposals in Milwaukee, Cleveland, Florida, and Washington, D.C. provided points of contrast and comparison for the successful Colorado voucher proposal. The framework for policy agenda setting established by John Kingdon (2003 [1984 1st ed., 1995 2nd ed.]), was used to identify, sort, and analyze the data of this study. Specifically, the events surrounding the voucher proposals were aligned with the policy streams identified by Kingdon. These streams included the problems that vouchers were to address, the politics involved in the legislative process, and the specifics of each policy offered as solutions to the problems. Other contributing/contextual factors were also considered that were associated with the legislative outcome of each proposal. In response to the guiding questions, this study found a combination of factors that were associated with the success of a proposal. All successful proposals were based on a perception of a problem with public schools failing to provide an adequate education to all students, or as the catch phrase refers to “students trapped in failing urban schools.” The problem was most notable among poor, minority students. The specifics of the successful voucher proposals included both sectarian and religious private schools, and provided enough money to allow students to attend the school of choice. The successful proposals were also all targeted at and limited to disadvantaged students. In terms of the politics surrounding the successful voucher proposals, all were introduced with Republican leadership. The teachers unions were identified as the most significant group in opposition to the proposals. Other contributing/contextual factors including, funding for the proposals, non-traditional voucher advocates, disarray of the opposition, careful planning of a proposal, and a “best alternative” attitude also seemed to impact the outcomes. More than one of these contributing/contextual factors was associated with each of the successful proposals. In Milwaukee, the funding was shifted from a failing desegregation law and a strong coalition of urban parents, led by policy entrepreneur Polly Williams, pushed for the law. The Cleveland proposal also found support from a coalition of urban parents, and the plan was passed as part of the overall state budget. The Florida proposal, also passed as part of the overall budget, had strong leadership from the Governor and support from the Democratic State Attorney General. The disarray of the teacher’s union in Washington, D.C. along with support from the Democratic mayor and school board president were associated with the success of that proposal. Finally, the Colorado plan found support from the Democratic attorney general as well as a prominent, liberal child advocacy group. The successful Colorado voucher proposal was well-crafted and noted as the “lesser evil” of the three proposals introduced during the same legislative session. While these positive influences in terms of passing voucher legislation were found with the successful proposals, negative influences were coupled with the failed proposals. In Pennsylvania, many participants discussed legislators being turned off by the doggedness of the Governor leading the charge for vouchers. Participants suggested that legislators were turned off by the Governor’s heavy handedness, and many simply did not want to give him what he wanted. In both Colorado and Pennsylvania, the failed proposals were identified as vague or in constant flux. Participants and media coverage in PA discussed how the details of the plans were often argued until the bitter end. And, in Colorado, the two proposals introduced simultaneously with the successful plan, left many of the details to be determined after legislation. The findings from this study can contribute to a discussion on future successful voucher legislation, both from an advocacy and opposition standpoint. Also, a more careful examination of the role of the contributing/contextual factors may further enhance the policy agenda setting framework used in this study. Further studies on other failed attempts at legislation may increase the validity of this study. Finally, it is suggested that future research look at the role of the teachers unions in voucher legislation. More specifically, research should focus on how well union opposition reflects the views of its members.