Factors that influence policy decisions in literacy: Perspectives of key policy informants

This article was downloaded by: [The UC Irvine Libraries]On: 02 November 2014, At: 13:28Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

Reading Research andInstructionPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ulri19

Factors that influencepolicy decisions in literacy:Perspectives of key policyinformantsMaryann E. Mraz aa University of North Carolina , CharlottePublished online: 28 Jan 2010.

To cite this article: Maryann E. Mraz (2004) Factors that influence policydecisions in literacy: Perspectives of key policy informants, Reading Research andInstruction, 43:3, 20-36, DOI: 10.1080/19388070509558409

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19388070509558409

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views ofthe authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis.The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor andFrancis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, inrelation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ulri19

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/19388070509558409

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19388070509558409

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of accessand use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

3:28

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Reading Research and InstructionSpring 2004, 43 (3) 20-36

Factors that Influence Policy Decisions in Literacy:Perspectives of Key Policy Informants

Maryann E. MrazUniversity of North Carolina at Charlotte

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the perspectives of key policy informants onthe factors that they believed influence policy decisions in literacy education.Participants were selected because they had significantly influenced, or had attemptedto influence, policy decisions in literacy at either the national or state level. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with seven key informants and four nominatedinformants. An inductive data analysis revealed five broad domains that addressed theparticipants' perspective on factors of influence: literacy professionals, public sentiment,selected policy participants, conservative voices, and research.

Historically, legislative decisions in education have focused primarilyon issues related to funding and equity rather than on issues pertaining tocurriculum and instruction (Marshall, Mitchell, & Wirt, 1986). For example, theGI Bill (1944) provided educational assistance for veterans; the Civil Rights Act(1964) provided support for schools and colleges during desegregation; theElementary and Secondary Education Act (1965) provided funding to programsfor disadvantaged students. Authority over matters of curriculum andinstruction has been delegated, traditionally, by policymakers to the local schooldistricts. In turn, districts have relied on teachers and building administrators tomake instructional decisions with little guidance or interference from legislativeauthorities (Masseil, Kirst, & Hoppe, 1997).

In recent years, policymakers have taken an increasingly active role inmatters pertaining to literacy education. Beginning with the report, A Nation atRisk (National Committee on Excellence in Education, 1983), which chargedthat an ineffective school curriculum and ill-prepared teachers contributed tohigh illiteracy levels, educators and elected officials were called upon toeffectuate sweeping educational reforms. Subsequent government-sponsored

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

3:28

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Factors that Influence Policy Decisions 21

reports, including, Thirty Years of Research: What We Now Know about HowChildren Learn to Read: A Synthesis of Research on Reading from the NationalInstitute of Child Health and Development (Grossen, 1997), and TeachingChildren to Read: An Evidence-Based Assessment of the Scientific ResearchLiterature of Reading and Its Implications for Reading Instruction (Report ofthe National Reading Panel, 2000), followed.

Recommendations contained in such reports have been used to defineand defend literacy policy decisions (Allington & Woodside-Jiron, 1997).Additional materials are available to inform policymakers: Business advocacygroups, philanthropy groups, and quasi-governmental groups have the potentialto influence policy decisions (Edmondson, McCollum-Clark, Pitcher, &Shannon, 2001). Professional literacy organizations provide an assortment ofrecommendations and position statements. State department agencies and stateprofessional organizations also offer recommendations on literacy education.The Education Commission of the States (ECS) provides summaries of statepolicies and strategies focused on improving student reading performance, andoffers recommendations for additional action. While a plethora of informationis available, McDaniel, Sims, and Miskel (2001) found that, despite the largenumber of organizations vying for lawmakers' attention, only a few individualsand organizations were recognizable to policymakers.

Previous studies have attempted to identify and rank by order ofinfluence "policy actors" (Spring, 2002, p. 122), such as members of thelegislature, the legislature as a whole, school officers, and school boardmembers who operate within government at the state level (Marshall, Mitchelle,& Wirt, 1986). Other studies have surveyed legislators to determine theirperceptions of current and critical issues in literacy education and theinformation sources they use to learn about those issues (Reutzel,Hollingsworth, & Vigos-Cox, 1996).

Research that examines the attitudes of current literacy policyinformants across multiple levels of the policy landscape, particularly as policyagendas in literacy education continue to be deliberated, is needed (Shafer,1997). Valencia and Wixon (2001) call for policy research in literacy thatincorporates multiple perspectives and provides a "layered approach" (p. 40)from global to local levels within the policy arena. Understanding the sourcesthat influence policy decisions may contribute to needed research on howcommunication between policymakers and policy informants can mosteffectively occur (Roller, 2001).

This study sought to examine the perspectives of key policy informantson the factors that they believed influenced policy decisions in K-12 literacyeducation. In an effort to provide an aerial view of the landscape of potentiallyinfluential forces in the K-12 literacy policy arena, a cross-section ofparticipants was asked to give perspectives on the topic of factors of influence

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

3:28

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14

22 Reading Research and Instruction Spring 2004, 43 (3)

in literacy policy decisions. Participants were selected because they hadinfluenced or had attempted to influence policy decisions in literacy at either thenational or the state level. The research question, "What factors do key policyinformants identify as influencing policy decisions in literacy?" guided thestudy. This manuscript will explain the theoretical framework and methodologyused in the study, present the findings of the study, and discuss the implicationsof those findings.

Theoretical FrameworkIn the field of literacy education, answers to questions concerning

preferred methods of literacy instruction and assessment have elicited polarizedresponses from policymakers, scholars, and interest groups since the beginningof formalized schooling in the United States (Shannon, 1989; Smith, 2003).What has changed in recent years is the intensity of the debates surroundingpolicy decisions in literacy and the specificity of the legislation that has beenenacted. Educational issues in general and literacy education issues in particularhave been a central focus of political campaigns at both state and national levels(Spring, 2002). Literacy standards, reading instruction and assessment, andteacher preparation have dominated legislative agendas (Valencia & Wixon,1999). As exemplified with the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act (2001),policy decisions in literacy have the potential to significantly impact howteachers teach and what students learn in K-12 classrooms.

The perceived ineffectiveness of previous policy initiatives, as well asdisagreement about effective literacy practices, has led to curricular legislationthat, while highly interventionist, lacks clear consensus. The theoreticalframework for this study provides a broad overview of recent trends in literacyeducation, as well as significant federal legislative decisions that correspond tothat time period.

Trends in Literacy EducationThroughout the history of organized schooling in the United States,

educators and policymakers have grappled with questions such as: Who willbecome literate? In what ways will they become literate? For what purposeswill they become literate? (Reutzel, Hollingsworth, & Vigos-Cox, 1996).Within the past three decades, defining the components of effective readinginstruction has generated a continuum of opinion among literacy professionalsand policymakers.

In the 1970s, the loosely organized reading lessons of previous erasgave way to reading instruction that centered on complex lists of grade-levelobjectives and textbooks complete with strict vocabulary guidelines, skilllessons, workbooks, and mastery tests (Langer & Allington, 1992). By the1980s, the concept of reading instruction as a constructive and integrated

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

3:28

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Faetón that Influence Policy Decisions 23

process through which learners could draw upon their background knowledgeto interpret texts gained support (Anderson, Hiebert, Scott, & Wilkinson, 1985).While this philosophy was embraced by many educators, it eventuallyencountered voracious opposition, often played out through the media, in whathas come to be termed, "the reading wars" (Vacca, 2001, p. 170).

Throughout the early and mid-1990s, the so-called reading wars weredominated by a stronger political agenda than had been evident in previous eras(Allington, 1999). States passed prescriptive mandates designed to change theway children were taught to read. Much of that reading-related legislationrequired the use of explicit phonics instruction in reading education. Citing lowreading test scores and the belief that schools had not found a convincingsolution to that problem, lawmakers proposed over one hundred phonics-relatedbills in more than half of the statehouses in the country between 1996 and 1998(Manzo, 1998). Additional mandates, related to reading assessment tools andtest scores required for promotion from one grade level to the next or forgraduation, proliferated (Valencia & Wixon, 1999). Opponents of suchlegislation suggested that the fear of a national reading crisis was manufactured(Berliner & Biddle, 1995), and that research-based arguments related toeducation policy were interpreted to support the policy preferences of particularadvocacy groups and individuals (e.g. Allington, 1999; McQuillan, 1998;Ohanian, 1999; Spring, 2002; D. Taylor, 1998).

Federal Literacy LegislationThe Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), of which Title

I~a significant source of funding for literacy programs-was a part, wasoriginally enacted in 1965. Intended to provide equitable resources forimpoverished school districts, ESEA implied that lack of resources was theprimary barrier to achievement among low-income students (McGill-Franzen,2000). Through 1999, Congress revised the ESEA eight times, creatingprograms to assist migrant children, neglected children, and limited-Englishproficient students.

In October 1998, the Reading Excellence Act was signed into law forthe purpose of providing funding to low-income school districts for professionaldevelopment, tutoring, and family literacy programs. The bill included anunprecedented definition of reading and acceptable reading research. Critics ofthe bill charged that these definitions presented a narrow and restrictive view ofliteracy and literacy research (Tierney, 2002).

On January 7, 2002, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001(U.S.Department of Education, 2002) was enacted, replacing the Reading ExcellenceAct with the Reading First State Grants, to "help states and local educationalagencies utilize scientifically-based reading research to implementcomprehensive reading instruction for children in kindergarten through third

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

3:28

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14


grade" (p. 10). Beginning in 2004, funds are slated to be awarded to states andlocal districts based on whether or not those states or districts have increasedsignificantly the percentage of third grade students scoring at a proficient levelon mandated achievement tests administered by the state. Local school districtswill be required to use funds to identify students who are at risk of readingfailure, and to provide professional development in reading instruction forteachers of kindergarten through grade three and special education teachers ofstudents in kindergarten through grade twelve.

MethodologyThis study was designed to examine the perspectives of key policy

informants on the factors that they believe influence policy decisions in K-12literacy education. Because this study sought to understand the perspectives ofthe participants within the context of a natural setting, naturalistic inquiry wasused. Guba and Lincoln (1983) recommend naturalistic inquiry when theparticipants' perspective of their environment or of a phenomenon is sought.Naturalistic research seeks to understand and to describe the participants'interpretation of their environment and culture (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998). In thestudy of social policy, research based on interpretivistic, qualitative inquiry canprovide theoretically grounded accounts of the perspectives, insights, anddescriptions of participants in ways that cannot be accomplished usingexperimental research methods (Burgess, 1985).

ParticipantsIn order to create an aerial view of the perspectives of policy informants

on the factors that influence policy decisions in literacy, the perspectives of across-section of seven key policy informants and four nominated informantswere obtained. Purposeful sampling was used to select the literacy professionalsand policymakers who participated in this study. Five participants wereassociated with national organizations or governance; six were associated withstate level organizations or governance. The state level participants were fromthe same mid-western state.

The following participants served as key informants: a member of theState House of Representatives and Ranking Minority Member of the HouseEducation Committee; a government representative for a national literacyorganization; the Executive Director for a national professional literacyorganization; the Issues Chair and Executive Board Member for a state literacyorganization; a board member of a national literacy organization anddistinguished policy researcher; the State Secretary of Education; and acongressional staffer whose focus was educational issues. The followingnominated key informants, that is, individuals recommended by key informants,also served as study participants: a former literacy consultant for the State

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

3:28

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Department of Education; a policy spokesperson for a national literacyorganization; the former Education Advisor to the Governor; and the Chair ofthe State Senate Education Committee.

Although some participants held publicly elected positions, eachparticipant was given the option to have a pseudonym and general descriptiveinformation of his or her position used in place of his or her real name and title.While some participants agreed to allow themselves and their organizations tobe identified, others expressed clear concerns about confidentiality andanonymity issues. Given the possibility that identifying certain participants mayhave inadvertently identified other participants who wished to have themselvesor their organizations remain anonymous, the researcher chose to use onlygeneral descriptive information to identify the participants and theorganizations with which they were affiliated. Findings are presented inaggregate rather than in reference to individual participants.

Data Collection and AnalysisThis study relied on interviewing as the primary method of data

collection. McCracken (1988) described interviewing as, "one of the mostpowerful methods in the qualitative armory. For certain descriptive and analyticpurposes, no instrument of inquiry is more revealing" (p. 9). In-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with each of the participants. The use ofan interview guide allowed the researcher to ensure that the same general topicswere explored with each participant, yet it also allowed specific participantresponses to be spontaneously probed in greater depth so that the perspective ofeach participant could be accurately represented (Ely, Anzul, Friedman, Garner,& Steinmetz, 1997). With the permission of the participants, 10 of the 11interviews were audiotaped and transcribed by the researcher as soon after eachinterview as possible. Follow-up communication took place between theresearcher and the participants as needed to clarify data obtained during theinitial interviews.

Relevant documents, such as legislation, congressional research servicereports on proposed legislation, national reports on literacy education, positionstatements from professional organizations, congressional testimony, and statedepartment correspondence to educators were included in the data set to allowfor triangulation. The data set included transcripts from 10 audio-tapedinterviews, field notes from the interviews, including the one interview that wasnot audio-taped, relevant documents, e-mail correspondence between theresearcher and the participants, and the researcher's ongoing analysis ofthe data.

Analysis of qualitative data requires that the researcher establish aconceptual framework so that patterns and themes that emerge from the datacan be identified. Data reduction is part of ongoing data analysis and is intended

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

3:28

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14


to help the researcher discover patterns, suggest comparisons, and integrate andelaborate upon the data gathered (Miles & Huberman, 1994). The constant-comparative method was used in the data analysis phase of this study. Glaserand Strauss' (1967) constant-comparative method of qualitative data analysisallowed the researcher to develop, analyze, and integrate theoretical ideas thatemerged from the data throughout the data collection process. In order toidentify potential patterns, the data were coded accorded to the themes and sub-categories that emerged. The researcher kept a log of emerging patterns, trends,and themes throughout the data reduction process.

Several indicators of rigor were applied in this study. Triangulation, thatis, collecting data from multiple sources and using multiple data collectionmethods, was used so that comparisons could be made among the findings andinferences drawn from data sources. Additionally, thick, descriptive data werecompiled and multiple informants were utilized. Field notes, includingcorrespondence that took place between the researcher and the participants bothbefore and after the interviews were maintained.

Inter-rater reliability was applied as two individuals, both of whompossessed fundamental knowledge of research and education, but who were notpersonally or professionally affiliated with any particular educationalorganization or advocacy group, served as raters. Each rater was provided witha list of categories and corresponding definitions for those categories as well aswith 30 separate, randomly organized passages from the data set. Raters wereasked to identify the category that best corresponded to each passage.The overall percentage of reliability between the researcher and the raterswas 91.6%.

Limitations were present in this study. First, although a purposefulsample was used, the number of interviews of both key informants and ofnominated informants was limited. Second, given the high profile and politicalpositions of several of the participants, there exists the possibility that concernsabout divulging information that could have portrayed the participants or theirorganizations unfavorably, may have influenced some responses. Given thenature of the methodology used, the findings of this study were not intended tobe generalized to all policymakers and literacy professionals, but, rather, topresent the perspectives of those key informants who took part in this study.

ResultsIn response to the research question, "What factors do key policy

informants identify as influencing policy decisions in literacy?" five domainsemerged: literacy professionals, public sentiment, selected policy participants,conservative voices, and research. This section will provide a definition of anddata sample for each domain, and explain the results of the study as those resultsapply to each of the five domains identified.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

3:28

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Literacy ProfessionalsLiteracy professionals referred to data that referenced the perceived

influence, or lack thereof, of professional literacy organizations, professionalorganizations for teachers, agencies that provided information on instructionalpractices, and individual or groups of teachers. Explicitly cited organizationsand individuals, as well as remarks made about professional organizations ingeneral were included within this domain. For example, the statement, "I don'tthink that this administration will reach out to the professional organizations. Ithink they're clear that they don't want to," was placed within the domain ofliteracy professionals.

All 11 study participants referred to literacy professionals whenidentifying the factors that they believed influenced policy decisions in literacy.However, participants' perspectives about the extent to which literacyprofessionals influenced policy decisions, and about which groups amongliteracy professionals exerted influence on policy decisions, varied noticeably.

While policymakers and their associates asserted that literacyprofessionals did, in fact, influence policy decisions in literacy, representativesof professional literacy organizations did not perceive their own organizationsas having been influential in the policymaking process. Policymakers and theirassociates spoke of collaboration between the policy community and theliteracy community, and contended that educators and the professionalorganizations that represent them were welcome to participate in thepolicymaking process. While policymakers identified by name severalprofessional groups whose input they believed to be influential, they cited noneof the professional literacy organizations represented by other study participantsas having influenced recent policy decisions.

Representatives of professional organizations asserted the belief that,while select professional organizations whose views on literacy issues wereconsistent with those of policymakers influenced the policymaking process,their own organizations, and literacy educators in general, had not successfullyinfluenced policymakers. Their responses resounded with the contention thatliteracy professionals were not regarded by policymakers as scientists in thefield, and that, when the opinions of literacy professionals differed from thoseof policymakers, the opinions of literacy professionals were dismissed.

Legislative documents at both the state and national levels did notdirectly address the involvement, or lack thereof, of literacy professionals in thepolicymaking process. Congressional Research Service reports did, however,name the publications Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children(Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998) and 77ze Report of the National Reading Panel(2000) as, "two influential research reports on reading, frequently cited bypractitioners and policymakers working on reading issues" (p. 2). PreventingReading Difficulties in Young Children (1998), cited by the National Reading

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

3:28

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Panel as the document used as a starting point for the Panel's work, wasdescribed as, "a consensus document based on the best judgements of a diversegroup of experts in reading research and reading instruction" (p.l).

Public SentimentPublic sentiment referred to the opinions of the general public as

perceived by the participants. References to voters and to public opinion asreflected in the media were included within this domain. For example, thestatement, "I think that most politicians vote public preference," was placedwithin the domain of public sentiment.

Eight of the 11 study participants cited public sentiment as a factor thatinfluenced policy decisions in literacy education. While policymakers andliteracy professionals agreed that public sentiment was a source of influence,disagreement existed about whether or not this source has had a constructiveimpact on literacy policy decisions. Statewide surveys, public forums,constituent correspondence, and media coverage were cited by bothpolicymakers and literacy professionals as avenues for conveying publicsentiment to policymakers. Some policymakers expressed confidence in publicsentiment as a useful factor in deciding literacy policy. One policymakercautioned that an over-reliance on public sentiment could result in decisionsthat were not educationally sound for students.

Literacy professionals expressed concern that public sentiment wasdistorted in the media as isolated stories were recounted in assorted mediaoutlets so that a single story appeared to represent multiple experiencescombining to form a compelling case for or against a particular policy position.Literacy professionals also expressed concern that the voices represented inmedia outlets and public forums were not necessarily representative of thepublic at large, but rather of organized groups adept at using the media andpublic forums to convey a message. Opposing viewpoints, they pointed out,may not have used the media or public forums effectively to convey a differentmessage.

In the review of relevant documents, public sentiment was evident as asource of influence in literacy policy decisions at both the state and nationallevels. For example, to commence its work, the National Reading Panel heldfive regional public hearings designed to provide a forum for public input. Thethemes that emerged from those hearings were summarized in the Panel's reportand used to inform the subsequent work of the Panel.

At the state level, the overview of the Governor's Commission onEducation noted, "At all the committee meetings there is an opportunity forpublic comment." A form was made available on-line for persons interested intestifying or in providing written testimony to the Commission. The extent to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

3:28

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14


which public testimony occurred, as well as the impact of such testimony on theCommission's findings, was not addressed in the documents pertaining to theCommission's work.

Selected Policy ParticipantsSelected policy participants referred to data that referenced individuals

appointed by an elected official for a position of authority or influence, such asserving on a committee intended to inform an elected official about a legislativeissue. The background of policy participants and the impact of their prioritieson policy agendas were also included in this domain. For example, thestatement, "The Governor's Commission was completely hand-picked by theGovernor with the assistance of his personal consultants," was placed within thedomain of selected policy participants.

Nine of the 11 participants identified selected policy participants as afactor that influenced policy decisions in literacy. While these nine participantsagreed that selected policy participants influenced policy decisions, theydisagreed about whether selected policy participants represented the views of abroad constituency or of a pre-determined policy position. Literacyprofessionals expressed the view that selected policy participants were chosenfor their positions by elected officials because of their support for electedofficials' agendas. Therefore, literacy professionals contended that the role ofselected policy participants was not to gather a range of opinions for thepurpose of informing a policy decision, but to support a policy decisionthat would correspond to the existing agenda of the elected official whomthey served.

One national policy representative concurred, pointing out that researchon an issue was not generally required by a policymaker in order to inform hisor her vote on the issue. Other policy representatives disagreed, asserting thatselected policy participants arrived at policy recommendations by eliciting abroad range of views and research relevant to the issue at hand.

The domain of selected policy participants as a source of influence inthe literacy policymaking process was evident in the review of relevantdocuments, albeit to a lesser extent than some domains. A position statementfrom a state literacy organization expressed concern over the belief that nationalconsultants and select national organizations, instead of in-state educators andconsultants, had been used by the Governor's Commission to inform policydecisions. At the national level, documents reviewed for this study did notaddress the topic of selected policy participants in detail, however the Report ofthe National Reading Panel acknowledged that, due to the immensity ofinformation available and the constraints on the Panel's time and resources, thesources used to inform the topics addressed in its report were limited.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

3:28

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Conservative VoicesConservative voices was used to categorize data that referred to

organizations or individuals identified by study participants as holdingconservative viewpoints. Data that referred to the conservative movement inaggregate were also included in this domain. For example, the statement,"There's a lot of discussion about right-wing plots of people who are seeking tomake millions on this," was placed within the domain of conservative voices.

Six participants asserted that conservative groups or individuals hadexerted significant influence over recent policy decisions in literacy. Suchgroups or individuals were explicitly cited by literacy professionals and by onepolicymaker (e.g., through the use of descriptors such as "right-wing" and"conservative movement"), and were implicitly cited by other policymakers(e.g., through the naming of individuals or organizations associated withconservative views). Both literacy professionals and policymakers concurredthat conservative voices had successfully influenced policy decisions becausethey had convinced policymakers of the need for significant changes in literacypolicy. Furthermore, according to participants, such groups and individualsoffered precise assertions about what changes were needed and effectivelycommunicated their message through the media. By contrast, participantscontended that the message of literacy professionals tended to focus on thecomplicated nature of literacy instruction and offered few alternatives to thepolicy options posed by conservative groups. Professional organizations werebelieved to lack unity in their response to conservative options, in part, becausethe membership base of many professional organizations consisted of broad andvaried opinions within a single organization.

The domain of conservative voices as a source of influence in literacypolicy decisions was apparent in the review of relevant documents. Positionstatements from both state and national literacy organizations called for moresubstantive inclusion of professional educators in the policymaking process andan open dialogue between literacy professionals and policymakers.

ResearchResearch was used to categorize data that referred to the use of research

or researchers to inform policy decisions. Data that referenced the use ofspecific research or the exclusion of research from the policymaking processwere also included in this domain. For example, the statement, "It does, in fact,seem that, at this point, that the research is being more coercive andmanipulative," was placed within the domain of research.

Nine of the 11 study participants cited research as a factor thatinfluenced policy decisions in literacy education. Six of those 9 expressed theirconcerns about how, what, and whose research was used to inform policydecisions. While policymakers and literacy professionals agreed that research

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

3:28

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14


influenced policy decisions, they held conflicting views about the breadth anddepth of the research used to inform those decisions. Policymakers purported touse scientific research to inform their decisions, and contended that the researchthat they selected was of high quality. Literacy professionals, by contrast, raisedconcerns over how research was selected and interpreted. They expressed theview that the research selected by policymakers to inform decisions was notrepresentative of the broad range of research available, and that overlookedresearch may have challenged the claims upon which policy decisionswere substantiated.

The domain of research as a source of influence in policy decisions inliteracy education was apparent in the review of relevant documents. Termssuch as "scientifically-based evidence," "scientifically-based reading research,"and "evidence-based analysis" resounded in documents including, The Reportof the National Reading Panel, Reading First legislation, CongressionalResearch Service reports, and state legislation. Additionally, the proceedingfrom the U.S. Department of Education's Working Group Conference, "TheUse of Scientifically Based Research in Education," contended that the need forscientifically based research in literacy education was analogous to the need forscientifically based evidence in the medical field. Congressional testimonyfrom NICHD leadership concurred that, while qualitative-descriptive studiescould be useful in leading to the development of more detailed quantitativestudies, the application of qualitative studies remained limited.

ImplicationsThis study sought to investigate those factors that key policy informants

identified as influencing policy decisions in literacy and found that literacyprofessionals, public sentiment, selected policy participants, conservativevoices, and research were identified by study participants as significant sourcesof influence. The study also found that, within each of the five domains,differences existed between literacy professionals and policymakers. Thesefindings raise implications for both research and practice:

Implication 1; Further research is needed to study communicationbetween literacy professionals and policy makers.

Policymakers identified some participant-described "conservative"organizations as having been influential in informing policy decisions, howeverthe scope of those organizations was limited. National literacy organizationswere not named as influential sources by the policymakers who participated inthis study. The literacy professionals who served as participants expressed theperception that only select organizations exerted influence on policymakers,and that the organizations they represented had not successfully influencedpolicy decisions. Concern was expressed about the policy decisions drawn from

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

3:28

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14


a narrow number of sources, and the subsequent impact that those decisionsmay have on literacy education.

The use of certain organizations and the exclusion of others in policydecision making may be related, in part, to policymakers' desire for concisedata. A report of the National Institute on Educational Governance, Finance,Policymaking, and Management (1997) explained that, because legislators dealwith a wide range of issues in a relatively short time, concise data, deliveredexpeditiously is required. Time, the report explained, is not available to wait forresults of long-term studies before making policy decisions.

Participant responses and document review for this study substantiatedthat possibility and raised questions about the degree to which thecommunication styles of literacy professionals and policy makers were, or werenot, compatible. For example, one participant explained that some specialinterest groups have offered plain, bold assertions in response to policymakers'questions about how to improve literacy education. In contrast, literacyprofessionals have tended to respond to such questions by emphasizing thecomplexity of the issues. "As educators," he said, "we are taught to write deep,dense prose, not spiffy little sound bites."

Another literacy professional concurred, describing the lack of concretesuggestions from literacy professionals to policymakers for improving literacyeducation as the Achilles heal of the profession: "We have such fun debatingamong ourselves, that we never get the unity to turn around and say, 'Here's alegislative educational program we all support.'" Studying the communicationbetween literacy professionals and policymaker* juld provide insight aboutthe nature of communication patterns that influence, or fail to influence, policydecisions in literacy.

Implication 2: There exists a need to investigate how professionalliteracy organizations can effectively communicate through media outlets.

This study found that public sentiment as reflected, in part, through themedia was identified as a factor that influenced policy decisions in literacy. Themanner in which literacy issues are presented by the media may serve as anadditional area of investigation. Further research is needed to investigate howliteracy professionals can, both individually and through professionalorganizations, effectively communicate their message through the media.

The policymakers who participated in this study asserted thatopportunities for educators to participate in the policymaking process werereadily available. The need for literacy practitioners in schools and colleges toassert themselves in the policymaking process has been documented (Flippo,1997). Some participants in this study pointed out the challenge of defining aunified message among literacy professionals: "The smaller and more narrowlyfocused your group, the easier it is to have rapid responses and to get everybody

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

3:28

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14


on the same message. We, as a profession, have to figure out what our messageis, and we have to stay on it."

Implication 3; Support and training for educators who desire toparticipate in policy forums is needed.

Encouraging professional organizations to provide support and trainingfor educators who desire to participate in policy forums, and encouragingeducators to participate in those training opportunities that currently exist, mayincrease the representation of educators in the policymaking process. Whileliteracy professionals are accustomed to communicating with one anotherthrough educational publications, they are less accustomed to communicating toa wider social and political audience (Berger, 1995). Resources that provideguidance to educators on communicating effectively through these broaderforums may be beneficial.

Implication 4: An awareness of policy issues in literacy needs to bedeveloped beginning at the pre-service level.

Literacy education has been a political topic since organized schoolingin the United States began. The impetus for recent literacy policy legislation asidentified by study participants was strikingly similar to that which was said tomotivate the passage of the original Elementary and Secondary Education Actin 1964: to bridge the education gap that existed across socio-economic lines.Participants in this study articulated their perceptions that recent policyinitiatives in literacy education grew out of a general consensus amongpolicymakers and literacy professionals that schools were not providing aquality education to all students. Lack of consensus, however, between literacyprofessionals and policymakers about how to address those issues continues topersist. Whether or not the most recent policy decisions will provide thepanacea needed to remedy perceived educational ills, elicited polarizedresponses from the study participants.

Literacy professionals who participated in this study expressed theperception that policymakers have not been, in general, influenced byeducators, and that literacy professionals have tended to be reactive rather thanproactive in their response to policy issues. Educators, including both pre-service and in-service teachers, need to become familiar with resources, such asthe position statements of professional organizations, government relationsreports, and policy information statements from state and local literacycouncils. Educators then, as one participant suggested, can be better equippedwith both knowledge about policy issues and an understanding of how tocommunicate that information about effective literacy practices not only topolicymakers, but also to parents and community constituents, who may then,in turn, influence policymakers.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

3:28

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14


References

Allington, R. L., & Woodside-Jiron, H. (1999). The politics of literacy teaching:How "research" shaped educational policy. Educational Researcher, 28,4-13.

Allington, R. T. (1999). Crafting state educational policy: The slippery role ofresearch and researchers. Journal of Literacy Research, 31, 457-482.

Anderson, R. C , Hiebert, E. H., Scott, J. A., & Wilkenson, I. A. (1985).Becoming a nation of readers: The report of the Commission of Reading.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Berger, A. (1995). Writing about reading for the public. The Reading Teacher,51, 6-10.

Berliner, D. C, & Biddle, D. B. J. (1995). The manufactured crisis: Myths,fraud, and the attack on America's public school. New York: Harper Collins.

Bogdan, R. C , & Biklen, S. K. (1998). Qualitative research for education: Anintroduction to theory and methods. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Burgess, R. G. (Ed.). (1985). Issues in educational research: Qualitativemethods, New York: Falmer Press.

Edmonson, J., McCollum-Clark, K., Pitcher, S., & Shannon, P. (2001). Moneytalks: The power of government, business, national, and philanthropicgroups in literacy education. Fiftieth yearbook of the National ReadingConference. Chicago, IL: NRC.

Ely, M., Anzul, M., Friedman, T., Garner, D., & Steinmetz, A. M. (1997). Doingqualitative research: Circles within circles. New York: Falmer Press.

Flippo, R. (1997). Sensationalism, politics, and literacy. Phi Delta Kappan, 79,4, 301-305.

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategiesfor qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.

Grossen, B. (1997). 30 years of research: What we now know about howchildren learn to read: A synthesis of research on reading from the NationalInstitute of Child Health and Development. Santa Cruz, CA: The Center forthe Future of Teaching and Learning.

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1983). Evaluating models: Viewpoints oneducation and human services evaluation. Boston, MA: Kluwer-Nijhoff.

Langer, J. A., & Allington, R. L. (1992). Curriculum research in writing andreading. In P. Jackson (Ed.) The handbook of curriculum research. NewYork: Macmillan.

Manzo, K. K. (1998). More states moving to make phonics the law. EducationWeek, April 29, 1998. Retrieved April 8, 2000, fromhttp://www/edweek/org

Marshall, C, Mitchell, D., & Wirt, F. (1986, April). The context of state levelpolicy. Paper presented at the annual meeting on the American EducationalResearch Association, San Francisco, CA.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

3:28

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Massell, D., Kirst, M., & Hoppe, M. (1997). Persistence and change:Standards-based reforms in nine states. Consortium for Policy Research inEducation, University of Pennsylvania, Graduate School of Education.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

McCracken, G. (1988). The long interview. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.McDaniel, J. E., Sims, C. H., & Miskel, C. G. (2001). The national reading

policy arena: Policy actors and perceived influence. Educational Policy, 15,1, 92-114.

McGill-Franzen, A. (2000). Policy and instruction: What is the relationship? InM. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr. (Eds.), Handbookof reading research: Volume III. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

McQuillan, J. (1998). The literacy crisis: False claims, real solutions.Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: Anexpanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983). A nation at risk: Theimperative for education reform: A report to the nation. Washington, DC:U.S. Department of Education.

National Institute on Educational Governance, Finance, Policymaking, andManagement (1997). Meeting the information needs of educationpolicymakers. Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Ohanian, S. (1999). One size fits few: The folly of educational standards.Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Report of the National Reading Panel (2000). Teaching children to read: Anevidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature of readingand its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Health and Human Services.

Reutzel, D. R., Hollingsworth, P. M., & Vigos-Cox, S. A. (1996). Issues inreading instruction: U. S. state legislators' perceptions and knowledge.Reading Research and Instruction, 35, 343-64.

Roller, C. M. (2001). A proposed research agenda for teacher preparation inreading. In Roller, C. M. (Ed.), Learning to teach reading; Setting theresearch agenda. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Shafer, R. E. (1997). Who determines policy, power, and politics and what aretheir attitudes? In J. Flood, S. B. Heath, & D. Lapp (Eds.), Handbook ofresearch on teaching literacy through the communicative and visual arts.New York: Macmillan.

Shannon, P. (1989). Broken promises: Reading instruction in 20th centuryAmerica. Granby, MA: Bergin & Garvey.

Smith, N. B. (1965). American reading instruction. Newark, DE: InternationalReading Association.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

3:28

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing readingdifficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Spring, J. (2002). Conflict of interests: The politics of American education. NewYork: McGraw-Hill.

Taylor, D. (1998). Beginning to read and the spin-doctors of science: Thepolitical campaign to change America's mind about how children learn toread. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Tierney, R. J. (2001). An ethical chasm: Jurisdiction, jurisprudence, and theliteracy profession. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 45, 260-276.

U.S. Department of Education (2002). The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.Retrieved January 11, 2002, fromhttp:/www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/esea/NCLBexecsumm.pdf

Vacca, R. T. (2001). A focus on the media, policy-driven literacy practices, andthe work of reading professional. In R. F. Flippo (Ed.), Reading researchersin search of common ground (pp. 178-184). Newark, DE: InternationalReading Association.

Valencia, S. W., & Wixson, K. K. (1999). Policy oriented research on literacystandards and assessment. (CIERA Report #3-0004). Ann Arbor, MI:University of Michigan.

Valencia, S. W., & Wixson, K. K. (2001). Literacy policy and policy researchthat make a difference. Fiftieth yearbook of the National ReadingConference. Chicago, IL: National Reading Conference.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

3:28

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Documents

Factors that influence policy decisions in literacy: Perspectives of key policy informants