Calling the Roll: Study Circles for Better Schools

CALLING THE ROLLStudy Circles for Better SchoolsP o l i c y R e s e a r c h R e p o r t

Diane T. PanSue E. Mutchler

September 2000

Southwest Educational Development Laboratory211 East Seventh Street

Austin, Texas 78701(512) 476-6861

Introduction

ii

© 2000 Southwest Educational Development Laboratory

This publication is based on work sponsored wholly, or in part, by theOffice of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education, under Contract Number RJ96006801. The content of this

publication does not necessarily reflect the views of OERI, the Department, or any other agency of the U.S. government.

The time, work, and interest of many indi-viduals contributed to this inquiry of the

relationship between policymakers and thepublic in support of public education.

We recognize first those people at the heart ofsuccessful public deliberation: the participantsand organizers of dialogue programs. Thankyou for committing time and resources towardbuilding a shared understanding of what pub-lic education means in your communities.

To members of the Calling the Roll partner-ship—we recognize the extraordinary effortsyou have made to create and learn from theopportunity for parents, teachers, administra-tors, young people, community members, andstate policymakers to connect in dialogueabout education. Special thanks to ourresearch partners Cathy Flavin-McDonald(formerly of the Study Circles ResourceCenter); Larry Dickerson at the University ofArkansas, Little Rock; and Wil Scott at theUniversity of Oklahoma, Norman. We alsothank Judy White, Dan Farley, and ArkansasFriends for Better Schools; Carol WoodwardScott and the League of Women Voters of

Oklahoma; and the staff at the Study CirclesResource Center, especially Sally Campbell,Matt Leighninger, and Pat Scully.

The generous cooperation of program partici-pants, coordinators, and state policymakersmade this research possible. We especiallythank all those state policymakers who patient-ly agreed to spend time with researchers toshare thoughtful insights and frank assess-ments regarding the public and public deliber-ation.

Holly Bell, Lyndee Knox, and Laura Lein pro-vided critical assistance with the researchmethodology; Suzanne Ashby, Ruth AnnBramson, Jo Chesser, Christopher Hill, MarkHudson, Eric Miller, and Paul Reville provid-ed support for or review of this research. Weare indebted to SEDL staff who contributedto this policy project: Lori Foradory, JuliaGuzman, Joyce Pollard, and Cris Garza.

DTPSEM

September 2000

iii

Acknowledgements

Introduction

iv

Figures and Tables vi

Introduction 1

Deliberative Dialogue and the Study Circle Model 1

Current Research Effort 3

Acronyms 4

Part OneReview of the Literature 5

Considering the Bridge between StatePolicymakers, Educators, and the Public 6

Policy Making as Dynamic Interaction 8

Policy Making as the Processing of Complex Knowledge 9

Part TwoThe Calling the Roll Program 12

Calling the Roll: Study Circles for BetterSchools 13

Calling the Roll: Research Study 17

Part ThreePolicymaker Perceptions of Study Circles 21

Calling the Roll Research Findings 22

Public and Policymaker Roles, Connections, and Disconnections 22

Bridging Disconnections between the Public and Policymakers 28

Benefits and Challenges of Study Circles for Strengthening the Bridge between the Public and Policymakers 34

Study Circle Impacts on InformationProcesses 35

Study Circle Impacts on Relationships 40

Strengthening the Bridge and Greater Civic Capacity 43

A Special Constraint: Time 45

Contents

Part FourConclusions 47

Summary of Findings 48

Challenges and Barriers 49

Implications for Public Education 50

Areas for Future Inquiry 50

Appendices 53

Appendix A:Additional Figures and Charts 54

Appendix B:Methodology and Instruments 61

Glossary 83

References 85

Contents

v

Part Five

Introduction

vi

Figures

3.1. Roles and Relationships of the PolicySubsystem and the Public

3.2. Strengthening the Bridge betweenPolicymakers and the Public

3.3. Study Circles Bridging the Gap betweenPolicymakers and the Public

A.1. Calling the Roll Program Time Line

A.2. Calling the Roll Participant Survey Data

B.1. Overview of the SEDL Research Study

Tables

2.1. Population and Number of Participantsin the Five Arkansas Calling the RollCommunities

2.2. Population and Number of Participantsin the Ten Oklahoma Calling the RollCommunities

2.3. Characteristics of Calling the RollPolicymaker Participants

A.1. Calling the Roll Partner Responsibilitiesand Roles

Figures and Tables

National and state education legislation aswell as local school policies are created

and enacted to address the needs of learners andsupport effective strategies for educators.Policymakers at all levels face complex deci-sions on issues such as school choice, schoolfinance, curriculum content, and achievementstandards. While policymakers often are able toaccess expert information and draw from edu-cation policy research, critical input on reformdecisions from the public (students, schools,families, and communities) is often absent fromthe policy making arena.

This complex decision making environmentcalls for an examination of why and how statepolicymakers1 might interact with the public insome fundamentally different ways as theygather information, debate, and ultimately cre-ate the state policy context for local educationreform in our nation of increasingly diversecommunities.

Deliberative Dialogue and theStudy Circle Model

In order to explore ways in which policy-makers and the public might interact moreeffectively, staff at the Southwest EducationalDevelopment Laboratory (SEDL) conductedinterviews and held meetings beginning in thefall of 1996 around the engagement methodknown as deliberative dialogue. Yankelovich(1999) describes dialogue as interaction aimedat seeking mutual understanding through a

willingness to internalize the views of others.Citing Buber, Yankelovich continues to discussdialogue as a process of successful and authen-tic relationship-building. Deliberation adds theprocess of careful consideration of alternativesthat might lead to new understanding or deci-sion making.

Deliberative dialogue has a long history inthe United States as a way for people to exerciseactive citizenship in a democracy, reaching asfar back as 16th century citizen assemblies and,later, colonial town meetings. Face-to-face dis-cussion and deliberation is a familiar traditionin many other cultures as well (from the citizenassemblies of ancient Greece to NativeAmerican councils to the Solidarity movementin Poland in the 1980s) (Study Circle ResourceCenter, 2000). Today, across the United States,community service organizations, interfaithgroups, public agencies, and others are imple-menting deliberative dialogue programs to helpthe public gain a better understanding of localproblems and build commitment towardresolving them.

SEDL conducted a policy workshop and aroundtable discussion with experts on publicengagement prior to this current research anddeveloped a deeper understanding of the poten-tial of deliberative dialogue:

• Deliberative dialogue is an inclu-sive, democratic public engagementmethod that asserts the responsibili-

1

Introduction

1 For the purposes of this report, state policymakers are defined as elected and appointed representatives whose jobs as state legislators, stateboard of education members, or other state-level officeholders place them in a position of accountability to the citizens of their state.

ty of individuals and gives them arole in setting the social or politicalagenda by involving them in weigh-ing multiple perspectives, choices,and consequences.

• Output from deliberative dialogueappears to include better informed(although not necessarily consensus)opinions, clearer definitions of per-sistent problems, more coherentperceptions of the range of solu-tions and their consequences, and asense of public priorities.

• Promising uses of dialogue by stateeducation policymakers mightinclude a way to better managetough policy decisions, gauge thelevel of public concern about partic-ular problems, test ideas, discernthe majority point of view, redefinethe social compact around publiceducation goals, and build “socialcapital” for implementing decisions.

Issues of public education lend themselveswell to deliberative dialogue. A number of dia-logue processes are being used in states toaccomplish public engagement goals in thecontext of education improvement. Forinstance, national organizations dedicated toeducation (among them the AnnenbergInstitute for School Reform; the Institute forEducational Leadership; and a collaborationamong Phi Delta Kappa, the National Parentsand Teachers Association, and the Center onEducation Policy) are applying and studyingdialogue strategies, most of which are based ontwo existing models refined and facilitated byprivate, nonprofit foundations: study circles(Study Circles Resource Center, Pomfret,Connecticut) and National Issues Forums(Kettering Foundation, Dayton, Ohio).

Study Circles

Of the two models, SEDL focused itsresearch interest on the deliberative dialoguemodel known as study circles. Study circlesemerged by that name in the late 19th century,when the Chautauqua adult education move-ment attracted thousands of Americans to par-ticipate in voluntary, participatory, small-groupmeetings in their neighbors’ homes to learnabout and discuss social, economic, and politi-cal issues. For more than ten years, the StudyCircle Resource Center (SCRC) has worked tohelp individuals and communities across theUnited States use the model to create a “delib-erative democracy” in this country (SCRC,2000).

Study circles are judged by SEDL to be par-ticularly suited to engaging state policymakersand the public in dialogues about education forthree reasons. First, within a study circle, com-munity members and their public officials caninteract about education in ways that differ fromthe interaction possible in policymakers’ typicalencounters with the public—legislative hear-ings, public speaking engagements, one-on-onecontacts with constituents, and other such set-tings. As described by SCRC, a study circle:

• is a small, diverse group of eight totwelve people.

• meets regularly over time to addressa critical public issue in a democrat-ic and collaborative way.

• sets its own ground rules for arespectful, productive discussion.

• is led by an impartial facilitator, typ-ically a fellow community member,who is trained to lead civil dialogue.

Introduction

2

• looks at the selected public issuefrom many points of view, guidedby a topic-specific “study circleguide” that provides informationand poses provocative questions.

• uncovers areas of agreement andcommon concern without expectingor requiring consensus.

Second, the study circle process is increas-ingly implemented as a community-wide modelfor engaging broader and more diverse seg-ments of the public and providing a structurefor identifying joint action to solve communityproblems. During the last decade, nearly 200communities in the United States have takensteps to use the community-wide process as abasis for local problem solving, and 85 havesuccessfully coordinated and convened pro-grams that resulted in local action (SCRC,1997a). This expansion of deliberative dialogueto include more constituents and consider poli-cy-relevant action suggests the study circlemodel has potential impact for entire commu-nities as they work to improve their publicschools.

Third, the community-wide study circleprocess lends itself to a continuum of impactson participating individuals, groups, and com-munities. SCRC contends that local citizenengagement in study circles can result inchanges that range from individual learning tosmall-group action, organizational change,community-wide initiative, and public policychange (SCRC, 2000). Given their dual identi-ties as individual citizens and state representa-tives, state policymakers who participate ineducation study circles not only will experienceindividual-level effects but also are likely to beinterested in what local program results suggestfor their efforts at the state-level to improve thestate education system.

What remains unclear, however, is thepotential for deliberative dialogue and the studycircle model for bridging the gap between thepublic and state-level decision makers.

Current Research Effort

To deepen current understanding of dia-logue and study circles, SEDL planned andconducted an investigation around the poten-tial of deliberative dialogue for bridging the gapbetween the public and policymakers. Studycircles were implemented in Arkansas andOklahoma to help communities, schools, andstate policymakers engage one another in dis-cussions about education. Research activitiesconducted to investigate this implementation,named Calling the Roll: Study Circles for BetterSchools, allowed SEDL to learn more aboutstudy circles and their potential for connectingpolicymakers with the public in state educationpolicy making.

Following the introduction, the four majorparts of this document present the researcheffort and its findings:

• Part One presents a review of rele-vant literature that guided theresearch and interpretation of find-ings.

• Part Two includes a description ofthe two-state implementation ofstudy circles that was the subject ofSEDL’s research and an overview ofthe research effort.

• Part Three presents major findingsof the research.

• Part Four concludes this document,presents final discussions, and iden-tifies areas of future inquiry.

Introduction

3

Introduction

4

AFBS—Arkansas Friends for Better Schools

CR—Calling the Roll

LWVO—League of Women Voters ofOklahoma

SCRC—Study Circles Resource Center, aproject of the Topsfield Foundation, Inc.

SCs—study circles

SEDL— Southwest Educational DevelopmentLaboratory

UALR—University of Arkansas at LittleRock, Center for the Research of Teachingand Learning

UON—University of Oklahoma, Norman,Department of Sociology

In Part Three, key findings from qualitativeanalysis are presented. The presentation offindings uses Strauss and Corbin’s analytic storyline concept (1990) to portray the layers offindings in a logical order. This story line ispresented in three major sections with a syn-thesis in the conclusions, and follows a line ofinquiry, as follows:

• How is the public defined, and howdo different groups of the publicrelate to the political arena in whichpolicymakers do their work?

• How do policymakers articulate thedisconnection or gap betweenthemselves and the public?

• Does deliberative dialogue throughthe study circles format serve inclosing the gap between the publicand policymakers? What barrierscontinue to challenge effective

interaction between policymakersand the public?

• What are the implications ofresearch findings for civic participa-tion and improved connections forpublic education?

For the reader’s reference, a list of acronymsfollows this introduction. At the end of the doc-ument, the appendices include a description ofthe research methodology, data collectioninstruments, and selected figures and tables. Alist of references and a glossary also appear atthe end of the document.

SEDL expects that policy research audi-ences will benefit from this report, whichexpands current understanding of the educationpolicy making process and suggests implica-tions for increasing interaction between thepublic and state decision makers.

Acronyms

Review of the Literature

P A R T O N E

Introduction

6


Considering the Bridge betweenState Policymakers, Educators, andthe Public

In the enterprise of public education, par-ents and other community members have tradi-tionally stood apart from state policymakersand educators. State policymakers make deci-sions about the philosophical, legal, and fiscalresources for public education that affect allcommunities in their state. Local school boardsand educators combine these resources withtheir own to make and implement decisionsabout school structures, teaching, and learningin their unique schools and districts. Membersof the general public typically have been spec-tators in local and state education reform.

The 1980s ushered in a new era when “theAmerican public was inundated by a sense ofschool failure” (Coombs and Wycoff, 1994, p. 3). The landmark report of the NationalCommission on Excellence in Education, ANation at Risk, ignited a sense of crisis in publiceducation. The reform movement that fol-lowed was set into motion largely by state leg-islatures, governors, government agencies andofficials, and education interest groups—notonly professional education associations butactive business and corporate leaders as well(Massell et al, 1994; Coombs and Wycoff,1994). The general public watched as localschool boards and educators began to imple-ment reform agendas that Coombs and Wycoff(1994) say “shifted the focus of public educationfrom equity to quality and emphasized themesof high standards, school choice, competition,devolution, and accountability” (p. 1).

With the early 1990s came the awarenessthat the school reform movement had awak-ened the public’s educational concerns but hadnot widely or productively engaged them.Some members of the public began to express

discontent with the direction of both state- andlocally-initiated education reforms. In certainareas of the nation, discontent grew into activeopposition by well-organized groups of citi-zens. Connecticut’s statewide plan for educa-tion reform was defeated in 1993. Pennsylvaniawas the site of a grassroots campaign againstestablishment of student learning outcomes in1992 and 1993, and local school boardturnovers occurred across the nation. Arkansas,Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texasexperienced challenges to curriculum andinstructional strategies in such areas as sex edu-cation, HIV/AIDS awareness, and literature-based reading. Communities were divided overdistrict programs on parenting and student self-esteem. State initiatives to establish standards-based curricula or restructure traditional class-room relationships between teachers and stu-dents were the object of controversy (Mutchler,1993).

Today, although the heat of the last decadeseems to have dissipated, relationships amongthe public, their state policymakers, and educa-tors remain uneasy in the United States.

The Public’s Priorities

Public opinion polls and focus groups revealthat members of the public remain concernedwith the state of public schools and with currentreform efforts. Public opinion trends reportedin the mid-1990s (Johnson and Immerwahr,1994; Johnson, 1995; Elam, Rose, and Gallup,1996) are echoed today in reports of respon-dents’ low levels of confidence in public schoolquality and dissatisfaction with the direction ofschool reform.

At minimum, there is a sense that policy-makers and educators are not recognizing andresponding to the concerns that are of highestpriority to members of the public (Coombs and


7

Wycoff, 1994; Rose and Gallup, 1999; PublicAgenda, 2000). Respondents to a 1999 tele-phone interview (ICR Survey Research Group,1999) rated three issues as “major problems”for the public schools in their community—lackof parental involvement (55 percent), studentuse of alcohol or illegal drugs (51 percent), andstudents who are undisciplined and disruptive(50 percent). These priorities contrast sharplythe predominant education reform agendawhich, since the 1980s, has focused solidly ondefining and measuring student and school per-formance.

This difference between public and policypriorities is not that members of the public donot support higher educational standards. Theydo, overwhelmingly (Coombs and Wycoff,1994). Respondents to the most recent PhiDelta Kappa/Gallup education poll (Rose andGallup, 1999) indicate satisfaction with currentachievement standards (57 percent) and sup-port for further increases (33 percent). Nor is itthat state policymakers are not concerned aboutparental involvement, student alcohol and druguse, and student discipline. In most states, pol-icymakers direct considerable effort toward ini-tiating legislation and creating support pro-grams in these areas.2

These differences in priority do, however,suggest a mismatch in what the general publicand its representatives (both in policy and prac-tice) believe to be most important in publiceducation today. The divisions among thesecritical groups are now perceived as trouble-some gaps.

Although there may be new ways to bridgethese gaps, some educators, researchers, policy

analysts, and public officials advocate strength-ening the bridge that already exists. Thesethinkers and activists suggest that the publiccan no longer stand by as, or be relegated to,spectator in the enterprise of public education ifthe nation’s public school system is to endure,much less achieve greater success (Center onNational Education Policy, 1996; Matthews,1996).

A New Understanding of Education Policy Change

The literature relevant to this question ofthe bridge between policymakers, educators,and the public draws from areas of research andtheory such as democratic political philosophy,policymaker knowledge utilization, and policychange. Two concepts important to under-standing public education policy developmentin the United States today integrate knowledgefrom the political scientist’s and the educationpolicy researcher’s points of view (Jones, 1994;Mitchell and Boyd, 1998; Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith, 1993):

Concept 1: Policy development is adynamic interaction among interrelatedprocesses.

Concept 2: Policy making requires theprocessing of complex knowledge.

Together, these concepts depict policydevelopment as a dynamic process in whichpolicymakers are problem-solvers challenged toaccess and use a diversity of complex knowledgein an equally diverse and complex decisionmaking environment.

2 Examples include state funding of parenting programs and required inclusion of parents on school-based management teams, integration ofalcohol and drug education in health curricula, and state-mandated codes of student conduct and consequences for dangerous or disruptivebehavior on school grounds.

Introduction

8

Policy Making as DynamicInteraction

A model [of decision making] that does notincorporate dynamics is not going to bevery useful in understanding politics, wheredynamics dominates.

Jones, 1994, p. 227

Policy change in any public arena, includingeducation, is the result of a dynamic interactionamong various interrelated processes (Sabatierand Jenkins-Smith, 1993). In describing thismultifaceted change process, the tworesearchers contrast the practice of policy mak-ing in the real world with the broadly accepted“stages” model of policy and politics that focus-es on analyzing specific steps of the policydevelopment process. The stages model isdepicted in a variety of ways by different theo-rists, but most share five key elements: (1) prob-lem identification or definition, (2) agenda set-ting or policy proposal formulation, (3) policyadoption, (4) implementation, and (5) evalua-tion (Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith, 1993; Sato,1999).

Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith claim thatstages theory fails to explain how these five ele-ments link together or interact to create policychange. For example, how do information-gathering and issue-framing activities in the“problem identification” stage intersect withinformation analysis and decision making dur-ing the “agenda-setting” stage? And how doesthe model account for the frequent variations inhow policy decision making progresses fromone process stage to the next—such as the factthat agenda setting often is driven not by a newproblem but by the evaluation of an existingpolicy initiative? Finally, they ask, how does

stages theory explain the influence on ultimateformal policy of the “multitude of overlappingdirectives and actors” (Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith, 1993, p. 3) that interact in real-worldpolicy making?

Questions such as these led Sabatier andJenkins-Smith to propose a model, theAdvocacy Coalition Framework (ACF), whichthey think more accurately depicts the practiceof public policy development. The modeldescribes a non-linear and highly complexinteraction among the individuals and organi-zations that directly act in what Sabatier andJenkins-Smith (1993) term a “policy subsys-tem.” The education policy subsystem consistsof policymakers and policy influencers3 whoseinterests, expertise, and individual or organiza-tional goals provide the motivation and com-mitment to devote time to actively participatein education policy development activities.Most of these actors cluster into one or moreadvocacy coalitions, each based on sharedbeliefs about education and a willingness toengage in joint policy-oriented activity.

The place of the public in this dynamicenvironment. There is little argument that thegeneral public typically is not directly involvedin the actions of the education policy subsys-tem. Most members of the public have neitherthe time nor desire to become deeply involvedin policy change activities (Coombs andWycoff, 1994; Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith,1993). Indeed, in his initial development of theAdvocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) in 1988,Sabatier depicted the public as more or lessinvisible—present but unnamed as one amongmany “socioeconomic conditions” in the exter-nal environment.


3 Policy influencers are defined as individuals and organizations whose positions and resources allow them ready access to state policymakersand, thus, regular influence on their policy decisions. Influencers include agency officials, lobbyists, other interest group leaders, and politicalparty leaders.

In 1993, Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith made asignificant change in the place of the public intheir Advocacy Coalition Framework. They“tested” the ACF by requesting that sixresearchers use the framework to analyze poli-cy change in their respective policy areas ofexpertise4. Application of the ACF to real-world examples of policy change convincedthem that public opinion can “constitute a sub-stantial constraint on the range of feasiblestrategies available to subsystem participants ifit persists for some time and demonstrates somerecognition of value tradeoffs” (1993, p. 223).As such, they determined that changes in pub-lic opinion warrant specific recognition in theframework.

In addition, in their revision of the ACF,Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith describe a group ofindividuals between those represented by “pub-lic opinion” (the general public) and “policysubsystem” actors (policymakers and policyinfluencers). Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith labelthese people the “interested/attentive public”that includes “members of interest groups andother people who try to stay reasonablyinformed on an issue and are available for occa-sional mobilization by interest-group leaders”(p. 235). Jones (1994) and Yankelovich (1991)echo this idea of a subset of the general public,peopled by constituents who are not core poli-cy players in subsystem politics but are attentiveto information and events relevant to one ormore public policy areas.

Together, these researchers suggest that therole of ordinary citizens, whether through theexpression of public opinion or through indi-vidual action, is complex and integral to thedynamic interactions of policy development.The general public cannot be viewed as a massor single entity, external to the actions of edu-

cation policymakers and policy influencers.Instead we see a much more diverse group,some of whom are occasionally drawn intodirect interaction with policy actors on a specif-ic education policy issue.

Policy making as the Processing ofComplex Knowledge

It is the cumulative effect of findings fromdifferent studies and from ordinary knowl-edge that has greatest influence on policy(Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith, 1993, p. 16).

The role of knowledge and information haslong been considered central to both theprocess of public policy decision making andthe quality of its outcome (Sabatier andJenkins-Smith, 1993; Mitchell and Boyd, 1998;Rich, 1983; Weiss, 1977). Traditionally, theexamination of information use, or knowledgeutilization, by policymakers has been concernedprimarily with how they obtain technical knowl-edge from experts, assess it, and apply it in deci-sion making.

Technical information, or social scienceresearch, is assumed to be the currency of “pol-icy-oriented learning,” a term used by Sabatierand Jenkins-Smith (1993) to describe policy-makers’ ongoing process of searching for, accu-mulating, and using empirical evidence toachieve policy goals. They also assert, however,that one of a policymaker’s purposes in further-ing his or her policy goals is to identify theextent of agreement or disagreement betweennewly acquired information and specific policystrategies he or she supports. These strategiesare associated not solely with data-based evi-dence but rather with a set of precepts thatincludes both normative, or value-based, andempirical components. Termed the “policy


9

4 Testing of the ACF has included application to Canada’s education arena and Japan’s smoking policy (Mawhinney, 1993; Sato, 1999).

core” of a policymaker’s belief system, this mixof value priorities and factual support serves asthe foundation for a decision maker’s funda-mental policy positions relative to education (orany other policy area).

Thus, these researchers would say that theidea of policy-relevant knowledge as only afact-based resource or “good” that one acquiresand directly applies to a policy problem (Jones,1994, p. 49) is inadequate. Although technicalinformation is critical to a decision maker’saccumulation of new data-based knowledge andeffective monitoring of empirical challenges tohis or her policy positions, it clearly is not theonly kind of information he or she uses.

Further, since the 1960s, some researchershave suggested that policymakers’ use ofknowledge is not the linear, rational processtypically assumed by political scientists.Instead, the policymaker is viewed as a problemsolver who requires direct linkage and interac-tion with various knowledge sources (policy,research, and practice) in order to integrate andapply that information to immediate and futurepolicy problems (Havelock, 1969).

Kennedy (1983) weaves these ideas togetherin her assertion that policymakers depend on adiverse body of information she calls workingknowledge, defined as including “the entire arrayof beliefs, assumptions, interests, and experi-ences that influence the behavior of individualsat work. It also includes social science knowl-edge” (pp. 193-194). Policymakers incorporatethese various kinds of information in an active,continual, and unsystematic way by assimila-tion, interpretation, or inference. The result isan “integrated and organized body of knowl-edge” (p. 199) that Kennedy asserts policymak-ers use spontaneously and routinely as theymake decisions.

Mitchell and Boyd (1998) supportKennedy’s concept of working knowledge bypointing to the specific nature and complexityof the knowledge that policymakers use in edu-cation decision making. Their “knowledge uti-lization map” describes knowledge as rangingalong different continua: from the empirical tothe theoretical, and from the most practical—such as how schools can be successfully orga-nized—to the most profound—for example,whether “civic integration is the goal of educa-tion” (Mitchell and Boyd, 1998, p. 137). Fromthe perspective of these two researchers, theknowledge on which policymakers rely appearsto be a shared domain among researchers andnon-researchers—including public officialsthemselves and the general public whom theyrepresent. In this domain, “personal experi-ence, beliefs, and commitments . . . function inthe same way as other forms of knowledge”(Mithchell and Boyd, 1998. p. 136).

In their analysis of how collective publicopinion changes, Page and Shapiro (1992) pro-vide further support for the idea of workingknowledge. These two researchers focus first atthe individual level in a discussion of the manyways in which people change specific policypreferences—ways we can assume are shared byindividual policymakers:

When an individual has new experiences orreceives a flow of news over a period oftime, the various bits of new informa-tion…may cumulate and alter the individ-ual’s beliefs in a systematic way that pro-duces a real long-term change in policypreferences (p. 32).

Finally, Jones (1994), who ascribes to thenotion that democratic policy making is a prob-lem-solving process (as compared to a prefer-ence-satisfaction process), contends that infor-mation processing is at the core of democratic

Introduction

10


decision-making. Indeed, he asserts that“democracies respond to problems and theiropenness allows the expression of problemsmore efficiently than do closed systems of gov-ernance” (p. 21). Decision makers in the systemacquire and use information to frame andreframe policy problems, thus changing theirindividual and shared understanding of theproblem and the aspects of policy preferencesthat demand policy attention.

The place of the public in policymakers’knowledge utilization. In Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith’s original Advocacy CoalitionFramework, the public was depicted more orless as a single entity—simply represented by“public opinion.” In the estimation of someopinion researchers, however, there is consider-able misunderstanding among policymakersabout the quality and value of public opinion asmeasured by polls and surveys (Page andShapiro, 1992). Yankelovich declares that mostopinion polls cannot “do justice to the richnessand subtlety of public opinion” (1991, p. 29).Indeed, he claims the results of a typical poll orsurvey are “merely a snapshot of public opinionat a moment in time.”

According to Jones (1994), a key role of pol-icymakers is to be attentive to the preferencesof the public, weigh conflicting preferences,and make policy choices based on those prefer-ences. While public preferences are actuallyquite stable, the nature and context of policyproblems are always changing. The public’sfocus on different aspects of their preferences,thus, often shifts—creating new priorities forpolicymakers to address (Jones, 1994).

Together, these and other researchers arguethat effective policymaking in a democratic sys-tem must be a reflection of what Yankelovich(1991) terms “public judgment,” that is, it mustrespond to public opinion, attitudes, and valuesas well as to technical knowledge. In working toattain this goal, however, policymakers facegreat challenges to gathering this valuable inputfrom constituents.

Conclusion

This literature review offers a baselineunderstanding of the bridge between the publicand state policymakers in the context ofAmerican public education. Policymakers andeducators need two kinds of support frommembers of the public as they chart and carryout the course of state education reform. First,they need access to the public’s knowledge—par-ticularly knowledge about the human and socialvalues people associate with public education.Second, they need assurance of the public will tomaintain and improve the public schools. Giventoday’s complex education environment, poli-cymakers should review the processes that com-prise education policy development. Withdeeper understanding, they might strengthenthe bridge to the public and, in so doing, pro-duce education policies that will both reflectthe public’s knowledge and ensure its supportover the long-term.

The remainder of this document exploresone potential strategy for strengthening thebridge between the public and policymakers:deliberative dialogue. In the next section weprovide an overview of the community dialogueprogram that served as the subject of SEDL’sresearch.


11

Introduction

12

P A R T T W OThe Calling the Roll Program

Calling the Roll: Study Circles forBetter Schools

Calling the Roll is a two-state education studycircle program that occurred from Septemberthrough November 1998 in Arkansas andOklahoma. The program was a collaborativeeffort that began in the fall of 1997, through theefforts of the Southwest EducationalDevelopment Laboratory (SEDL), the StudyCircles Resource Center (SCRC), ArkansasFriends for Better Schools (AFBS), and theLeague of Women Voters of Oklahoma(LWVO). Two university-based partners—theCenter for Research on Teaching and Learning5

at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock andthe University of Oklahoma, Norman,Department of Sociology, representing AFBSand LWVO, respectively—worked with SEDLand SCRC to evaluate the program and examineits impact. The partners worked to plan, imple-ment, and learn from study circles. The imple-mentation phase of the program ended in 1998.Calling the Roll research activities will continuethrough 2000 (see Figure A.1 in Appendix A fora time line describing major Calling the Roll andrelated post-program activities).

The state partner organizations (AFBS andLWVO) sponsored the effort in their ownstates, developed their own coalitions, built localnetworks, coordinated the Calling the Roll (CR)program, and provided support and informationfor research activities. SCRC provided technicalassistance in facilitating community-wide studycircle programs, ranging from advice on orga-nizing strategies to help with communicationsand facilitator training. SCRC also conducted alocally focused process evaluation.

SEDL assisted in implementing the studycircle program in both states by involving statepolicymakers in the program, by developing

program discussion materials (including state-specific education resource guides), and by pro-viding seed money to each of the state coordi-nating organizations. Most importantly, SEDLinvestigated the study circle model, examinedimpacts on the education policy makingprocess, and developed products to disseminateresearch results (see Table A.1 in the Appendixfor an overview of the responsibilities and rolesof each of the program partners).

Approaches to Program Implementation

Fifteen communities (five in Arkansas andten in Oklahoma) participated in the Calling theRoll program. A coordinator in each of the fif-teen communities was recruited to implementstudy circles locally. Local coordinators, pri-marily volunteers, were encouraged to followthe study circle model closely, but also wereinfluenced by the specific needs and resourcelimitations of their communities. Basic ele-ments recommended by SCRC that local coor-dinators might have incorporated into the pro-grams in their communities include: a kick-offforum, a series of four study circle sessions inone or more sites, and a community-wideaction forum. Study circles were implementedas a community event, open to all residents whowished to participate. The two state coordina-tors and SCRC offered recruiting and coali-tion-building advice to help local coordinatorsbroaden participation to reflect the diversity oftheir communities.

The discussion guide that structured the dia-logues, Education: How Can Schools andCommunities Work Together to Meet the Challenge,was developed by SCRC to facilitate discussionof education issues that are important at thecommunity level (SCRC, 1995b). To ensurethat a portion of the study circle discussionguide covered an issue relevant to state educa-

The Calling the Roll Program

13

5 Now the Center for Applied Studies on Education.

tion policy development, the partners developeda session guide on accountability to replace theexisting guide used during session three.

The CR communities and state coordina-tors applied various approaches to programimplementation. Relative success of the pro-grams in the individual communities andbetween the two program states also variedwidely. For example, both state organizersexpected to involve ten communities in Callingthe Roll; however, Arkansas recruited only halfthis number and a number of the ten Oklahomacommunities were not able to fully commit theresources necessary to coordinate community-wide study circles. The Oklahoma programrelied heavily on the established LWVO net-work for program organizing, with communityorganizations and schools providing additionalsupport. In Arkansas, AFBS was a relatively newand loosely-coupled consortium of organiza-tions without a strong local network. Theschool district was the primary focus of pro-gram organizing; study circles were organizedonly in communities in which the school super-intendent agreed to support the project.

Arkansas implementation. The state coordi-nating organization for the Calling the Roll pro-gram in Arkansas was the Arkansas Friends forBetter Schools, a coalition of 14 state educationassociations and organizations. AFBS assistedthe implementation of community-wide studycircles in five cities and towns in the state.AFBS estimates that 374 people attended studycircles during the program period October–December 1998 (Arkansas Friends for BetterSchools, 1999).

The study circle site selection and recruit-ment process began with the identification ofschool districts that AFBS board members feltmight be interested in community dialogue.The coordinator approached school leaders,

presented the study circle model, and invitedtheir participation in the Calling the Roll pro-gram. The support of the superintendent andschool board of each district was a prerequisitefor coordination of the program. Five schooldistricts in the state that were able to workwithin the time and resource constraints of theprogram agreed to support the implementationof a study circle program. Local coordinatorswere identified at the community level andincluded both volunteers and paid staff.

The five community-wide study circles inArkansas were implemented at the local levelwith guidance from AFBS and the StudyCircles Resource Center. The study circlemodel depends heavily on volunteer and in-kind resources from the community, whichencourages collaboration but also results inlocal interpretation of the program model.Examples of ways in which some Arkansas com-munities diverged from the model includedelimination of kick-off activities and exclusionof school district administrators from dia-logues. In one of the five sites, instead of imple-menting a community-wide program, organiz-ers piloted the study circle model with 36 invit-ed participants from the school community.

Oklahoma implementation. The League ofWomen Voters of Oklahoma (LWVO) was thestate coordinating organization for the Callingthe Roll program in Oklahoma. LWVO’s stateoffice, with the help of local chapters and othercommunity representatives, organized studycircles in ten communities. According to esti-mates from the LWVO, more than 500 peopleattended study circles in the state (League ofWomen Voters of Oklahoma, 1999).

The network of local LWVO chaptersthroughout the state served as the basis fororganizing the study circle programs inOklahoma. Ten communities with active

Introduction

14


LWVO chapters volunteered to help organizethe effort. Organizers cooperated with othercommunity groups to share the coordinationwork and to expand the participant recruitmenteffort. Schools and school districts were oftensupporters of the study circle effort, and, insome locations, school administrators and staffhelped implement the program.

As in Arkansas, Oklahoma study circles wereimplemented at the local level with basic princi-ples of the model in mind. Variation in the com-munities was evident. Kick-off and action forumevents were held in only a few of the communi-ties. Local steering committees were extremelydiverse in some communities and limited in oth-ers. The number of study circle meetings held ineach community, the types of facilities, and theformats of groups varied as well. One communi-ty diverged from the community-wide study cir-cle planning model and assigned individualsfrom the steering committee to coordinate andconduct study circles on their own.

Community Turnout

In both states, the local communities’ abili-ties to recruit program participants was incon-sistent, and turnout was lower than expected.Originally, organizers estimated they wouldrecruit 500 participants in large urban commu-nities and 100 participants in small communi-ties. From participation estimates, however,only one of the urban communities successfullyrecruited more than 100 participants and onlyone of the small communities was able toattract that number.

Arkansas program participation. The fivecommunities in Arkansas that participated inthe Calling the Roll program varied in size frompopulations of 500 to 59,184. Four of the fivecommunities had populations of less than10,000 people. The highest participation num-bers were achieved in the smallest and thelargest communities (see Table 2.1.).


15

Table 2.1.Population and Number of Participants in the Five Arkansas Calling the Roll Communities

Community Population Estimatea Program Participants Policymaker Participants

1 500b 75–100 1c

2 6,097 30–75 13 4,526 32–36 04 59,184 82–100 45 8,618 43–70 1

a From U.S. Census Bureau (June, 1998) Population Estimates for Places: Annual Time Series, July 1, 1990 to July 1, 1998.http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/metro-city/scts/SC98T_AR-DR.txt (18 October 1999)

b Unofficial estimate

c This policymaker attended the action forum of the first round of study circles and also attended the second round of studycircles in this community.

Introduction

16

Demographic information was collectedfrom 262 program participants through a sur-vey that was administered immediately beforethe study circle discussions began. As summa-rized in Figure A.2 in the Appendix, surveyresults revealed that participants were predom-inantly educated female professionals withincomes well above the state median householdincome. Racial and ethnic characteristics ofparticipants closely reflect the statewide distrib-ution. Much of the imbalance in the demo-graphic characteristics of participants might beexplained by the high percentage of educatorswho participated in study circles. Nearly onehalf (46 percent) of all participants are currenteducators (34 percent), retired educators (8 per-cent), or had received training as educators (4percent).

Oklahoma program participation. Populationestimates of the ten Calling the Roll communi-ties in Oklahoma ranged from 15,313 to

472,221. All the communities were largelyurban with populations of more than 10,000people. Two communities were major citieswith populations of more than 300,000.Program participation was consistently low inmost of the communities. Three communities,however, had almost 100 participants (see Table2.2.).

In Oklahoma, 338 participants completedthe same survey that was completed by partici-pants in Arkansas (see Figure A.2. in theAppendix). As in Arkansas, Oklahoma partici-pants were, for the most part, highly educatedwith household incomes far greater than thestate median income. Participants were pre-dominantly female (77 percent) and most wereolder than 30 (86 percent). Racial and ethniccharacteristics of participants closely reflect thestatewide distribution, except for a lower per-centage of American Indian participants. Alsosimilar to the Arkansas program participant


Table 2.2.Population and Number of Participants in the Ten Oklahoma Calling the Roll Communities

Community Population Estimates Program Participants Policymaker Participants 1 15,313 20–30 02 33,672 20–30 03 45,234 20–30 04 81,107 25–30 05 38,386 20–30 36 93,019 10–20 17 472,221 80–100 38 27,008 varied 09 38,765 100 2

10 381,393 100 2

aFrom U.S. Census Bureau (June, 1998) Population Estimates for Places: Annual Time Series, July 1, 1990 to July 1, 1998.http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/metro-city/scts/SC98T_AR-DR.txt (18 October 1999)

demographics, a high percentage of current andpast educators participated in the Oklahomastudy circles. More than half (59 percent) of allparticipants are current educators (31 percent),were previously educators (21 percent), or weretrained as educators (7 percent). Oklahoma par-ticipants had a higher percentage of partici-pants who are retirees and a lower percentageof parents of school-age children than inArkansas.

Barriers to Program Implementation

SEDL collected limited data on local imple-mentation. Anecdotal reports, however, suggesta number of implementation factors that mayhave contributed to the low level of communi-ty member participation at most Calling the Rollsites. These include:

• faulty communication about recruitment tolocal program coordinators and, conse-quently, poor application of SCRC-recom-mended strategies from practice;

• delayed start in local coordination activities(late commitments from some Arkansascommunities and low levels of commit-ment or underestimates of time requiredfrom some Oklahoma communities result-ed in short organizing time lines); and

• heavy dependence on volunteer efforts forlocal program organizing, which is animplementation feature typical of study circles.

Lower than expected participation of com-munity members in Calling the Roll modifiedSEDL’s original expectation that the two states’study circle initiatives could be considered“statewide” efforts. Low participation levels inmany CR communities in both states, the lackof communities recruited in Arkansas, and the

absence of statewide publicity efforts to link CRcommunities contributed to low participation.Thus, the CR program is more accuratelydescribed as study circles programs in 15 com-munities.

Calling the Roll: Research Study

SEDL’s study addressed two specificresearch goals: (1) to explore how policymakerparticipation in study circles affects the stateeducation policy making process and (2) tolearn about the process of implementing astatewide program of study circles on educationthat includes policymakers.

The Calling the Roll program offered animportant opportunity for SEDL to explorethese research interests. SEDL staff workedwith program organizers to secure the partici-pation of state-level policymakers in the pro-gram and planned and implemented a researchproject to study program impacts and evaluateits implementation. Key features of the studyare summarized below, followed by a profile ofstate policymaker participation in the two-stateprogram. A detailed discussion of the researchmethodology appears in Appendix B.

SEDL’s Research Approach

In developing the research design, SEDLrecognized the need to pursue two distinctresearch approaches to fully address theresearch goals. The research approach appro-priate to Goal One is an exploratory descriptivestudy of program impacts, and the researchapproach appropriate to Goal Two is a processevaluation (see Figure B.1. in the Appendix foran overview of the SEDL research study).

Goal One research approach. In designingthe research approach for Goal One of thisstudy, SEDL staff adopted a design that would


17

reveal the most complete picture of the com-plex phenomenon under study. No researchfindings currently address the impact of studycircles on policy making. The unique programelements of Calling the Roll include participa-tion of policymakers and implementation inmultiple communities in two states. Therefore,an exploratory descriptive research approachrelying predominately on qualitative data wasused. This approach used interviews, observa-tion, and the inductive abilities of theresearchers as primary sources to develop an in-depth description of how the program affectededucation policymakers who participated inCalling the Roll study circles.

This impact study began with the identifica-tion of general themes to be explored, ratherthan the development of a hypothesis or a nar-row set of expected outcomes. Themes wereintentionally broad so that they would providefundamental foci for the study but also allowfreedom to explore additional, related phenom-ena that might emerge in the course of thestudy.

To track the impact of study circle partici-pation on state policymakers over time, SEDLcollected data before, during, and after imple-mentation of study circles in the fall of 1998.Frequency and central tendency calculationswere performed on numerical (quantitative)survey data. SEDL analyzed qualitative data—predominantly transcripts of interviews withstate policymakers participating in study cir-cles—using a coding method developed byStrauss and Corbin (1990). This multi-stagemethod is a well-accepted approach to analyz-ing and comparing the expressed perceptionsand experiences of key informants. Iterativecoding and analysis allowed SEDL to test,deconstruct, reconstruct, and elaborate themesthat emerged from the data from all key infor-mants. The research findings reported in Part

Three present the “story line,” as Strauss andCorbin (1990) term it, of state policymakers’experiences as participants in the Calling the Rollprogram.

Goal Two research approach. SEDL’s sec-ond research goal was concerned with docu-menting the Calling the Roll program and exam-ining the implementation process, includingplanning, coordinating, and conducting thestudy circle sessions in the fall of 1998.Researchers sought to document the resources,planning, and coordination necessary to imple-ment a statewide study circle program on edu-cation.

Interviews with program implementers andreview of state coordinator logs were the pri-mary data sources for research Goal Two. Asdescribed in the previous section, Calling theRoll implementation in neither Arkansas norOklahoma took the form of a statewide pro-gram. So these data did not answer questions ofhow a statewide program is planned and imple-mented or what costs are associated withinvolving state policymakers in a statewide pro-gram.

State policymakers’ experiences in theirstudy circle programs, however, yielded impor-tant information regarding the strategies usedto involve them in dialogues on education.SEDL researchers were able to identify suc-cessful strategies and barriers related to policy-maker participation—findings that will be valu-able to individuals and organizations seeking tosuccessfully engage state policymakers in com-munity dialogue on education. These processevaluation findings are included as contextualbackground for this report. More importantly,they will be used to inform the development ofwritten products appropriate for study circleorganizers and potential policymaker partici-pants.

Introduction

18


State Policymaker Participation

Since 15 rather than 20 communities wererecruited for participation in Calling the Roll,the pool of policymakers with constituents inparticipating communities was small. SEDLstaff with state and local program coordinatorswere able to recruit 24 policymakers (defined aslegislators and other key state-level educationdecision makers) who agreed to participate inCalling the Roll. Policymaker participation inCalling the Roll was less than expected, however,in terms of overall individual experience. Four

of the 24 policymaker participants were unableto attend, and a number of others were not ableto attend all of their study circle sessions (seeTable 2.3 below).

The majority of policymaker participants inArkansas were located in the largest community,where there are more legislative districts. Eachsmaller community had only one state represen-tative and one state senator as possible candi-dates for participation in Calling the Roll. In theOklahoma program, policymaker participationwas clustered in five of the 10 communities.


19

Table 2.3.Characteristics of Calling the Roll Policymaker Participants

Gender 17 males 7 females

Current office/position 8 state senators 13 state representatives 3 other

Experience as a state policymaker Range of 0-16 years

Professional experience with education 8 educators

Other recent experience with education 13 parents or grandparents of grade school-age children

6 with family members who work or volunteer in public schools

6 with career-related experience

Previous experience with small-group dialogue 5 with study circles10 with other small-group processes 11 with other medium- or large-group public

engagement

Number of sessions attended 4 attended 0 sessions 8 attended 1 session 4 attended 2 sessions 4 attended 3 sessions 4 attended 4 sessions

Introduction

20

Key informant interviews with policymakerparticipants uncovered challenges and barriersthat may inhibit study circle benefits to policy-makers. The three primary reasons given bypolicymakers for not attending all sessionswere:• time constraints,• scheduling conflicts, and

• dissatisfaction with low participation bycommunity members.

A more detailed discussion of these barriersto participation appears in Part Three, integrat-ed into the discussion of study circle impacts onpolicymakers.


Policymaker Perceptions of Study Circles

P A R T T H R E E

Introduction

22

Calling the Roll Research Findings

The research findings presented in this sec-tion are the result of an exploratory, qualitativeinvestigation of education policy making andthe roles of and relationships between state pol-icymakers and the public.

Using a grounded theory approach to qual-itative research6, investigators relied heavily onsurveys and interviews with key informants—the 20 policymakers who participated in theCalling the Roll program in Arkansas andOklahoma. Data from these sources documentthe expectations, insights, and experiences ofthese policymakers. Such data shed light on theactual and potential benefits of small-group dia-logue for increased public participation in civiclife and specifically in public education.Analysis of the data allowed SEDL researchersto identify themes and theoretical constructsthat frame and describe the complex phenome-non of public and policymaker interactionsabout education.

In the following pages, three major con-cepts are explored. First is the policymakerrespondents’ interpretations of the roles thatthe public plays relative to the policymakersthemselves within the state education policyarena. Second, is the policymakers’ perceptionsof the disconnection between many of theirconstituents and the policy arena in which theywork, as indicated by an unsatisfactory informa-tion flow and a lack of supportive relationships.Finally are the opportunities and challengesthat deliberative dialogue offers to bridge thegap between policymakers and their public, sothey might exchange information, forge rela-tionships, and, ultimately, strengthen civiccapacity to contribute to the improvement ofpublic education in their states. Throughoutthis section, the theoretical concepts emerging

from SEDL’s research are depicted graphically(Figures 3.1.–3.3.). The illustrative frameworkshows how public implementations of delibera-tive community dialogue have the potential tostrengthen the bridge between the public andthose who represent them in the state policymaking arena.

As the results of SEDL’s research unfold inthis section, they answer the initial questionsposed for this research on policymaker partici-pation in deliberative dialogue on education.Also, integrated into this discussion of impact isSEDL’s understanding of the CR programimplementation, which was briefly addressed inthe previous chapter.

Public and Policymaker Roles,Connections, and Disconnections

As revealed in a survey of 30 state legislatorsin Calling the Roll communities conducted inthe summer of 1998, policymakers identifiedtheir constituents as the single most importantsource of input for education decisions. It isalso clear from survey results that policymakersare very interested in receiving input from thepublic. Survey respondents use, on average,seven different sources to gain access to publicinput, including direct communication throughconversations, telephone calls, mail, and e-mail;public opinion gathered through communityleaders, lobbyists, interest groups, and advisers;and participation in public forums. Surveyrespondents generally agreed there is greatinterest in education issues from the public;however, many felt the general public is notactive in local schools, and even more felt thepublic is not well informed about educationissues. A majority of respondents felt the needfor different or better ways of finding out theviews of their constituents.


6 Researchers followed the grounded theory procedure outlined by Strauss and Corbin (1990).

Survey results, while informative, also pointto some unanswered questions and apparentparadoxes. For example, while some respon-dents reported that constituents are the mostimportant source of information, others per-ceive that the public is not well informed. Also,while policymakers currently have access to asignificant number of sources of public prefer-ence, they are in need of different and betterways of tapping the views of the public.

To better understand the complex relation-ship between policymakers and the public andthe ways in which deliberative dialogue mightaffect that relationship, researchers began byexploring the role of the public in civic life fromthe perspective of policymakers who participat-ed in the Calling the Roll program. Interviewswith policymakers revealed that they interpretthe term “constituent” in a variety of ways.Research findings indicated they perceive theirconstituency as ranging from those who workclosely with them in the “policy subsystem”7 tothe more general public with whom they workless frequently or not at all.

In order to understand the way in whichdialogue might affect policymaker interactionwith the public in education decision making,researchers probed respondents’ thinking todetermine how they perceive their connectionwith the public. Just as there are different typesof constituents, from the policymaker’s per-spective, constituent roles and participation ineducation policy making are similarly varied.

As depicted in Figure 3.1., policymakersperceive three subgroups within civic society:members of the policy subsystem, participatingpublic, and non-participating public. As dis-played in the figure, the participating and non-

participating publics are distinct from the poli-cy subsystem, where policymakers are mostdirectly influenced and where policy is decided.The structure of this framework loosely paral-lels major components of the policy changemodel created by Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith(1993), with a focus on and elaboration of thepublic realm in that model. Each of the threesubgroups is described in detail below.

Policy Subsystem

The policy subsystem encompasses the pol-icymaker and those entities and persons thatwield the most direct influence over his or herdecisions. Individuals and organizations who fitin this subgroup (1) are focused and committedto a specific education agenda, (2) representinterests with immediate stake in the issues, and(3) maintain a high level of involvement in thepolitical process, often initiating contacts toaffect the decisions of elected officials.

Policymaker respondents readily under-stand and are able to define this constituentgroup. Indeed, much of their contact with thepublic in general is through invited appearancesor talks at the functions sponsored by groupsthat participate in the education policy subsys-tem. Policymakers illustrate some ways inwhich they interact with this group:

Sometimes I’m invited to come to meetings. . . [where] issues of the affairs of state arebeing discussed and sometimes there arepeople who are irate and invite me to ameeting so that they can [express] . . . whatthey think I’ve been doing wrong in certainareas, but I go to a lot of meetings and lis-ten to people.


23

7 This term is defined as in the Advocacy Coalition Framework, refined by Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith (1993). Members of the policy subsys-tem span the full range of decision makers and significant policy influencers in the area of K-12 education, including professional educationassociation leaders, nonprofit and religious organizations, key education research organizations, other interest groups and lobbyists, and certainmedia.

Introduction

24

I interviewed with the [state teacher associ-ation] and let them know that the educationthings they were interested in I would cer-tainly be interested in visiting with them.

Many respondents also use individuals andgroups from this political arena to help themgain information on policy issues. Members ofthe policy subsystem become trusted sourcesafter their biases are made clear to the policy-maker and the viewpoint they provide helpsinform decision making:

I know this is supposed to be an ugly word,but . . . a good source of informationwould be the paid lobbyist. I value theirideas and their thoughts. I don’t alwaysagree with them, I don’t always vote theway they wish that I would because theyare paid to, as you know, really bear downon the subject they are interested in, butthey are a great source of information.


Figure 3.1.Roles and Relationships of the Policy Subsystem and the Public

1. Education Decision Makers (elected officials, state agency representatives, state board ofeducation members, etc.)

2. Policy Influencers (educator organizations and associations, lobbyists, political and religiousorganizations)

• Relation to issue—affect issues directly by setting or influencing policy• Stake in issue—immediate political stake in issue• Civic capacity—high; decision makers can create policy, and influencers can initiate and

maintain direct contact with policymakers

P A R T I C I P A T I N G P U B L I C

• Relation to issue—valued and/or participating

• Stake in issue—personal or professionalstake (parents, teachers, administrators,business people)

• Civic capacity—medium, typically vote,participate in selected groups or activities

N O N - P A R T I C I P A T I N G P U B L I C

• Relation to issue—opposed, taken forgranted, or excluded

• Stake in issue—little or none, sometimesdue to disenfranchisement

• Civic capacity—low to none

D i s c o n n e c t i o n B e t w e e n P o l i c y m a k e r s a n d t h e P u b l i c

P O L I C Y S U B S Y S T E M

Members of the policy subsystem are animportant, and often trusted, influence on edu-cation decision making. Policymakers also findthat some members represent narrow agendasand that reliance on this group, while conve-nient, creates gaps in understanding and sup-ports the tendency not to look beyond thisgroup for input on decision making:

I think the legislature needs to be moreresponsive to those parents than they are toall these other interest groups. Right now,we do a great job of responding to all theother interest groups . . . the administra-tors, the teacher’s union, the governor, andthe department of education . . . they’vegot clout and they get listened to . . . andlegislators think twice before they crossthem.

Well, if you [do away with dialogueprocesses] then you’re going back to theway we do most things. We have the[interest group] representative show updown here and they have a little bulletsheet and they say here’s the six things ourgroup has decided you need to be for. Wefall right back into the trap.

Participating Public

Policymakers identified two subgroupswithin the public sphere, the first of which isthe participating public. The participating pub-lic is comprised of individuals and organizationswho are not part of the policy subsystem due tolack of organization and power but who remaina visible source of input and accountability foreducation decision making. Members of theparticipating public may have a personal stakein education, such as parents, business owners,retirees, and students,8 and/or they may have a

professional stake in the issue, such as educatorsand administrators. The participating public isalso characterized by participation in civic lifethrough voting, participation in local groupsand meetings, presence at public events, or bymaking individual-level contact with schoolstaff and elected officials.

Policymaker respondents report that theyhave access to the participating public througha number of different avenues: phone calls, let-ters, and e-mail from constituents. Polling isused on a limited basis, due to cost constraints.Many policymakers make use of more interac-tive formats for gaining citizen perspectives.For example, some policymakers keep in con-tact with the school and parent communitythrough personal ties:

[I hear from constituents through] one-on-one contact: either out in the public, atmeetings, [or] people will call me here athome [or] they will write letters. I send outsurveys to ask people their opinion, howthey feel on certain things.

Others plan formal meetings with citizensthrough personal networks in schools and thecommunity and through hand-picked advisorypanels. Policymakers seek citizen informantswho are knowledgeable on one or more issuesand who represent diverse viewpoints:

[I convened] an advisory body made up ofpeople from all over the district, all kindsof backgrounds, not only education, buteverything else, and I used the whole groupas a formal feedback process.

Still others seek out the public input from for-mal meetings and public forums:


25

8 Students are limited in the extent of political power they hold due to their inability to vote; however, interview respondents value the per-spective of students regarding education issues.

Introduction

26

I also attended a public forum last nightwhere voters were in attendance and askedquestions of a panel of candidates runningfor public office, so . . . [we had] an oppor-tunity to be at least fairly directly contactedby the constituents and I can hear theirquestions.

Whatever means of connecting with thepublic that policymaker respondents use, near-ly all highly value input from the active citizen-ry. As one respondent articulated, the partici-pating public offers a perspective that informsdecision makers of local needs and issues andhelps to clarify potential impact of state policyon schools and communities in the districts orareas they represent:

I think the information I get from parentsand through my wife, her relationship withschool parents, is especially valuablebecause I’ll be off on some public policytear at times and my wife will say . . . youneed to visit a school.

Although policymakers seek contact withthe participating public and value their viewsand perspectives, respondents also identify seri-ous limits to gaining access to this group ofconstituents. Constraints on their time is themost prevalent limiting factor for policymakersgaining access to the public. As one policymak-er reflected on his opportunities to interactwith citizens, “You can always use more, butthere’s a limit as to . . . how much time you canspend doing that.” Other respondents echo thisrealization:

I think for me that is the best communica-tion and there is no substitute for talkingto people, face to face. Two humans talkingabout an important issue: that is, far andaway, the best way to do it. It is, unfortu-

nately, the most time-consuming and mostdifficult one to arrange.

Other policymakers do not seem overlyconcerned about their limited opportunities toaccess the public. They interact with the publiconly on rare occasions:

My constituency does not contact meunless they have a problem with the statesystem. Even my school principals andteachers don’t contact me. So . . . I hear . . . [more] here at the Capitol than I do inmy own district.

Another limiting factor is the quality andrelevance of the perspectives offered by activecitizens. First, just like policy subsystem mem-bers, the participating public is driven by indi-vidual agendas and personal interests.Policymakers also characterize contacts withthe public as sometimes negative and reactive:

It is pretty rare for me to get a call fromsomebody who just wants to talk about aneducation issue, for example, and discuss itintelligently. I mean, the callers that I doget are [saying], . . . “I am mad,” or “I needsome services,” or “I got an evictionnotice.” . . . My point again is that oppor-tunities for just dialogue are few and farbetween.

Another frequently noted limitation ofinput from the participating public is that thisperspective offers policymakers a narrow view-point that they can only consider on an individ-ual basis. That is, it cannot be generalized andso doesn’t represent a consensus or broad-basedpublic opinion, which is most highly prized bystate policymakers. The public also may not beinformed of all sides of the issue, which furthernarrows the viewpoints expressed by members


of the participating public. These respondentsillustrate the difficulties they have encounteredin incorporating the perspective of citizens:

The weakness is sometimes they’re notvery well informed and they don’t know,for instance, that nearly always there is anequal and an opposite reaction. Sort of likein the firing of a weapon . . . somethingthat’s good for us sometimes is detrimentalto someone else, and that doesn’t becomeapparent until you get more information.

You’re going to get the personal when youtalk to your constituent. All you’re going tohear about is his or her problem. Now,eventually, you can tie a bunch of themtogether and say, “Gee, a lot of people arehaving this same problem.”

Non-participating Public

The third subgroup inferred from SEDL’sinterviews with policymakers is the non-partic-ipating public. This subgroup is characterizedby little or no participation in civic issues. Eventhough they may be parents or taxpayers oreven educators, they do not claim an activestake in the issue of education. As one policy-maker describes:

I think they are the silent majority . . . Iguess we have to assume that evidentlythey are not riled up about anything orthey would call or write or show up with apicket sign or do something . . . So, I don’tknow if they . . . vote . . . I don’t knowwhat they do because they don’t seem toparticipate.

The reasons for their lack of participationare not well understood by policymakers,although apathy, disenfranchisement, and

intimidation were some reasons given by poli-cymaker respondents:

[These people have] . . . different prob-lems . . . [or are] disenfranchised, unedu-cated, and intimidated by the process inand of itself. They can’t get there. In myopinion, they are not going to [attend civicevents]. They don’t vote anyway.

A lot of the communities that I represent . . . they have special problems becausethey are so rural. . . . They are very isolat-ed. . . . Sometimes there are tendencies forareas like that to feel like they are not rep-resented, . . . that they never really getheard by their government leaders.

I think that [the problem is] apathy with abig A, whether or not it is in certain levelsof middle America [or] all the way down tothose [with] lower socioeconomic back-grounds. So there is a desperate need [forpolicymakers] to reach out even if it is invery small ways.

Respondents generally agree that the non-participating public exists and may constitute asilent majority in public life. Because of theirabsence, is it difficult for policymakers toinclude this group as constituents to which theyare responsive and accountable. There is alsoconcern regarding the unmet needs of this levelof constituency and the implications that theirlack of participation has for democratic repre-sentation:

I think if those parents aren’t informed andfocused on those issues, then they don’treally have an adequate say in the decisionsthat are going to be made, and the educa-tional bureaucracies that exist are going tomake those decisions.


27

Introduction

28

So, when you talk about a majority of myconstituents, see, they don’t care aboutgovernment, and that scares me.

Conclusion

The three major subgroups within societydescribed above portray three distinct levels ofcivic participation among members of the pub-lic. Those who belong to the policy subsystemmay be members of the public by definition,but more reasonably might be viewed as part ofthe state policy development system—directlyconnected to state policymakers’ processes ofinformation gathering and deliberation. Theyare perceived by policymakers as the most sig-nificant sources of input and, perhaps, as themost immediate constituents to whom they, thepolicymakers, are accountable.

Well separated from the policy subsystem isthe general public, distinguished by level ofactivity relative to policy subsystem actions.The participating public is perceived by policy-makers as the constituency they are chargedwith serving. However, they are also sometimesseen as limited sources of input and moreremoved from policymaker accountability dueto their individual/reactive interests, ignoranceof the issues, and inaccessibility. The non-par-ticipating public is a puzzle to most policymak-ers and little is known about these, who areappropriately called the silent majority.

Policymaker perceptions of the public ashaving varied levels of civic participation, dif-ferent perceived stakes in education issues, anddiffering kinds of expertise relevant to the issueare important in understanding the role of thepublic in education. This first layer of theframework emerging from analysis of SEDL’sdata (Figure 3.1.) provides the basis for the nextdiscussion, regarding the bridge between the

public and policymakers in education decisionmaking.

Bridging Disconnections betweenthe Public and Policymakers

As discussed in Part One of this report,SEDL has identified a serious divide in U.S.society with regard to public education.Disconnections within the enterprise of publiceducation not only constrain the potential suc-cess of public education reform; they preventstate policymakers from taking full advantage ofthe potential contributions of many of theirconstituents to the democratic decision makingprocess that undergirds our public educationsystem. Previous discussion in this section artic-ulated a keener understanding of the divisionswithin society, depicted by SEDL’s policymakerrespondents as three unique subgroups—policysubsystem members, the participating public,and the non-participating public—and theirdiffering levels of civic participation in the stateeducation policy arena.

Policymakers are concerned about the spe-cific disconnection they experience from largenumbers of the general public, that is, thosewho stand outside the policy subsystem. Twomajor themes were uncovered. Cross-analysisof these policymakers’ expressed opinions andexperiences identify (1) information flow and(2) relationship-building as the processesthrough which stronger ties to these con-stituents might be forged.

Overall, deliberative dialogue is recognizedby respondents as a potentially useful tool formoving the non-participating public into a par-ticipatory role and for bridging the gapbetween the public and the policymakers.Figure 3.2. illustrates these findings, and thediscussion after provides further details.


29

Figure 3.2.The Bridge between Policymakers and the Public

The public and policymakers can connect through:

Relationship-Building

Mutual understanding and support

Two-way exchange

Trust

Information Flow

Expertise

Experience

Values

Theme #1: Information Flow

Information is essential for effective deci-sion making (Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith, 1993;Jones, 1994; Kennedy, 1983; Mitchell andBoyd, 1998; Weiss, 1977; Wong, 1995;Yankelovich, 1991). As discussed in Part One,policymakers are challenged to amass andprocess a complex array of knowledge. Indeed,policymakers who responded to SEDL’s inter-views rely on a wide range of informationsources to build their knowledge of education

issues, including their own personal experience,education experts, the media, colleagues, schoolrepresentatives, and the public.

Policymakers acknowledge that differentinformation sources provide different perspec-tives, which contribute to their understandingof an issue. Empirical evidence from research,while critical for effective, informed decisionmaking, is one of many inputs that these indi-viduals process, interpret, and transform into “working knowledge,” which they use for



P O L I C Y M A K E R S

Introduction

30

decision-making activities.9 As one policymakerdescribed, his understanding of policy issues isformulated not only by the data and expertiseavailable from colleagues, interest groups, andothers in the policy subsystem; it is also affect-ed and informed by other experiences:

I go to . . . [the capitol] and learn some-thing about the totality of how much taxmoney we’re bringing in and where itcomes from . . . but there’s a lot of otherthings that have an impact on my decisionother than that. . . . I have to put that inthe context of a lot of other processes thatI go through.

If you don’t have communication [with] thecommunity and the parents . . . and theschools . . . the only ones you are getting itfrom are your organizations that are lobby-ing for the schools.

Policymakers interviewed by SEDL identi-fied examples of experiences with differentinformation sources that contribute to theirunderstanding of an issue for decision making.Respondents articulated three distinct types ofknowledge that they gain from the variety ofinformation sources to which they have access:expertise, experience, and values (see Figure3.2.).

In considering how deliberative dialoguewith members of the public might lead to bet-ter information flow, these policymakersrevealed their particular expectations for thisexchange of information with and among con-stituents. In their role as conveyors of informa-tion, policymakers value opportunities to helpinform the public about education. As recipi-ents of information from the public, it appearsthat policymakers most highly value public

input that is “informed” or that represents aperspective to which they do not ordinarilyhave access. As one informant said:

They’re seeing the problem up front andpersonal, whereas somebody far removedfrom it doesn’t see that. So I think the onesthat are close to the situation may have thebest idea about how to solve it.

Policymakers’ perceptions of informationflow important to their state education decisionmaking are discussed below by knowledge type.

Expertise. This type of knowledge encompass-es the understandings policymakers gain fromcurrent research, expert analysis, and firsthandprofessional knowledge. Policymakers receiveexpert input from education organizations,from attendance at professional meetings, andfrom the information compiled by legislativestaff at the capitol. They perceived this input asresearch-based information that is provided byrelatively objective sources:

I need specific information about a specifictopic or specific statistics, and I have foundthat [specific research and informationorganizations have] been very responsive tome in generating that kind of statisticalbackground [which] strengthens my argu-ments as I’m talking about public policyissues.

Other useful although biased expert infor-mation is received from lobbyists, local educa-tion organizations, and interest groups.Individual citizens such as educators, parents,and students also offer expert perspectives oneducation issues, providing information aboutlocal needs and circumstances. Policymakers


9 The composite of knowledge that an individual policymaker can carry to education decisions represents what Kennedy (1983) terms “work-ing knowledge,” made up of an individual’s “experience, beliefs, interests, and a variety of forms of evidence.”

provided insights about their valuing of suchexpert information:

I had an opportunity to speak with andhear from mental health consumers as wellas caregivers and attendants so that I hadan opportunity to hear their concerns . . .and for me, as a person who is not a con-sumer of mental health needs or not anexpert in the field, I don’t necessarily knowwhat they need or what’s important tothem . . . that helps me to stay informed.

Policymakers value the public’s acquisitionof expert knowledge as well. SEDL’s respon-dents see increased interaction through dia-logue as a way to help create a more informedcitizenry. They view themselves as experts incertain important areas and support sharing ofthis knowledge and the knowledge of otherexperts with the public:

We actually may have to do some educat-ing . . . to bring . . . [the public] up tospeed on the facts because it is appalling tome how ignorant most people are aboutthe most basic things.

Experience. The second type of knowledgeidentified by policymakers is “experience.”Experience yields informal evidence that alsomay connect with an individual interest or per-sonal goal related to a particular educationissue. Policymakers not only have experience-based knowledge in their own personal andprofessional backgrounds, but also receive thiskind of information from direct interactionwith the public, as illustrated by the followingpolicymaker comment:

I . . . run things by certain people and tryto explain to them what’s going on with . . .the issue . . . and get their opinions . . .

they’re fairly knowledgeable of the entirecommunity, . . . so they would have consid-erable impact on how I vote on certainthings.

Policymakers articulated a strong interest inreceiving information from the public in theform of local needs and concerns and publicattitudes and opinions. Reasons behind publicattitudes that might not be apparent throughpolling or focus groups are important to policy-makers and help guide their work. SEDL’srespondents hoped study circles would givethem an opportunity to listen to constituentviewpoints through dialogue:

I felt like because it’s a cross section of peo-ple, educators, businesspeople, lawmakers,teachers, that I would get a cross section ofopinion and a better understanding of . . .how different people felt about the . . .school system.

Policymakers also see the benefit in helpingconstituents better understand their educationsystem and hope that dialogue can help raiseawareness among the community about issuessurrounding their children and schools:

I’m hoping that maybe through these studycircles these parents will realize what theseteachers go through each day. I don’t thinkpeople understand that. I think that theythink that the teachers go up there, earn theirmoney during the daytime, and go home andforget about it—and that’s not true.

Values. Finally, policymakers identify “values”as the third major category of knowledge.Policymakers carry their own sense of valuesinto their work and they receive input on exter-nal values from constituents. Values reflect anindividual’s personal belief system and result in


31

Introduction

32

policy positions that support these values(Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith, 1993; Jones, 1994;Mitchell and Boyd, 1998). One legislator hadthis comment about the way that personal val-ues affect policy outcomes:

I think probably for most of us . . . we havesome sense of . . . what is right or wrongand that is borne out of our own philoso-phy of life as we have developed it overwhatever years we might have here. Wejust left a conversation and one legislatorjust believes kids need to be whupped . . . Ino longer believe that kids need to bespanked, that there are other ways to teachchildren and to discipline children if that’swhat needs to be done.

One policymaker expressed the reasoningbehind his desire for increasing the knowledgeand awareness level of the public through dia-logue. His experiences with powerful and dif-fering value bases among constituents have ledhim to become wary of the narrow, reactiveinterests that define many of his interactionswith the public:

So I’m hoping we’re going to get a realgood dialogue that’s well informed, thatwill lead to what I think will be some bal-anced and reasonable recommendationsthat are based on what the average Joethinks after he or she is informed of theissues. I’m not looking for knee-jerk reac-tions to somebody’s emotions.

The range of information sources and typesof knowledge briefly described above highlightsthe finding that policymakers consider manyinformation inputs that influence and continu-ally recreate the composite of their understand-ing and stance on education issues. The publicis an important component of decision making.

Constituents provide information that supportsall three types of knowledge identified as con-tributing to policymakers’ understanding of anissue: expertise, experience, and values.

A number of policymakers who participatedin the Calling the Roll program additionallywent into the experience as an information-gathering opportunity that might be relevantnot only to themselves as individual policymak-ers and to the people of their home districts,but also to the state policy arena. For example,this respondent expressed the need to collectinput from local communities for considerationin state decision making:

I would hope to be better informed aboutwhat the constituents in this area are think-ing about education, what their wants andneeds are, and hopefully be able to trans-late that into something at the state level.

Theme #2: Relationships

As discussed in Part One, policy develop-ment is a dynamic interaction (Sabatier andJenkins-Smith, 1993; Jones, 1994; Louis, 1998;Page and Shapiro, 1992; Reich, 1988; Stimson,Mackuen, and Erikson, 1995). Policymakersexperience this on a daily basis as they workwith individuals and organizations that make upthe education policy subsystem. Although suchstrong relationships do not exist between poli-cymakers and most members of the generalpublic, SEDL’s policymaker informantsappeared to recognize that they and the publiccan move towards more effective relationshipsin a number of ways.

According to respondents, just as informa-tion exchange between policymakers and con-stituents is important, so too is mutual under-standing and support for each other’s roles in


the state education policy making process. Tosome policymakers participating in the Callingthe Roll program, dialogue is seen as a processthat helps to bring the public into the state pol-icy making arena by increasing understandingof the policymakers’ work and by inviting fur-ther opportunity to participate in public life:

If support [grows] for . . . policymakers toimprove education and make some changes. . . by identifying more and more peoplewho are willing to at least write a postcardto a legislator and say vote for this, that’show the climate changes.

Establishing trust and building relationshipsare key elements that policymaker respondentsidentified for successful representation of theirconstituents (see Figure 3.2). These elementswork in the policymaker’s favor by buildingcredibility for his or her policy action and byultimately affecting efforts to be reelected.Many policymaker respondents, however, indi-cated they are unable to establish rapport andunderstanding with most of their constituents.

In order to gauge relationships betweenpolicymakers and citizens, researchers askedpolicymaker respondents to respond to thequestion, “Do you think your constituents havea clear understanding of your views on educa-tion?” Nearly one half responded negatively.For example:

No, nor do they have a clear understandingof my views on anything. I’d be kiddingmyself if I thought the majority of my con-stituency cared what I thought.

No, most of them don’t even know who Iam. You go to a man on the street and askwho his state senator is, he doesn’t evenknow who it is . . . so if they don’t even

know my name, they darn sure don’t knowwhat I think about vouchers or charterschools or choice or the curriculumimprovements or any of the other schoolor education issues.

Most of the positive responses were guard-ed or hesitant, and all policymakers understoodrelationship-building to be a difficult ongoingprocess:

Well, I hope they do [understand myviews]. They keep sending me back [to thelegislature].

Oh, I’d say . . . probably only a small per-centage actually would know what my posi-tions are, I mean basic positions.

Respondents also stressed that relationship-building is a two-way interchange in that poli-cymakers must be willing to make the effort tobring their views and positions to the public,where constituents can respond to them:

Oh, I would say at least half of the people[know my views] because I work . . . closelywith the schools.

Policymakers value increased connectionsamong the public, schools and education policyfor a number of reasons. Some policymakersarticulated the need for increased awarenessamong members of the non-participating pub-lic of their natural connections to publicschools. As one said:

I think that . . . an older man on socialsecurity, who thinks education used to be alot better, but doesn’t want his . . . taxesraised to pay for [school] improvementmight possibly see how . . . social securityis [related] to who’s paying into it; and the


33

Introduction

34

salary . . . [of] the person [paying into it isrelated to] the level of [education and job]preparation the person has . . . The morethat we can all make these connections,then education . . . [becomes less] isolated.

For their own part, policymakers talkedabout their belief that effective representationcalls for a clear line of contact and understand-ing between the representative and the repre-sented. For example:

I felt like I was going to get elected, and Iwanted to be prepared to represent thepeople in this district.

I think it also will give me an idea of someof the problems that our school systemshave and some of the needs they have and,as I said before, a better understanding ofthe district that I represent.

Policymakers feel that public support isimportant, but that this support is difficult togarner, resulting in decision making practicesthat may not respond to the public’s needs anddesires. What remains consistent, whethermotivated by a desire to be reelected, to betterknow and represent their constituents effective-ly, or to create support and interest in publicissues such as education and local schools, isthat policymakers value strong relationships.

The themes explored in this section, infor-mation flow and relationship-building towardscivic capacity, are important for understandingthe disconnection between the public and poli-cymakers. As foreshadowed in policymakerresponses in this section regarding deliberativedialogue in bridging the disconnection, studycircles play a role in bringing the public and pol-icymakers together on public education issues.This topic is explored in the next section.

Benefits and Challenges of StudyCircles for Strengthening theBridge between the Public andPolicymakers

This section presents research results thataddress the question of whether deliberativedialogue through the study circle process is auseful and feasible tool for bringing the publicand policymakers together on education policyissues. Findings indicate that study circles offera wide range of positive effects towardsimproved information flow and relationship-building between the public and policymakers(see Figure 3.3.). Policymakers who participat-ed in Calling the Roll offered an overall positiveassessment of the experience. Of the 13 individ-uals who responded to the question, “On a scalefrom one to ten, with one being ‘not useful atall’ and ten being ‘one of the most useful thingsI’ve done,’ how would you rate your experi-ence?” only two rated the process as less thanseven.

Findings also uncover a number of chal-lenges that deliberative dialogue presents forpolicymaker participants. Through interviewswith program organizers, researchers exploredthe ways in which the program affected theimpacts that policymakers perceived from par-ticipation in Calling the Roll. Those challengesinvolved the study circle format, the dialogueprocess, and program implementation in cer-tain communities. Policymakers encountered anumber of specific challenges and barriers.Some respondents reported a few negativeexperiences interacting with the public and dif-ficulty with or discomfort with the dialogue for-mat. Time constraints was an important chal-lenge faced by many respondents, and somealso expressed dissatisfaction with the long-term deliberative process due to policymakerneeds for immediate policy-relevant informa-


tion. In certain programs, respondents reportedfrustrating experiences due to poorly organizedor badly facilitated dialogues. Negative effectsare part of any program implementation, andthose experienced by policymaker respondentsare explained below, along with informationabout the specific program environment thatmay have contributed to those effects.

The following discussion presents the posi-tive impacts of study circles on informationflow and relationship-building, the two themesdiscussed in the previous section that emergedas important ways to bridge the disconnectionbetween policymakers and the public in SEDL’sdata. Integrated into the discussion are relevantinsights regarding the Calling the Roll imple-mentation and key challenges to bringing poli-cymakers and the public together that appear tobe inherent to the study circle process and format.

Study Circle Impacts onInformation Processes

The informational impacts that policymak-ers identified as resulting from participation instudy circles fall into four major areas (seeFigure 3.3.).

• Access to diverse perspectives

• Information exchange

• Reality check on policy directions

• Reevaluation or change in perspectives

Access to Diverse Perspectives

We had minority people, we had business-men, we had women, we had young peo-ple, old people, young parents, people who

had kids in school and [those] no longer inschools. Our mayor’s assistant was there.One of the municipal judges was there. Itwas a good group, and all those areas areaffected by our public schools.

The study circle format encourages partici-pation of all sectors of the community. Mostpolicymakers were pleased with the range ofparticipants from different educational andsocioeconomic backgrounds who were presentat the dialogues. Often, policymakers statedthat interaction with these individuals was themost valuable part of the dialogue experience. Afew recounted personal stories that communitymembers shared. These stories provided poli-cymakers with the human side of education pol-icy and practice.

For example, one policymaker related hisexchange with a parent who was struggling withthe impact of the limited enrollment policiesfor magnet schools. The parent’s son wasunable to gain admission to the local magnetschool because of the space limitations. Afterseveral years of attending the public school, hewas finally granted admission to the magnetschool, only to find that he was not academical-ly prepared because of different grade-levelexpectations. This policymaker rememberedthe parent’s dilemma:

This one particular parent [expressed that]she’s struggling between leaving her son inthe school he is in, where she knows theacademic challenge is greater, as opposedto transferring him back to the school heleft where she knows he’d be happier . . .[It was] a real dilemma for that mother, anAfrican-American mother. And she talkedabout staying up until 11:00 or 12:00 atnight trying to help her son with his studies. You just got the feeling that this


35

Introduction

36

Figure 3.3.Study Circles Bridging the Gap between Policymakers and the Public

P O L I C Y M A K E R S



Study circles can provide a process for encouraging civic participation. A stronger civic capacity has potential for

activating a new and broader constituency who can initiate or support education policy action.

Increased Information Flow

Study Circles improve information flowby facilitating:

• access to diverse perspectives

• information exchange

• reality check on policy directions

• reevaluation or change in perpectives

Relationship-Building

Study circles build relationships bystrengthening:

• personal networks and mutual credibility

• personal commitments toward publiceducation

Study Circles can provide a structure for:

mother’s commitment was complete. It waskind of heart-wrenching…to see a parentstruggling with that.

Access to diverse perspectives also providedpolicymakers a counterbalance to familiar neg-ative perspectives on the status of public educa-tion and the public’s attitude toward it:

There were two junior college students, . . . one attended the local high school . . .but also had gone through the alternativeeducation program . . . and there was ayoung lady who had attended school in oneof the larger . . . school districts [then]dropped out of school and ended up in arural school. . . . And the amazing thing isthat they both survived, [even though atone point] both dropped out of the school system.

In spite of all we talk about, all we hearthat is wrong with schools, there were . . .three young African-American . . . [stu-dents] there that night, and I thought everyone of them [was] just as impressive ascould be. I appreciated that exposure.

Some policymakers, however, were disap-pointed in the diversity of their groups and feltthat this detracted from their experience. Thelow participation numbers in the Calling the Rollprogram (see Part Two) limited the diversity ofperspectives that were represented in somecommunities. One policymaker remarked thathis study circle group was well-represented interms of educators but lacked a diversity of per-spectives from parents. Another noted the highpredominance of people in his circle from whathe termed the “education clique,” individualsfrom the school and district who already haveestablished themselves as active participants incommunity and education affairs:

[Ordinary] teachers don’t get their storyout, and there’s not much way they canwhen there is not enough . . . involvementfrom any . . . [one] other than the educa-tion clique.

Another stated that the people in attendance atthe study circle in her community were individ-uals with whom she already was in contact anddid not include constituents outside her estab-lished personal networks:

The night I was there, there were maybesix people . . . including me. . . . I didn’thave any constituents there. . . . I had sup-porters there but there were no con-stituents there and there was no generalpublic to speak of.

These negative experiences should beweighed as significant sources of potential dis-appointment and disincentive for policymakerparticipation in study circles. Nearly all thenegative comments regarding diverse perspec-tives, however, corresponded with communityprograms that had great difficulty in recruitingcommunity members to participate in study cir-cles. In the instance described in the precedingquote, for example, only six study circle partic-ipants were recruited from a large urban area.Also, while some policymakers noted that fewerconstituents participated than expected, theyreported that dialogue with a small, yet reason-ably sized group did provide them access toindividuals and perspectives they would nototherwise encounter.

Information Exchange

Well, one of the things that I enjoyed wasbeing able to just sit down and talk . . . toother members of the community and gettheir viewpoint and their input and their


37

Introduction

38

wisdom and to be able to share mine withthem.

Policymakers in study circle dialoguesobserved and valued the exchange of informa-tion that occurred with their constituents. Two-way communication is often difficult to achievebetween policymakers and citizens.Policymakers appreciated the study circlesbecause group members were willing to engagein meaningful interaction:

Well, to me, anyway, the best part of it wasthe civility. I mean we could differ on ouropinions and no one would get upset.Everybody was open to hearing what eachperson had to say. . . . I’ve had what somewould call town hall meetings [where]some people would stand up and start hol-lering and then the meeting would justtotally get out of control. At least [at] thestudy circles I thought . . . everybody knewthat they were there to try to accomplishsomething.

Information exchange allowed policymakersto receive information from the public that theymight not have had access to otherwise, espe-cially local programs occurring in the policy-makers’ jurisdictions. These respondents feltthey learned more about their local schoolsthrough dialogue:

I learned of some very good programs thatwe have in the . . . school system. Since Ihave no children there and have not beenactively involved in [schools for] awhile, Ididn’t know about those programs.

I really didn’t have an opinion about mag-net schools and most of what they said wasnews to me because when my children

were in school, they did not have the mag-net schools.

One policymaker specifically noted theinformation exchange that occurred amongother members of the study circle, appreciatingthe expertise that specific group membersbrought to the discussions:

The social worker was good at getting [at] . . . child welfare and those kinds of things.. . . It was good for her to communicate tothe other people that there’s a real worldout there and those things are occurring.

A few policymakers felt that informationexchange was hampered by disruption anddomination of the flow of communication byone or more members of the group. One poli-cymaker explained:

We have a lot of, and I don’t know anyother way to put it, very right-wing folks asfar as education and a few other issues areconcerned. They had several people . . . [inthe study circle] who were very difficultabout public education.

In another community, a policymaker com-mented on the same phenomenon. In a previ-ous dialogue program, this policymaker feltthat one vocal individual was able to negativelyimpact the dialogue. He recounted, “We had aguy that was just disruptive. He wanted to talk,he was out of sync with the group, and he justwas a pain in the neck.” During the Calling theRoll study circle he attended, another disruptiveindividual participated in the policymaker’sgroup. Although in his group the facilitator andgroup members were able to control that situa-tion, the policymaker continues to strugglewith what he sees as a common occurrence inpublic events such as study circles:


We had a guy in this . . . group that . . .wanted to be that guy that pounds on thetable and tell[s] everybody what he . . .[thinks], but the group just kind of con-trolled him pretty well, and it wasn’t a con-scious decision that any of us made andmaybe that’s the way you do it, but that isthe biggest problem with the study circle.

Reality check on Policy Directions

[Participating in study circles] . . . strength-ens my position a bit in the sense that I canfeel like I’m speaking more for my con-stituency.

As discussed in the previous section, policy-makers value the input of their constituents andstrive to achieve at least some level of alignmentbetween the decisions they make and the needs,opinions, and values of their constituents. Studycircles were able to provide a useful check onpolicy direction for many policymaker respon-dents. As one policymaker observed, study cir-cles “tended to reinforce what . . . [he] alreadythought and believed.” Another policymakerwho has supported alternative education instate and local policy was able to hear personalstories from study circle participants, one ofwhom had graduated from an alternativeschool:

I questioned them a lot because I had beeninstrumental in bringing the alternativeschool [to the area. Their] experiences . . .[were a] treat . . . to listen to. I call themsurvivors because they could have fallen bythe wayside, and they’re pretty sharp, redi-rected kids.

Just as policymakers sometimes are able tohave their senses of policy direction reaffirmedthrough dialogue, respondents also expressed

that they are able to tap the collective opinionof the public to point the way toward correc-tions in policy direction. The small-group for-mat does not allow policymakers to gain anumerically broad consensus on issues; howev-er, it does give them a sense of consensus onbasic issues that they can consider along withother public opinion information. Policy-makers indicated their appreciation of access tosuch opinion information:

I am not the person that has all the greatideas in the world and that’s why I prefer totalk to my constituents because I can gleanfrom them . . . what they would like to seehappen.

Another thing that was pretty much con-sensus . . . was . . . people were very con-cerned that because of disruptive students. . . there is not a good environment forlearning. On the other hand, you can’t justkick those kids out.

As described in Part Two, program plannersdeveloped special discussion materials onaccountability, an important state-level educa-tion topic. However, a few policymakersreflected that even this did not allow them touse their study circle experience to gain policyinsights relevant to their state policy develop-ment work. One policymaker was disappointedin the range of issues that her group discussedand felt that the most pressing issues were nottackled by her group:

I did not see as much discussion on contro-versial issues. For example, if there was dis-cussion about vouchers, I was never in onit. If there was discussion about charterschools, I was never in on it. If there wasdiscussion about school choice, whether itis intradistrict or interdistrict, I was never


39

Introduction

40

in on it. . . . I am looking for reasons . . .why these topics that are so hot all acrossthe country . . . [were] never raised [in mystudy circle].

Interestingly, this same policymaker laterreflected that her expectations of dialogue withcitizens on policy topics that were relevant toher state policy work hampered her ability togain the full benefit of dialogue and to listen tothe concerns of the public. She was able toarticulate the realization later, well after herstudy circle participation, that the reason shewas not able to engage her group in discussionson vouchers, charter schools, and school choicewas because they simply did not have a stronginterest in these topics, which appeared to bethe case overall with the constituents in her leg-islative district.

Reevaluation or Change in Perspectives

I think . . . [the study circles] increased myopinion of teachers, so I tend to be ontheir side a little more.

A less prevalent but existing impact is thelearning process that policymakers experiencedthrough study circles. A few respondents notedthat as a result of the dialogue they changedtheir opinion or were able to see educationissues from a new light. These new perspectivesmost often involved recognition of local effortstoward education and the teachers and parentswho support these efforts:

I guess if there was one thing I came awaywith, it was to allow things that were posi-tive. When parents wanted to be involved,[we should] do whatever we could do aspolicymakers to get bureaucratic restric-tions out of the way so that they could vol-unteer in the schools and could help.

I’m . . . impressed with the fact thatschools are more of a local issue than Ithought. That is to say that the problemsthat people perceive: . . . discipline prob-lems, teacher problems . . . are more localin nature and . . . you couldn’t cure them ifyou wanted to from the state level.

Two other policymakers, however, felt thattheir background and expertise in educationissues limited what they might learn from thestudy circle discussion with the public:

Had I not been an educator, it would haveprobably been a lot more beneficial to me.. . . I am an educator and I very closelyattend to what is going on in education andin the school . . . [and there was] nothingnew that was under the sun for me [fromthe study circle discussion].

I can’t think of anything [I heard in thestudy circle] that I haven’t heard before . . .I certainly won’t say that I’ve heard every-thing that was mentioned there becausethat would be an exaggeration but generi-cally it seems that it was somewhat similar.

Study Circle Impacts onRelationships

SEDL observed two areas in which studycircles affected policymaker relationships withthe public:

• personal networks and mutual credibilityand

• personal commitments towards public edu-cation.

These impacts are relevant not only fordemonstrating the usefulness of study circles on


individual policymakers, but also for exploringthe usefulness of the dialogue process inaddressing some of the concerns identified bypolicymakers with respect to broader civicengagement in democratic society. First is theincreased interaction with the public in mean-ingful ways that broadens the personal humannetworks that policymakers rely on for theirwork and that helps build mutual credibilitybetween policymakers and constituents. Secondis a more generalized strengthening of person-al commitments among policymakers and con-stituents toward public education and the deci-sions made in support of it.

Personal Networks and Mutual Credibility

[The study circle] increases that personalnetwork we talk about so that I reallywould think of those three people in par-ticular . . . to call and say, “What do youthink about this?”

Policymakers often rely on key contacts thatare able to provide information and expertiseon various topics. In education, school superin-tendents or key school and district administra-tors often help policymakers interpret prob-lems and consider solutions. These and othereducation representatives are easily accessibleto the policymaker and create an informal net-work of resources.

Policymaker respondents expressed thatthey were able to expand the range of personalnetworks to a wider diversity of constituents inthree ways. First, respondents felt that thestudy circle increased their connections to con-stituents:

One thing for sure that I have done is Ideveloped a much closer relationship withthree or four of those people that I will see

in the community and I have felt a bitmore of an attachment to them.

Second, as a result of increased connections,respondents were able to bring the public’s con-cerns into the policy arena:

This year I am on the [House] educationcommittee . . . and I’ve spoken to several ofthe people on that education committeeabout some of the things that were broughtup in the [study circle] discussion.

Third, the increased relationships establishthe motivation for ongoing interaction betweenthe policymaker and the public:

After . . . [the study circles], I felt like Ireally knew [some of the participants] and Ihave seen all of them since and we’ve hadmore in-depth communication. It was liketwo friends meeting rather than just some-one saying hello.

Study circle dialogues also increased mutualcredibility among policymaker respondents andconstituents. Interviewees felt that they had abetter understanding of the public’s needs andconcerns about education, and thereby werebetter able to represent their interests:

It was reassuring that others agreed withme that [community involvement inschools] was important and their presence . . . [in study circles] demonstrated thatthey believed that, that they were involvedin something having to do with betteringthe school system.

A number of respondents, however,expressed frustration at their lack of success inconnecting with the public. Again, low partici-pant levels in some communities implementing


41

Introduction

42

the Calling the Roll program caused some studycircles groups to be small or not representativeof a policymaker’s constituency. Of the 14 leg-islators who offered negative comments regard-ing their experiences with the study circles,eight identified low participation levels as a dis-appointment or factor that affected their abilityto fully access the value of the study circles. Forexample, one policymaker felt that his studycircle was generally positive, but when askedabout negative aspects of the process, he statedthat he wished that more people would havetaken advantage of the opportunity to talkabout education issues:

I would say it was unfortunately not wellattended and therefore people missed anopportunity to voice their opinionswhether they were pro or con about theschool system or subject matter.

Another policymaker simply could not fullyparticipate in his study circle due to lack of par-ticipation from the public. He felt that withoutat least a few people representing his con-stituency, the time spent in the dialogue was notworthwhile:

There …[were] only about . . . one or twopeople from the district and the rest ofthem were kind of part of the processsomehow. So, there was just no attendance. . . I mean, just zero.

Personal Commitments toward Public Education

It’s just like anything else. Bring . . . peopletogether, and there’s a lot more under-standing and a lot less misunderstandingand maybe even a lot more willingness tohelp if they can see what needs to be done,what can be done.

The strengthening of commitments towardpublic education is another impact that respon-dents expressed. First, the study circle processbuilds understanding and respect for eachother’s roles in public education. One policy-maker, whose view of teachers was improvedafter the dialogue, stated:

There is a lot of misperception aboutteachers . . . [which] I learned [at study cir-cles] and I think that people, if they look alittle closer, would find our teachers aredoing a lot better than what they thoughtthey were.

Along with building respect for the contri-butions of everyone is the expression of moreovert support to enable teachers, schools, com-munities, and policymakers themselves to carryout those roles successfully. One policymakerrecounts how her study circle group recognizedthe need to support parent participation inschools:

I know in one group, they were talkingabout if you don’t really know the system,schools can be very user-unfriendly. Weneeded to work more on making parentsfeel more a part of the schools and likethey were invited to be there. We alsotalked on the difficulty that parents whowork have in getting to the schools and vis-iting with the teachers, and we talked aboutpossible solutions for making that workbetter so parents could be more involved.

School teachers and students were also rec-ognized as needing support and respect by dis-tricts and communities in order to succeed:

And respect ended up being a word in thisfirst group I went to that was more the over-riding concern than safety or discipline. . . .


we really did achieve a consensus [and] thatwas to have an atmosphere of respect for theteachers as well as for students.

Some policymakers saw other study circleparticipants gain a better understanding andrespect for their unique role in supporting thestate’s commitment to public education. Onepolicymaker’s discussion with constituentsabout school finance helped citizens realize theconstraints and tradeoffs that decision makersmust account for:

I recall we talked about financing ofschools. When people come to understandwhere the money comes from [and] whereit goes, I think they’re satisfied with it.There are some inequities involved [inschool finance] and I think people, oncethey understand the process, they tend to see that what we’re doing is not thatbad.

Some policymakers felt, however, that theyhad one or more members in their study circlegroup who were highly vocal in a negative wayand who dominated the group to the degreethat it detracted from the positive benefits theydrew from their experience. Study circles typi-cally move from sharing of personal experi-ences to consideration of multiple viewpointsand then to planning for action or solutionswith the goal of establishing areas of agreementand common concern. One policymakerobserved that, in the study circle he attended,negative comments and complaints dominatedthe conversation and lessened the group’s abili-ty to forge positive relationships or progress intheir deliberation process:

It seemed to me there were more com-plaints than solutions and I think the pur-pose of these, to my notion, should be,

“How can we fix this?” Not just continuingon the complaint path.

Another policymaker described what he sawas an imbalanced discussion due to the reti-cence of individual group members. The poli-cymaker observed that the “introverted people”eventually stopped attending the study circleand by the end of the sessions, only the few out-spoken participants were in attendance. Such anenvironment does not allow policymakers tobuild rapport with participants who are lesscomfortable in group discussions:

I know you need variety, but when you getsomebody like me and . . . other guys whoare very outspoken, then you get some veryquiet introverted people, the introvertsaren’t going to speak up.

Strengthening the Bridge andGreater Civic Capacity

SEDL policy research suggests two prelim-inary findings regarding the impact of study cir-cles on civic capacity. First, data indicate thatstudy circles support the activation of a new andbroader constituency for public education byproviding a viable process for engaging thepublic. Second, policymakers revealed thatstudy circles offered the initial steps that mighteventually lead to the initiation or support ofpolicy action.

Activating a New and BroaderConstituency for Public Education

This [study circle] process . . . helps peoplehave that connection to the school. . . . Itgives them . . . a place for them to gowhere they really do have a chance toexpress their view and have some impactwith policymakers, administrators, teach-


43

Introduction

44

ers. And a lot of people are [asking], “Howcan I get involved?,” and I think the studycircle process is wonderful for that.

Study circles were judged by a number ofpolicymaker respondents as a useful format forpromoting and enabling greater participationby the public in public education. One policy-maker remarked that the study circle effort isunique in bringing diverse perspectives togeth-er, and that “no one else is putting these peopletogether.” The format, according to respon-dents, effectively connects citizens and legisla-tors to talk constructively about educationissues:

There was an effort being made throughthis study circle program to cause people tobecome involved and give thought toimproving education. A lot of times peoplehave got their own problems to worrywith, and they never give any thought tohow could we improve education, or it’snot part of their daily business. . . .Whoever came up with this idea gave thesepeople an opportunity to come togetherand be asked, at least, for their opinions.

The dialogue shouldn’t be ignored. Just thedialogue has a lot, if you can get peopleinvolved, if you can get the parents and thecitizens involved, you accomplish an awfullot because you bring closer together theeducational process and the people they areserving.

Many respondents also observed dialoguethrough study circles as a process that haspotential for making an impact on state legisla-tion. As one respondent observed, “It may bethat first step that leads to [civic action].” Otherpolicymakers echoed this view:

The legislation we consider, for the mostpart, is not generated so much by the indi-vidual legislator but by the . . . wants,needs, or suggestions of their constituentsor lobbyists or people with special inter-ests. So if that type of [study circle] dia-logue continues and the community getsmore involved, then you will have moreideas coming to the legislature, many ofwhich would be very good ideas [and] someof which would not be, but that is true inany situation.

Ideally, the end of this [dialogue process]—and I don’t mean an end in the sense thatit’s final, it’s over—is that you get a broadergroup of people within a community hav-ing community meetings as they used to domany, many years ago, voicing their con-cerns and giving their input to the legisla-tors, letting . . . [them] carry that back tothe Capitol and put it into laws.

Initiating or Supporting Education Policy Action

I don’t think I come out of there with,“Hey, here’s an idea I want to introduce inlegislature,” but when ideas are now intro-duced—for instance, there was one aboutdismissal of teachers—that overall [studycircle] experience . . . has an influence onmy decision.

This research was unable to probe thelonger term impacts of study circles due to timeconstraints and program implementationeffects that may have affected the full potentialof study circles to have an impact on state edu-cation policy action. Evidence does show, how-ever, that policymaker participation in studycircles provided them with input from the pub-lic that initiated ideas for policy action and


increased or decreased support for certain ini-tiatives. This action occurred at a basic level ofverification or reinforcement of policy posi-tions as the policymaker respondents express:

Well, it makes me feel stronger because . . .I opposed it already and so having beenthere and feeling like everybody else feltthe same way about it . . . and had the sameconcerns makes me stronger in my opposi-tion to it.

I’m going to have at least one educationbill of my own that I’ll be running with soI think when I discuss the issues or we talkabout education, . . . I feel like I’ll be ableto speak with a little more authority.

Respondents also reflected on the value ofstudy circles for providing information on theneeds of schools and communities that may betranslated into ideas for legislation. They foundthat the reality checks that local viewpointsoffer are necessary for a balanced understand-ing of policy issues:

I think it’s always nice to talk to the footsoldier about what’s happening in battle.The generals always know the overall plan.We certainly need to know what the battleplan is and we talk to the generals all thetime . . . But I think it’s real important tohear from the person on the front line as tohow it’s working.

Also evident from respondents is theprocess some of them experienced in whichthey are able to internalize and apply local con-cerns to state policy positions, as one policy-maker expressed:

The things I came away with [were] sethigh standards, respect kids’ potential for

learning, but let the individual school sites,not the school district, but the individualschool sites determine the best way to getthe best results in meeting those standards.

Policymaker respondents express varied lev-els of dissatisfaction with the current role of thepublic in education processes and desire greaterand better-informed participation by the partic-ipating and non-participating public. They alsoreveal a hope and expectation that dialoguethrough formats such as the study circles mightcreate greater organization and participation atthe school and community level. The role thatpolicymakers desire of the public allude tostructural changes in civic life that can onlyoccur over the long-term. To policymakerrespondents, deliberative dialogue representsthe initial, individual-level steps towardsincreased public initiation and broad-basedsupport of state education policy.

A Special Constraint: Time

Having to commit to six weeks . . . in thisday and age is impossible for almost any-one to do, and it was certainly almostimpossible for me. I made five out of thesix. That was a great effort on my part todo that.

Study circles implemented as part of theCalling the Roll program generally followed astandard format of four to six sessions duringone or more months. Discussion sessions wereplanned for two or more hours each and fol-lowed a progression from the sharing of per-sonal experiences, discussion of different view-points regarding education issues, and an actionplanning session. Participants were encouragedto attend all sessions in order for the dialogueto build upon itself and for participants to buildtrust over time. The third session of the study


45

Introduction

46

circles dealt with accountability in education,an issue that has state-level relevance and wouldbe of interest to state policymakers. While theprogram was designed with an initial kick-offevent to garner public interest and a final“action forum” to plan future events, onlyselected communities held these events.

Of major concern to policymaker respon-dents and of major relevance to SEDL’sresearch interest in assessing the usefulness ofstudy circles for policymakers and the public isthe issue of time. Study circle participation is atime-intensive activity that challenges policy-makers to arrange their schedules in order toattend all sessions. In fact all but three policy-maker respondents who attended study circlescommented that time constraints hamperedtheir full participation in the dialogues.

In both program states, state senators andrepresentatives are elected as citizen legislatorsand usually run a business or are employed inorder to earn a living. Beyond policymakers’professional and personal commitments, othermeetings and engagements compete for theirattention. One respondent neatly summarizeswhat nearly all of the respondents expressed indifferent terms:

Tomorrow night am I going to be at theleague study circle or am I going to be atthe Kiwanis Club or am I going to be atthe Chamber of Commerce reception oram I going to be down at the open house

at the school? You know, those are thekinds of decisions as a legislator you . . . arefaced with almost every day. You have tochoose where you’re going to spend thetime.

The time commitment and the lack of timethat some policymakers felt they were able todedicate to study circle participation affectedthe positive impacts that the experience mighthave offered. A policymaker, after complainingthat she did not feel that participants in her cir-cle engaged in meaningful discussion of issues,reasoned that since she was only able to attendthe first session, her lack of participation mayhave been the source of her negative judgmentof the dialogue: “Maybe . . . it was a problemwith me rather than with the [study circle]itself. . . . I wasn’t there enough.” Another pol-icymaker who also only attended one sessionechoed that concern:

The answer is . . . mostly, my fault for notbeing there more often. . . . I think it takesa little more than just one [session] . . .because I think [the dialogue grows] withtime.

The intent of this section was to present anddiscuss SEDL’s findings from research on poli-cymaker participation in the Calling the Rollprogram. Part Four concludes this document,presents final discussions, and identifies areas offuture inquiry.


Conclusions

P A R T F O U R

Policymakers make up one side of the deci-sion making and governance process. The pub-lic, either as a presence active in affecting policychange or as an absent link between decisionmaking and the policies that affect their lives,makes up the other side. As one policymakerstated regarding the public, “What we do we dofor them or to them, one way or the other.” AsSEDL researchers collected information for thisstudy, it became increasingly clear that the pub-lic is not easily understood as a single, uniformpolitical entity. The public, as revealed throughinterviews with policymakers, might be partici-pating or non-participating and may becomeinvolved in political processes if they are mem-bers of the policy subsystem. Researchers werealso able to identify two sources of disconnec-tion and potential areas where policymakers andthe public can work to bridge the gap: informa-tion flow and relationship-building. Finally,research data provided insights regarding theutility and feasibility of study circles as a way tohelp bridge the gap between policymakers andthe public. Findings indicate that deliberativedialogue through the study circle process pre-sents both opportunities and challenges foraddressing the disconnection between policy-makers and the public.

Below is a summary of findings from theCalling the Roll research, followed by brief dis-cussions regarding the challenges and barriersto effective policymaker participation in studycircles, implications of these findings for publiceducation, and areas of future inquiry.

Summary of Findings

As the perceptions of policymakers indi-cate, deliberative dialogue through study cir-cles did have a range of observable impacts forindividual policymakers who attended Callingthe Roll. Findings around two key areas ofimpact (information flow and relationship-

building) provide a glimpse at the way in whichcommunity dialogue might affect the discon-nection between policymakers and the public.A summary of findings discussed in this reportappears below.

Information. Research findings furtherconfirmed researchers’ understanding of poli-cymakers’ use of a wide range of informationinputs that combine to create the policymakers’understanding and stance on education issues.Information sources that policymakers utilizeinclude expert information, the media, theirpersonal work environment, schools, and theirconstituents. Policymakers gain expertise, opin-ions, and values from these outside sources andfrom their own experiences, which they applyto the decision making process. The public wasperceived by policymaker respondents as a crit-ical source of information for local needs andconcerns, and for diverse perspectives and atti-tudes regarding current issues. Access to pub-lic input, however, is often limited by both thelack of an informed citizenry and the lack ofopportunities to interact with the public.Policymakers expressed a desire for greaterinformation interchange with their constituentsin order to better inform the public of state pol-icy issues, gain insights from the public, anddraw from their local perspective. Four majorcategories of impacts of study circles on infor-mation flow between policymakers and theirconstituents were discussed in this report: 1)diverse perspectives, 2) opportunity for infor-mation exchange, 3) policy directions and col-lective opinion of the public, and 4) changingperspectives. Research results around these cat-egories indicate that study circles do improveinformation flow in important ways. However,lack of diversity in study circle participation,disruptive group members, and lack of partici-pant expertise of education topics can detractfrom the experience for policymakers.

Introduction

48

Conclusions

Relationships. Policymaker interview sub-jects provided information that helpedresearchers better understand the nature ofrelationships between the public and state poli-cymakers in order to fully interpret the impactof dialogue on the policy making process. Whatis evident from research data is that policymak-ers struggle with establishing strong relation-ships with their constituents. In fact, mostrespondents revealed that they believe thattheir constituents do not have a clear under-standing of their views on education.Policymakers expressed the willingness toestablish better relationships with the publicand a desire for stronger linkages amongschools, education leaders, and the community,which would improve their ability to representthe public. Two major categories of impact ofstudy circles on policymakers’ capacity toimprove relationships with the public wereexpressed by respondents: 1) personal networksand credibility between policymakers and theirconstituents, and 2) personal commitmentsamong individuals and towards public educa-tion. Policymaker informants recalled bothpositive and negative study circle experienceswith regard to these two categories.

Challenges and Barriers

A number of policymakers expressed nega-tive experiences with dialogue or were unableto participate fully in study circles. Four broadcategories of these experiences were evident.First, low participation in certain communitiesaffected policymakers’ ability to interact with arange of their constituents. Second, the timerequired for study circle participation was diffi-cult to accommodate for those with busy sched-ules. Third, in selected circles policymakers feltthat certain individuals were unable to con-tribute to the conversation and instead acted as

instigators or “spoilers” to the deliberation orwere too introverted. Fourth, a few policymak-ers felt that the discussions did not focus close-ly enough on high-profile education issues.

These experiences with study circles revealchallenges to implementation of the study cir-cle process and also provide important insightsinto the barriers and motivations of potentialpolicymaker participants in dialogue. Whilemany of these negative experiences might bealleviated with a more successful study circleprogram implementation, feasibility concernsput to question the viability of study circles anddeliberative dialogue for state policymakerswho are unable to make time in their schedulesto fully participate.

While further testing of policymaker partic-ipation in study circles is needed to validate ordispel the concerns raised in SEDL’s experi-ence, the following “lessons learned” should beconsidered in future applications of study cir-cles:10

• Policymakers are not easily able todevote the time necessary for delib-erative dialogue. Study circles gener-ally take place in four two-hour ses-sions over four weeks, which is con-sidered a significant commitment tomost state policymakers.

• Scheduling of dialogue events musttake into account the needs of thestate policymaker. Election seasons,legislative sessions, and other meet-ings compete heavily for policymak-ers’ participation.

• Policymakers value safe environ-ments when interacting with the

Conclusions

49

10 This information, along with more detailed information learned from the process evaluation of the Calling the Roll program, appears inMaking the Connection: A Guide to Involving Policymakers in a Community Dialogue on Education, (SEDL, 2000).

Introduction

50

public. Engaging the public throughstudy circles puts policymakers in asmall-group setting with people whomay or may not work productivelytowards the program goals.

• Policymakers value relevancy of dis-cussion topics, and the general pub-lic often is not able to discuss educa-tion issues at the level of expertisepolicymakers would find most useful.

Implications for Public Education

The views expressed by policymakers asdocumented in this report not only reveal awillingness to participate in dialogue programsbut also more profoundly identify a clear dissat-isfaction with the current public presence in theeducation decision-making process and desirefor improvement. Study circles as examined inthis research offer a range of individual- andgroup- level effects that begin to address theperceived gap between state education policyand the schools and communities affected bysuch policy.

By increasing the flow of informationbetween decision makers and the public;improving relationships among schools, com-munities, and policymakers; and by facilitatinggreater civic participation in education issues,many of the problems with regard to the educa-tion reform process identified in the introduc-tion of this document are addressed. The suc-cessful integration of these processes at theschool, community, and state levels have obvi-ous implications for public education.

Broader Input for Decision Making.Broader input involves the opening of lines ofcommunication for better understanding of

complex community issues that impact childrenand education.

Increased Support for Public Education. Asthe viewpoints of the public and the schools areexchanged, greater alignment of education ini-tiatives with community priorities can beachieved. Further positive results include thestrengthening of trust and credibility on bothsides of the issues.

Community and School Partnerships.Greater interchange increases the potential forcollaborative, active involvement in schools ofteachers, parents, businesspeople, students,administrators, and policymakers. It maximizeshuman, physical, and financial resources in theschool and community. It can also foster civicparticipation and community building at theschool level and beyond.

Areas for Future Inquiry

The results of this exploratory study of theimpacts of dialogue on the state policy makingprocess contribute to a deeper understanding ofthe role of the public in education decisionmaking. However, much is still unknownregarding the longer term and broader scopeimpacts of dialogue on policymakers, schools,and communities. Areas of future researchidentified by this research include the followingareas and questions.• Dialogue can be seen as an effective initia-

tor of change in public life for individualsand groups. What is the role of dialoguebeyond the initial phase of change process-es? How might other group processes(leadership development, strategic plan-ning, etc.) be integrated with dialogue forsustained progress toward educationreform?

Conclusions

• Can the study circle process, implementedon a wider scale, result in direct impact oneducation reform at the school level? Canit initiate or change state education legisla-tion?

• What is the potential for negative effects ofincreased civic participation in educationpolicy over the long term, such as height-ened political turf conflicts and emergenceof power elites at the school and communi-ty levels? How might dialogue and otherstrategies be applied to avoid divisiveness?

• What motivates the public to becomeactively involved in education reform?What are the limits of their involvement?

• How does the study circle format comparewith other public engagement formats forbringing the public and policymakerstogether?

• Do the values that policymakers in the cur-rent research express, such as increasedinvolvement of community in schools,truly reflect the needs and emerging trendsin public education (privatization, vouch-ers, etc.)?

In summary, the findings of SEDL’s policyresearch on deliberative dialogue indicate thatstate policymaker participation in dialogue withthe public has important observable individual-level impacts. These impacts are especiallyinteresting given the state policy making con-text (information access and knowledge, repre-sentation, civic participation) that policymakersdescribe and were asked to reflect upon. SEDL’sresearch observed that not only were policy-makers, in general, positively affected by theirparticipation in study circles, the positiveeffects addressed the needs and desires of poli-cymakers regarding the public on multiple lev-els. On the practical level, policymakers gainednew information to help them assess needs. Ona strategic level, they earned credibility fromconstituents and established relationships thatmay be tapped for future policy support. Finallyon a philosophical level, they participated in thesupport of democratic principals by acknowl-edging and valuing citizen participation.SEDL’s research also suggests that policymak-ers might have less favorable experiences withstudy circles in cases where problems with pro-gram implementation or feasibility of participa-tion occur. Based on the findings of thisexploratory research, researchers encouragefurther application and study of deliberativedialogue for enhancing and improving the stateeducation policy making process.

Conclusions

51

Introduction

52

Appendix AAdditional Figures and Tables

A P P E N D I C E S

Introduction

5454

1997

September through December

CoordinationForm multistate partner-ship, establish time lines,develop staffing plans

1998

January through March

CoordinationFinalize state coalitions,identify possible sites

CommunicationsDecide program name,schedule SEDL state visits,develop national communi-cations plan

MaterialsPrioritize preferred Session3 topics, select and frameissue, comment on Session3 draft and identify reviewers

ResearchSchedule evaluators’ meeting

1997

April through June

CoordinationFinalize sites, scheduleSCRC visits

CommunicationsDevelop state communica-tions plans, coordinate andimplement plans

MaterialsComplete Session 3 draft,develop and draft factbooks, pilot materials

ResearchFinalize and coordinateresearch designs, draftdata-collection tools, iden-tify data-collection sites,recruit policy participantsand data collectors

1997

July through August

CoordinationTrain study circle facilitators

MaterialsRevise and publish Session3 guide and fact books

ResearchHold evaluation meeting,produce data collectiontools, collect baselinedata, train data collectors

Figure A.1.Calling the Roll Program Time Line

Appendix A

55

1998

September through November

StudyCirclesCoordination and communicationsHold kick-off events, studycircles, and action forums

Research Collect data

1997

December

CommunicationsPublicize results in states

Research Continue data collectionand analysis, share dataamong partners

1999–2000

January through May 1999

CommunicationsShare results in states

ResearchProduce preliminaryreport, continue follow-updata collection andanalysis

1999–2000

June 1999through 2000

CommunicationsConvene state, regional,and other forums

Research Produce final policyresearch report, developguidebooks for policy-makers and practitioners

Table A.1.Calling the Roll Partner Responsibilities and Roles

Responsibility or Role SEDL SCRC AFBS LWVO

Coordinate at multistate level • •Coordinate at state level • •Coordinate at community level • •Engage policymakers • • •Provide resources • • • •Provide technical assistance •Conduct or support research study* • • • •Publish report on research results* • • • •Develop products for dissemination* • •*Includes post-program activities.

Appendix A

Introduction

5656

Figure A.2.Calling the Roll Participant Survey Data

Arkansas (N=262) and Oklahoma (N=338)

Female65%

Male35%

Female77%

Male23%

G E N D E R

A G E R A N G E

a r k a n s a s o k l a h o m a

a r k a n s a s

o k l a h o m a

56 or older 14%

Younger than 1813%

18–305%

31–5568%

CR Participants Statewide (1998)*

15–1910%

55 or older30%

20–2917%

30–5443%

* From U.S. Census Bureau (2000) Population Estimates for the U.S. Regions, Divisions, and States by 5-year Age Groups and Sex: Time Series Estimates, July 1, 1990 to July1, 1999 and April 1, 1990 Census Population Counts. http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/state/st-99-3.txt (12 March 2000).

CR Participants Statewide (1998)*

56 or older31%

Younger than 183% 18–30

11%

31–5555%

55 or older29%

15–2010%

20–2917%

30–5444%

Appendix A

57

O C C U PAT I O N

H O U S E H O L D I N C O M E

Professional47%

Retired8%

Notemployed

8%

Home-maker

9%

Manager/supervisor12%

Skilled worker,hourly10%

Skilled worker,salaried

7%


Professional45%

Retired16%

Notemployed

5%

Home-maker14%

Manager/supervisor8%

Skilled worker,hourly

6%

Skilled worker,salaried

5%

More than$100K16%

$15K orless5%

$15,001 to$25K10%

$25,001 to$35K16%

$75,001 to$100K10%

$55,001 to$75K15%

$45,001 to$55K15%

$35,001 to$45K13%

More than$100K11%

$15K orless4%

$15,001 to $25K

6%

$25,001 to$35K10%

$75,001 to$100K17%

$55,001 to$75K27%

$45,001 to$55K14%

$35,001 to$45K11%

* U.S. Census Bureau Table H-8 Median Household Income by State: 1984–1999. http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histine/ho8.html (20 November 2000).


Arkansas median household income (1998):$28,276*

Oklahoma median household income (1998):$34,472*

Appendix A

Introduction

5858

R A C E / E T H N I C I T Y

White81%

Black15%

Asian, 1%Mixed Race, 1%Hispanic, 1%Native American, 1%

White81%

Black16%

Asian, 1% Hispanic, 2%Native American, 1%

a r k a n s a sCR Participants Statewide (1998)*

White84%

Black7%

Asian, 1%Mixed Race, 1%

Hispanic, 2%Native American, 4%

White80%

Black8%

Asian, 1%

NativeAmerican

8%Hispanic

4%

o k l a h o m aCR Participants Statewide (1998)*

P O L I T I C A L V I E W

* From U.S. Census Bureau. (1999). Population estimates for states by race and Hispanic origin: July 1, 1998. http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/state/srh/srh98.txt (12 March 2000).

Don’t know10% Very Conservative, 8%

Liberal18%

Conservative31%

Moderate29%

Very Liberal4%

Don’t know, 2% Very Conservative, 2%

Liberal29%

Conservative21%

Moderate40%

Very Liberal, 7%


Appendix A

59

E D U C AT I O N A L AT TA I N M E N T

T E A C H E R T R A I N I N G O R E X P E R I E N C E

In Arkansas, 23% of adults age 25 years and older do not have a high school degree. Only 16%

hold a 4-year degree or more.*

In Oklahoma, 15% of adults age 25 years and older do not have a high school degree. Only 21%

hold a 4-year degree or more.*


Advanceddegree27%

4-yeardegree25%

11th grade or less13%

High schoolgraduate

14%

Some college16%

2-year degree5%

Advanceddegree53%

4-yeardegree24%

11th grade or less3% High school graduate, 3%

Some college13%

2-year degree

4%

Not a trainedteacher/educator

54%Current

teacher/educator34%

Previous teacher/educator, 8%

Trained as teacher/educator, 4%

Not a trainedteacher/educator

41%

Currentteacher/educator

31%

Previous teacher/educator

21%

Trained as teacher/educator, 7%


* U.S. Census Bureau. (October 1998). Educational Attainment in the United States: March 1998. http://www.census.gov/prod/3/98pubs/p20-513.pdf (12 March 2000).

Appendix A

Introduction

6060

PA R E N T O F S C H O O L - A G E C H I L D

No47%


No65%

Yes 53%

Yes 35%

T Y P E O F S C H O O L C H I L D AT T E N D S


Private/parochialschool, 4%

Community public school

90%

Other community public school

6%

Private/parochialschool, 9%

Community public school

79%

Other community public school, 7%

Home school, 6%

Appendix A

The SEDL policy project’s primary interestin the Calling the Roll program was the oppor-tunity that the program presented for learningabout the study circle process and how it mightaffect state policy making. Toward this end,SEDL’s policy study of the CR program exam-ined both the impact of such a program on stateeducation policy making and the process ofimplementing study circles on education thatinclude state policymakers.

Figure B.1. summarizes major elements ofthe SEDL research study, including researchgoals, key questions, design approaches, datasources, and expected products. As the graphicshows, SEDL pursued two primary researchgoals and followed two distinct researchapproaches. The first goal and correspondingapproach allowed SEDL to uncover policy-rel-evant impacts of the program. The second goaland corresponding approach allowed SEDL toexamine the process of CR implementation. Anappropriate mix of data-collection methodswere used to explore these questions.

Research results of program impacts are thefocus of the preceding discussion. Researchfindings from the process evaluation (researchgoal two) were used to help provide an under-standing of the program implementation con-text around study circle impacts on policymak-ers. Process results will also be used to develop

planning and implementation guides for pro-gram sponsors and policymakers.

Research Goals

As listed in Figure B.1., the primary goalsthat have guided SEDL staff throughout theresearch study are as follows:

Goal One: To explore how state policy-maker participation in studycircles affects the educationpolicy making process.

Goal Two: To learn about the process ofimplementing a statewideprogram of study circles oneducation that includes statepolicymakers.

A discussion of the research goals appear inPart Two of this document and are further dis-cussed in SEDL’s research plan (Pan, Mutchler,and Knox, 1998).

Description of Data Sources andCollection Procedures

A description of each data source and theactual procedures used to collect them appearbelow. Site and sample selection criteria arepresented next.

61

Methodology

Appendix B

Introduction

62

Figure B.1.Overview of the SEDL Research Study

1. To explore how state policymaker participa-tion in study circles affects the educationpolicy making process.

Impact Study

1. How do study circles on education providestate policymakers and their constituentswith useful information?

2. What is the impact of study circles on statepolicymakers’ relationships with con-stituents, as related to education?

3. What is the impact of study circles on stateeducation policy making activities and rele-vant civic participation?

Non-experimental, exploratory, descriptivestudy of impact of study circles

G O A L S F O R S E D L R E S E A R C H S T U D Y

Interviews with policymakersInterviews with state coordinators and regional implementation staff

Interviews with selected expert public participantsInterviews with selected non-expert public participants

Surveys of state policymakersSurveys of program participants

Observation of select study circle sessionsReview of documents

Technical report on results of research studyGuidebooks for policymakers, agencies, and potential organizational sponsors of study circle programs

Information reports for policymakers (policy briefs)Informational video tape documenting Calling the Roll implementation process and results

D ATA S O U R C E S

P R O D U C T S

2. To learn about the process of implementinga statewide program of study circles oneducation that includes state policymakers.

Process Evaluation

1. How is a statewide program of study circleson education planned and implemented?

2. What strategies are used to involve statepolicymakers in study circles on education?

3. What are the costs of implementing andinvolving state policymakers in a statewideprogram of study circles?

Evaluation of program implementation process.

K E Y R E S E A R C H Q U E S T I O N S

R E S E A R C H A P P R O A C H

Appendix B

Interviews

Guided interviews with individuals wereused to document both program impacts (GoalOne) and the implementation process (GoalTwo). Interviews with Calling the Roll partici-pants, including state policymakers and selectedcommunity members, helped inform Goal Oneresearch. Interviews with program staff, includ-ing state coordinators (AFBS and LWVO) andregional implementation staff (SCRC andSEDL), informed Goal Two research.

SEDL developed written guides to struc-ture the interviews. Face-to-face and phoneinterviews with state policymakers and programstaff were conducted by SEDL researchers.Nonpolicymaker participants were interviewedby local interviewers in both program states.Interview guides were developed for prepro-gram and post-program interviews with statepolicymakers, periodic interviews with programstaff, and post-program interviews with non-policymaker participants. The guides allowedfor semi-structured question-and-answer ses-sions. When possible, interviews were audio-taped. Policymaker and program staff inter-views were fully transcribed. Notes from non-policymaker participant interviews wererecorded manually.

Interview guides allowed interviewers andinterviewees the flexibility to pursue a widerange of themes. Also, as the study progressed,questions were added or modified to exploreconstructs of interest that emerged from earlierdata. This approach put much of the responsi-bility on SEDL staff to prioritize and developresearch themes throughout the study.

Preprogram interviews were conductedbefore study circles began in the fall of 1998.Twenty-one state legislators and two otherstate-level education policymakers participated

in preprogram interviews. Of these, 17 policy-makers attended the Calling the Roll programand were interviewed a second time after theprogram ended. An additional two policymak-ers attended study circles and provided infor-mation through post-program interviews (onenewly elected legislator and one legislator whowere unable to grant preprogram interviews).Policymakers were recruited and interviewedon a volunteer basis. Four selected policymak-ers were also interviewed a third time to assessany mid- and long-range impacts of the CRprogram.

Fifteen nonpolicymaker study circle partici-pants in each state were interviewed after theprogram ended. During the study circle ses-sions, all participants were invited to be inter-viewed and to provide contact information foruse by SEDL. Interviewees were selectivelysampled from those who participated in studycircles in which a state policymaker was pre-sent. Face-to-face and telephone interviewsdocumented constituent perceptions regardingtheir interactions and information sharing withstate policymakers.

Surveys

A variety of survey instruments were devel-oped to collect demographic and attitude infor-mation from program participants and policy-makers and to corroborate informationobtained through interviews. Three surveyswere administered for this research:

Policymaker Surveys. Thirty state legisla-tors who represent the proposed CR communi-ties in both states provided responses to a sur-vey administered prior to the start of the CRprogram. This baseline data informed SEDL’sgeneral knowledge about public engagementrelative to the legislative policy making process.This information-gathering activity helped

Appendix B

63

frame the direction of the in-depth interviewsconducted with Calling the Roll participants.

Participant Surveys. Calling the Rollresearch partners, including SEDL policy staff,worked to collect survey data from all partici-pants who attended study circles in the 15 pro-gram communities. The survey documented arange of topics (satisfaction with the process,changes in opinion and behavior as a result ofparticipation, and demographic information).SEDL relied on survey results primarily forunderstanding the characteristics of partici-pants, including demographic information andcivic participation tendencies. Surveys wereadministered to participants at the beginning ofthe study circle program and again at the finalstudy circle meeting. Researchers collected 615completed preprogram surveys and 366 post-program surveys.

Session Three Surveys. A smaller surveydata collection effort was conducted by SEDLstaff with assistance from local program coordi-nators and facilitators. SEDL identified Callingthe Roll study circle groups that included a statepolicymaker and distributed surveys to partici-pants in these groups. Group facilitators wereinstructed to ask participants to fill out surveyforms immediately after their third discussionsession, which focused on an education policyissue of state relevance (accountability). A totalof 39 surveys were returned.

Observation

SEDL performed observations of study cir-cle meetings to gather information about thestudy circle process and format and to gainfirsthand knowledge of the range of interactionthat occurs within the study circle. A total of sixstudy circle groups were observed; each includ-ed a state policymaker participant.

Activity Logs

Monthly activity records were collectedfrom the two state coordinators to gain insighton the implementation process in a moreimmediate and tangible fashion than was possi-ble through periodic interviews. State coordi-nators provided copies of related artifacts alongwith their monthly logs, including memos, let-ters, meeting agendas, and press releases.

Document Review

SEDL staff collected and reviewed docu-ments that provided information on the educa-tional context that might have a bearing on theanalysis of impact data. Three major sourceswere tracked:

• information from Arkansas andOklahoma newspapers on issues thatrelate to education or the study circleprocess. SEDL used an on-line, search-able, full-text news service (LexisNexis) to collect this information.

• program reports that were generated byCalling the Roll recorders and coordina-tors. These reports provided furtherprimary and secondary data on the pro-gram implementation process and localand state-level impacts.

• legislative updates made available bylegislative staff in electronic or hard-copy format.

Data Analysis

Data analysis techniques were selected tohelp develop a dependable, credible, and acces-sible accounting of both the impact of the pro-

Introduction

64

Appendix B

gram on the state education policy makingprocess and the factors involved in successfullyimplementing and including state policymakersin a statewide program of study circles on edu-cation.

Qualitative Data Analysis

Three types of coding methods suggestedby Strauss and Corbin (1990) were used to ana-lyze the qualitative data collected through theinterviews. For the sake of clarity in descrip-tion, the analysis is described as occurring indiscrete stages. In reality, however, the analysisof the data did not occur in a linear fashion butmoved back and forth among the different cod-ing methods throughout the process of analysis.

In the first stage of analysis, interview tran-scripts and secondary sources of data were ana-lyzed using open-coding methods. The datawas examined line by line and broken into dis-crete events. Conceptual labels were attachedto each event or happening. Next, conceptswere grouped into broad thematic categoriesand the properties and dimensions of each cat-egory was explored.

In the second stage of analysis, data wereanalyzed using axial coding methods. Thisphase emphasized elaboration of the majorareas of inquiry (information, relationships,civic capacity) as well as exploration of newlyemergent themes and categories. Validationtechniques described by Miles and Huberman(1994) and Lincoln and Guba (1985) were usedto confirm findings and exceptions to both thethemes, and the emergent categories weresought through selective (purposeful) samplingmethods to dimensionalize the findings. Theconditions that gave rise to various phenomenaidentified by open coding and the context inwhich these phenomena occur were also exam-ined during this phase. New data continued to

be collected and analyzed to further elucidatethe dimensions.

In the third stage, selective coding methodswere used to explicate the central or corethemes present in the data, termed the “storyline” by Strauss and Corbin (1990). Also as rec-ommended by Strauss and Corbin (1990),“process” or movement that is present in thedata were analyzed by identifying why and howactions and interactions changed, stayed thesame, or regressed; why events progressed inthe face of changing conditions; and what theconsequences of these events entailed.

Finally, utilizing “member-check” proce-dures, internal and external reviewers wereasked to review the findings of the codingprocesses several times during the course of theanalysis and again at the end of the analysis toconfirm the face validity of the findings.

Quantitative Data Analysis

Basic frequency and central tendency calcu-lations were used to analyze the numerical sur-vey data.

Monitoring and Internal QualityControl

Given the size and complexity of the pro-gram, it was important for SEDL staff to assessthe quality and effectiveness of its researchactivities on a regular basis. The methods thatwere used to ensure the quality and appropri-ateness of the research are presented in a sepa-rate document (Pan, Mutchler, and Knox,1998). Briefly, researchers implemented thework with processes in place to attend to inves-tigator bias, internal audits, external peerreview, instrument development and testing,confirmation of reliability of findings, confi-dentiality, and informed consent.

Appendix B

65

Introduction

66

Dissemination of Results

One of the primary tasks of SEDL’s policyproject is to develop a mix of products that willinform state and local policy audiences aboutthe usefulness and feasibility of deliberative dia-logue processes and how the particular methodtested—the study circle process—could be

implemented in their communities or states.Products related to this research, in addition tothis document, include an informative videoabout the Calling the Roll program, informationfor policymakers in the form of policy briefs,and two guides that provide assistance to statepolicymakers and groups interested in replicat-ing the program elsewhere.

Appendix B

66

Southwest Educational Development Laboratory

Public Engagement Survey

Instructions: This survey should take less than ten minutes to complete. Please answer all of thequestions below. Also, read the confidentiality agreement on the attached page, indicate yourpreference, and sign the agreement. If you have any questions or comments, contact SEDL, 211East Seventh Street, Austin, TX 78701-3281, (512) 476-6861. Please use the enclosed postagepaid envelope to return this form to SEDL.Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey.

1. Among the various sources of information (listed below) that may help you make informed policydecisions, how would you allocate percentages that reflect their relative importance to you? Thepercentages you indicate should add up to 100 percent.

_____% a. staff analysts or advisors_____% b. lobbyists or special interest groups_____% c. constituents_____% d. experts in the specific policy topic_____% e. other (specify)__________________________________________________

= 100 %

2. How do you obtain information about the views and needs of your constituents to help you makeinformed policy decisions? (Circle all that apply.)a. Letters, phone calls, or e-mail received from constituentsb. Formal or informal conversations with constituentsc. Formal or informal conversations with community leadersd. Materials sent by community groupse. Updates from staff advisors or key informantsf. Formal or informal information from lobbyists or special interest groupsg. Public opinion polls (state or national)h. Public opinion polls (local)i. Participation in town meetings or other public forumsj. Sponsoring focus groupsk. Participation in small group dialogues such as issues forums or study circlesl. Nonem. Other sources, specify:_____________________________________________________

3. Considering all of the items you circled in question 2 above, indicate on a scale from 1 to 4 how much you agree with the following statements:

disagree agreestrongly strongly

3a. The information represents diverse viewpoints. 1 2 3 4 not sure3b. A sufficient quantity of information is available. 1 2 3 4 not sure3c. The information is reliable and up-to-date. 1 2 3 4 not sure

67

Introduction

68

4. Do you see a need for different or better ways of finding out the views of your constituents? ❑ YES ❑ NO ❑ Not SureIf possible, describe some features of what you see as a better source.____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

5. Use the scale from 1 to 4 (below) to indicate how much you agree with the following statements about your constituents and education policy and programs.5a. Generally, my constituents are very interested 1 2 3 4 not sure

in education programs and policy.5b. Generally, my constituents are very active 1 2 3 4 not sure

in local schools.5c. Generally, my constituents are well informed 1 2 3 4 not sure

about education issues.

The Southwest Educational Development Laboratory is investigating the use of “study circles” as apotentially important tool to assist policymakers and constituents in sharing information and experi-ences. The study circle is a public engagement model which encourages diverse members of thecommunity to meet in an informal, non-partisan setting and discuss issues in small groups with theassistance of a trained facilitator.

6. How likely would you be to attend a study circle session to discuss education if one were orga-nized in your community?

not at all verylikely likely

1 2 3 4 not sure

6a. Do you have any suggestions for encouraging other legislators to participate in community study circles that organizers of the program might find useful?________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

7. Do you have any further comments or questions regarding this survey or the study circles on education?________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

68

[Notes for the interviewer:]

This is the first of a series of interviews that will beconducted with selected policymakers who partici-pate in the Calling the Roll program in Oklahomaand Arkansas. At this phase of program participa-tion, policymakers have been recruited and willattend one or more study circle sessions. The ques-tions and themes presented below should be used asgeneral guides for promoting discussion with theinterviewee, they should not be considered require-ments, nor should they be considered to representan exhaustive list of processes to track. Subsequentinterviews with these same policymakers will buildupon the themes that are identified and discussedusing this guide.

[Introduction and consent information to beread aloud or explained before the interview:]

The Southwest Educational Development Labor-atory, a private nonprofit organization that works toimprove education through research and development, isconducting research on the study circle program in whichyou have decided to participate. We are conducting inter-views with you and other policymakers to gain a betterunderstanding of how public engagement methods such asstudy circles can help you with your work. The purposeof this interview is to find out some of the ways you giveand receive information from the public and your expec-tations for the study circles on education in [your commu-nity] this fall.

Please review and sign the consent form, indicatingyour preference for our use of the information you sharewith us today. (Get signature on consent form)

Do you have any questions?

May we proceed with the interview?

I would like to record our conversation so that I canrefer back to it later for analysis. Is it all right if Irecord our conversation?

[If “yes,”— if at any time during this interview youwant me to turn off the tape, just let me know. Also tellme if you decide after the interview that you’d like partof our conversation erased from the tape or considered“off-the-record.” — begin audiotape.

If “no,” — do not begin audiotape, take notesmanually instead.]

[Begin with a broad inquiry regarding the rela-tionship of the policymaker with his/her con-stituents: lines of communication, informationresources, role of constituents in decisionmak-ing, etc. Use the following questions to helpguide your conversation.]

1. What do you consider the most importantsources of public opinion information foryou as a policymaker?• relative importance of different sources (e.g.

staff analysts or advisors, lobbyist or specialinterest groups, constituents, experts in thespecific policy topic)

• strengths, weaknesses• frequency of use• need for other sources• opportunities available for interaction with

community• impact of this information on decisionmak-

ing

2. How do you think that the average persongets information about education programsand policy?• format of information that is available (indi-

vidual, local or state; results, plans, test

69

SEDL Research Study of “Calling the Roll”

Interview Guide

Policymaker Baseline Information

Introduction

70

scores, rankings, analyses, etc.)• need for better or different information• ways to provide information

3. Do you think the public has a clear under-standing of your views on education?• how achieved?• process of trust building

[Probe the expectations that the respondenthas about the upcoming study circles. Try toidentify what is most important to the policy-maker in regard to the study circle process.Use the following questions to help guide yourconversation.]

4. Have you ever participated in study circlesor a similar discussion format with con-stituents? If so, tell me what happenedduring that experience.• description of past experience• role in process (observe, lead, share)• general comfort level with format• outcomes

5. What do you expect to gain from your par-ticipation in study circles on education?• motivation for participation, personal and

professional motivations• general comfort level with format, contrast

with previous experiences (e.g. town meet-ings, hearings)

• potential outcomes (new information, rela-tionship-building, express opinions)

• concerns• role in process (observe, lead, share)• impact on process• important issues to bring up• expectations on level of participation (num-

ber of sessions)

[Try to gain sense of the major educationissues that the policymaker is concerned withor that he/she expects to talk about during thestudy circle sessions. Use the following ques-tions to help guide your conversation.]

6. What do you think will be the major educa-tion issues that will be on people’s minds atthe study circle discussions?• local vs. state concerns• significant current events or policy shifts

7. What education policy issues most concernyou right now?• local vs. state concerns• drafting or supporting new legislation

for 1999• pet projects or initiatives

8. Do you think that the study circle discus-sions will help you or your constituentsresolve the issues you have identified? • discussions as source of feedback for new leg-

islation• need for community to hear diverse view-

points

[Use this last question to find out about policy-maker recruitment for study circles in general.]

9. What should organizers of study circlesconsider when they try to involve policy-makers in their programs?• why you became involved• how to encourage more participation• barriers to participation for policymakers

70

[Notes for the interviewer:]

This is the second of a series of interviews that willbe conducted with selected policymakers who par-ticipate in the Calling the Roll program in Oklahomaand Arkansas. At this phase of program participa-tion, policymakers have attended one or more studycircle sessions. The questions and themes presentedbelow should be used as general guides for promot-ing discussion with the interviewee; they should notbe considered requirements, nor should they beconsidered to represent an exhaustive list ofprocesses to track. Subsequent interviews with thesesame policymakers will build upon the themes thatare identified and discussed using this guide.

[Introduction and consent information to beread aloud or explained before the interview:]

The Southwest Educational Development Labora-tory, a private nonprofit organization that works toimprove education through research and development, isconducting a research study of the study circle program oneducation in which you have agreed to participate. Weare conducting interviews with you and other public offi-cials to gain a better understanding of how public engage-ment tools such as study circles can help policymakers withtheir work. The purpose of this interview is to find outyour experience with the study circles on education thatyou attended in the fall.

If you have not already done so, please review andsign the consent form, indicating your preference for ouruse of the information you share with us today. (Get sig-nature on consent form)

Do you have any questions?

May we proceed with the interview?

I would like to record our conversation so that I canrefer back to it later for analysis. Is it all right if Irecord our conversation?

[If “yes,”— if at any time during this interview youwant me to turn off the tape, just let me know. Also tellme if you decide after the interview that you’d like partof our conversation erased from the tape or considered“off-the-record.” — begin audiotape.

If “no,” — do not begin audiotape, take notesmanually instead.]

[Use the first two questions to let the respon-dent know that you are interested in pursuingvery open-ended responses and that you areinterested in what he/she feels to be the mostimportant part of his/her study circle experi-ence. Also use this as an opportunity to notesome of the events and issues that you shouldrefer back to or explore more fully as the inter-view progresses.]

1. What was the best part of your experiencewith study circles?

• How did it compare with other opportunitiesyou have to interact with the public?

2. Were there any negative aspects of yourexperiences with study circles?

• What did you like least?

[Now, try to find out the respondent’s percep-tion of what happened during the actual studycircles and any related events/activities that

71


Interview Guide

Policymaker Post-Program Perceptions

happened when study circles were also goingon.]

3. What were the issues that your groupseemed to talk about the most?(Probe some issues identified during preprograminterview)• Tell me about some of the most interesting

things you heard about these issues.• What were some issues that you shared with

your group?• Did you learn anything new from the discus-

sions?• Did your viewpoint/opinion on any issue

change because of the discussion?• Did you hear anything that will help you with

your work in the upcoming legislative session?• Do you think that these were primarily local

concerns, or are they also relevant to state edu-cation policy?

4. Tell me about the people who participatedin your study circle group.• Can you tell me about anything you may have

heard from an individual that was particularlyinteresting to you?

• How would you compare attendees with theconstituents you normally hear from?

• Whose views were missing from the conversa-tions?

5. Tell me about how you felt about the studycircles themselves.• comfort with the process • attitudes/dynamics of the group• positive/negative experiences• comparing the different sessions he/she may

have attended• space/physical environment and location• facilitation

6. Now that the study circles have ended, didyour experience match your previous expecta-tions for the program?• positive and negative expectations

7. Can you think of any examples of how youmay have been able to use your experiences inthe study circles in another context, such as atother events, or in other meetings or conversa-tions?• Did experience prompt other informal conver-

sations with other study circle participants dur-ing or after sessions?

• Were you able to use the issues discussed instudy circles in other meetings or events abouteducation?

• Did your experience prompt you to find outmore about an issue or problem?

[Use the following questions to help you iden-tify program results.]

8. Do you think the study circles program wasbeneficial for you and your work? For the com-munity? For the schools?• action vs. talk• resolution of problems/conflicts• community-building

9. How would you compare study circle discus-sions with other ways you might communicatewith your consitituents?• in terms of relationship-building• in terms of public relations and advertising

your views

[Use the following questions to prompt therespondent to reflect on the value of publicengagement.]

10. Do you think that it is important for thecommunity to come together to discuss educa-tion issues like they did in the study circles?Explain.

[Use the following questions to probe expecta-tions for future impacts.]

Introduction

7272

11. Do you think that community discussionssuch as those you experienced in study circlesare important for the policy making process?• state vs. local level decisionmaking• information• relationships• civic capacity

[Questions regarding policymaker participa-tion]

12. On a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 being “not atall useful” and 10 being “one of the most use-ful things I’ve done,” how would you rate yourexperience? What would need to happen tomake it a ten?

13. What advice would you give program orga-nizers to help them get more policymakersinvolved in discussions such as study circles?

• What was your primary motivation for attend-ing study circles? How did you first hear aboutit? Did you know anyone else involved in program?

• What facilitated your ability to participate inthe groups?

• What barriers were there to your participation?

• What information is important for policy-makers to know about participating?

73

Introduction

74


Study Circle Observation Guide

Policymaker Observation Questions

The Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (SEDL) is conducting research to findout how state policymakers affect and are affected by participation in study circles. Please makesure that you are observing a session with a policymaker in attendance. Fill out this form after eachsession you observe. Please return your completed forms to SEDL, 211 East Seventh St.,Austin, TX 78701-3281 after the sessions are over. THANK YOU!

Your name: Your group number:

Policymaker’s name: Session (circle one): 1 2 3 4

Think about the following questions after the session you observed today, and respond to themas completely as possible. You may use another sheet of paper or the back of this form if neces-sary.

(1) How would you describe the interaction you observed between the policymaker(s) and otherparticipants? In particular, please tell us if you observed any interactions that were differentfrom what you expected to see.

(2) Please give an example of an interaction between the policymaker(s) and participants thatyou viewed as positive or productive.

(3) Please give an example of an interaction between the policymaker(s) and participants thatyou viewed as negative or counterproductive.

74

(4) What education related issues seem to be most important to the policymaker? Compare orcontrast those issues with the issues that the other participants seemed most concerned about.

(5) What, if any, benefits appeared because the policymaker(s) was in the group?

(6) What, if any, problems or conflicts resulted because the policymaker(s) was in the group?

(7) What would you suggest program planners do in the future to better accommodate the par-ticipation of policymakers in study circles?

75

Introduction

76

Self-administered Questionnaire for Study Circle Participants

SESSION 3 Group #: _________ Location: _______________________________

Anonymous ID for follow-up surveys. Please write-in the last 4 digits of your social security number:

❑ ❑ ❑ ❑1. Did you get a chance to talk about your opinions during this session? (circle one)

1. A great deal 2. A moderate amount 3. Not very much 4. Not at all

2. Did this session help you understand other people’s opinions better? (circle one)1. A great deal 2. A moderate amount 3. Not very much 4. Not at all

3. Did this session cause you to change your opinion(s)? (circle one)1. Yes 2. No 3. I’m not sure

4. Thinking about the four viewpoints that your group talked about during the first part of thissession (listed below), how would you rank the views in order of their personal importanceto you?(Please put a rank order number from 1 to 4 next to each viewpoint below, with 1 being most important)____“We should give schools and students specific, high standards to aim for.”____“We should involve parents and community members in the process of making decisions

about education.”____“We should make information about students and schools easy to find, understand, and use.”____“We should give educators more support and more freedom to make decisions.”

5. Using the same ranking order as above, tell us who you think should have the most respon-sibility for making sure that all children get the best education. (Please put a rank order number from 1 to 6 next to each category below, with 1 being the most important)____Teachers and School Administrators____Parents____All Citizens____Local School Board____State Government and/or Legislators____Local Education Organizations (for example, PTAs or Teacher’s Association)____Other (Specify:________________________________________________________________)

6. How responsible do you feel personally for making sure that all children get the best edu-cation? (circle one)

1. Very responsible 2. Somewhat responsible3. Not very responsible 4. Not at all responsible

76

7. For each of the additional four discussion topics that you might have discussed today (listedbelow), think about the three questions below and mark the boxes that best answer eachquestion.

a. School Choice ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ No

b. School Funding ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ No

c. Diversity in Schools ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ No

d. School Safety ❑ ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ No

8. Did your group talk about ideas for “next steps” or projects and programs that you or othersmight do after the study circles are over?

1. Yes 2. No 3. I’m not sure

8a. If yes, please list some of those ideas: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

9. Did you use the “Resource Guide” to help you during this session?1. Very often 2. Occasionally 3. Not very much 4. Not at all

10. Do you think you will use the “Resource Guide” after the study circles are over?1. Very often 2. Occasionally 3. Not very much 4. Not at all

11. Did you feel that you needed more information to talk about the topics in this session? 1. Yes 2. No

12. Do you think you will try to find out more about one or more of the topics that your grouptalked about today?

1. Yes 2. No

12a. If yes, please list the topic(s) you want more information about: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

77

Which two topics didyour group spend the

most time talking about?

Did you contribute your opinions to

this topic?

Did your group come upwith any ideas to address

these topics in your community?

Introduction

78

13. Was there a public official or policymaker in your group? 1. Yes 2. No 3. I’m not sure

13a. If yes, please circle the category that best describes his/her position. 1. State-level public official or education policymaker (such as state senator or representative,

state school superintendent, secretary of education, etc.)2. Local-level public official or education policymaker (such as mayor, county judge, school

board member, school superintendent or principal, etc.)3. Candidate for any elected office

13b. If you responded “Yes” to question 13, read the following statements about the publicofficial and circle a number next to each one to show how you feel about the statement.Use a scale from 1 (agree strongly) to 4 (disagree strongly):

(circle your choice from 1 to 4)Agree Agree Disagree Disagree

Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly

a. He/she was an equal participant in the discussion. 1 2 3 4b. He/she dominated the discussion. 1 2 3 4c. He/she shared personal experiences. 1 2 3 4d. His/her presence helped better inform the discussion. 1 2 3 4e. His/her presence made me feel like my opinions 1 2 3 4

had more importance.

Thank you very much for participating in this most important survey!

78


Interview Guide

Participant Post-Program Interviews

Interviewer:_____________________ Date:_________ Time:_______

Respondent: ________________________ City: ________________________

Policymaker in Respondent’s Study Circle (name and title): __________________

_____________________________________________________________________

Introduction and consent information to be read aloud or explained before the interview:The Southwest Educational Development Laboratory, a non-profit education research organization, is working

to learn more about the study circles on education that you attended in the fall of 1998. We are talking with partic-ipants to find out how study circles can help schools, communities, and people like you. All of the information you sharetoday will be kept completely confidential. Do you have any questions before we start?

Is it all right if I record our conversation so that later I can better remember what we talked about?

If “yes,”— if at any time during this interview you want me to turn off the tape, just let me know — beginaudiotape.

If “no,” — do not begin audiotape, take detailed notes.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Sometime during the interview, find out the following information about the respondent:

Which study circle sessions did he/she attend? (circle all that apply)

(if applicable)1 2 3 4 5 6 Action Forum

Is he/she a parent of school age (K-12) children? YES NO

Is his/her occupation related to K-12 education or the schools? YES NO

If yes, what is his/her occupation?__________________________________________________________

79

Introduction

80

Use the first two questions to help the respondent feel that you are interested in pursuing veryopen-ended responses and that you are interested in what he/she feels to be the most importantpart of his/her study circle experience. Also use this as an opportunity to note some of the eventsand issues that you should refer back to or explore more fully as the interview progresses.

1. What was the best part of your experience with study circles?• How did it compare with other ways that you participate in the community?(Ask for examples or detailed description of the elements the respondent liked.)

2. What did you like least about the study circles program?• Were they as useful and interesting as you expected/hoped they would be?• Any disappointing parts of the process?

(Ask for examples or detailed description of the elements the respondent liked least.)

Use the questions below to find out the respondent’s perceptions of the study circles.

3. What were the education issues you remember your study circle group talking about the most?• Tell me about some of the most interesting things you heard about these issues.• Did you learn something new from the discussions?• Did your opinions on any issue change because of the discussion?

4. Tell me about the people who participated in your study circle group.• Did you know any of the other participants?• Were there people from diverse backgrounds in your group? (i.e. more than one race/ethnicity,

gender, economic background, education level)• Did the people in your group seem to have a wide range of opinions about the issues?• Are there other people or perspectives that you feel were missing from your study circle discus-

sions?

5. Tell me about how you felt about the study circles themselves. (Ask for examples.)• comfort with the process • attitudes/dynamics of the group• positive/negative experiences• comparing the different sessions he/she may have attended• facilitation/role of discussion leader

Now try to find out the respondent’s perception of the participation of the policymaker.(Ask for examples or detailed description of the perceptions the respondent shares.)

80

6. Tell me what it was like having the [insert policymaker title] in your study circle group.

7. What did you like the most about having the [insert policymaker title] in the study circle discussion?Please provide examples or describe in detail.

8. What did you like least about having the [insert policymaker title] in the study circle discussion?Please provide examples or describe in detail.

9. How do you think the experience would have been different if the [insert policymaker title] were notpresent? (If policymaker did not attend all sessions, ask respondent to compare sessions with and without the policymaker)

10. Do you think the issues your group talked about are important for the [insert policymaker title] toconsider for his/her work as a legislator? Explain.(Remind the respondent about the issues he/she mentioned in response to question #3.)

11. What do you think is the most important thing that the [insert policymaker title] heard from youduring the study circles? Please explain.

12. Have you ever discussed your local schools or other education issues with an elected official or poli-cymaker outside of the study circles? Please tell me about that experience.

Use the following question to prompt the respondent to reflect on the value of public engagement.

13. Do you think that it is important for the community to come together to discuss education issueslike they did in the study circles? Explain.

14. On a scale from one (not at all important) to ten (extremely important), how important would yousay it is to include state policymakers such as the [insert policymaker title] in these discussions? Tellme what you think could make it more important for state policymakers to be there.

81

Introduction

82

Questions regarding recruitment/publicity

15. What do you think organizers of the program can do in the future to get more people involved instudy circle discussions on education?

16. Do you have any final comments or questions before we end the interview?

Thank you for sharing your time with me today. We might like to contact you again in a few months to see if youhave become involved with activities that come about because of the study circle discussions. Would it be all right forsomeone to contact you again in about six months?

❑ YES ❑ NO

If yes, confirm that contact information will still be current six months from now. If respondent is unsurewhether he/she can be contacted at present address/phone, obtain secondary contact information (rela-tive, close friend, work) that can help locate the respondent.

SECONDARY CONTACT PERSON:

Name _________________________________________________________________________Address _________________________________________________________________________City, State, Zip _________________________________________________________________________Telephone _________________________________________________________________________Relationship _________________________________________________________________________

82

83

Arkansas Friends for Better Schools(AFBS)—An alliance of advocates for pub-lic education representing education, busi-ness, civic, and religious organizations, andsponsored by the Arkansas InterfaithConference, Arkansas Friends was foundedin late 1993 and funded by the WinthropRockefeller Foundation through March1997. It also enjoys substantial in-kind sup-port from Southwestern Bell Telephone.Arkansas Friends was originally founded toprovide information to its members and tothe public about systemic school reform,particularly as defined under Act 236 of1991. A key interest of the alliance is build-ing support for reform and for publicschools in the state.

action forum—A community-wide event atthe conclusion of the study circle programthat informs participants about futureaction opportunities or provides the oppor-tunity for groups and individuals to formnew coalitions and plan more study circles.This forum is also an opportunity for par-ticipants to share experiences with eachother and officials or policymakers.

Calling the Roll—A collaborative programfeaturing multiple community-wide studycircles on education in Arkansas andOklahoma from September throughNovember 1998.

deliberative dialogue—A mode of communi-cation that enables individuals to construc-tively discuss an issue of shared concernwith the purpose of increasing understand-ing of diverse perspectives and coming to a

common sense of direction and potentialaction.

facilitator—The designated discussion leaderfor a study circle session. Facilitators arenot necessarily experts in the topic of dis-cussion but do receive training in helpingpeople listen and engage in constructivedialogue.

focus group—Structured public gathering inwhich the sponsoring entity solicits theopinions of participants on a single issue.Generally used as a method to extractopinions from a specially chosen group ofparticipants who are screened using estab-lished criteria.

issues forum—A model that puts into prac-tice concepts of deliberative dialogue.Issues forums are similar to study circles;however, issues forums are planned as largegroup discussions that occur in a singleevent, whereas study circles emphasize aseries of small-group dialogues over time.

kick-off forum—A community-wide eventthat initiates the study circle program. Thekickoff helps draw media and communityvisibility to the study circles and helpsrecruit potential sponsoring organizations.

League of Women Voters of Oklahoma(LWVO)—A nonpartisan political organi-zation that encourages the informed andactive participation of citizens in govern-ment and influences public policy througheducation and advocacy.

Glossary

Introduction

84

Glossary

policymaker—Elected and appointed repre-sentatives whose jobs as state legislators,state board of education members, or otherstate-level officeholders place them in aposition of accountability to the citizens oftheir state.

public engagement—An interactive processthat provides an opportunity for the publicto participate in dialogue pertaining todecisions that will impact communitystructures and systems.

study circle process—A specific approach toachieving broad engagement of communitymembers in small-group deliberation. Asdescribed by the Study Circles ResourceCenter, study circles are groups of betweenfive and fifteen people who agree to meetseveral times to discuss an issue of publicconcern in a democratic, nonpartisan, andcollaborative way. The process is struc-tured (open and equal participation, groupground rules, facilitation) so that partici-pants of diverse backgrounds and variedexpertise levels can address complex issues,

and controversial topics can be discussed inan atmosphere of respect.

Study Circles Resource Center (SCRC)—Aproject of the Topsfield Foundation to pro-mote the study circle model. SCRC pro-vides technical assistance, materials devel-opment, and research to help states andcommunities implement their own studycircles. Congressional Exchange isanother related Topsfield project thatapplies the model at the national level.

state coordinator—Designated individualwho is responsible for the state-level coor-dination of Calling the Roll in each of thetwo states.

state policymakers—Policymakers and state-level decision makers.

statewide study circle program—A programcoordinating the implementation of com-munity-wide study circles in multiple com-munities across a state.

85

Annenberg Institute for School Reform.(1998). Reasons for hope, voices for change.Report of the Annenberg Institute onPublic Engagement for Public Education.Providence, RI: author.

Arkansas Friends for Better Schools. (1999).Calling the Roll: Study circles for better schools:A summary of the Arkansas experience. LittleRock, AR: author.

Arnsparger, A., and Ledell, M. (1993). How todeal with community criticism of school change.Denver, CO: Education Commission ofthe States.

———. (1992). Anticipating and responding tocriticism. (Available from EducationCommission of the States, 707 17th Street,Suite 2700, Denver, CO 80202-3427).

Ashby, S., Garza, C., and Rivas, M. (1998).Public deliberation: A tool for connecting schoolreform and diversity. Austin, TX: SouthwestEducational Development Laboratory.

Association for Supervision and CurriculumDevelopment. (1996, December). Publiceducation and democratic society. Infobrief,7.

Button, M., and Mattson, K. (1999).Deliberative democracy in practice:Challenges and prospects for civic deliber-ation. Polity, XXXI(4), 609–637.

Center on National Education Policy. (1996).Do we still need public schools? Washington,D.C.: author.

Coombs, F. S., and Wycoff, C. E. (1994,April). The public’s role in school reform.Paper presented at the annual meeting ofthe American Educational ResearchAssociation, New Orleans, LA.

Elam, S. M., Rose, L. C., and Gallup, A. M.(1996). Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup poll of thepublic’s attitudes toward the public schools.Phi Delta Kappan, 78(1), 41–59.

Frazier, P. P. (1996). An evaluation of criminaljustice study circles in Weatherford, Oklahoma.Unpublished paper.

Glickman, C. (1997a, February). Purpose, con-frontation, and the actual education ofAmerican teachers: A quarrel among lovedones. A paper presented at the annual meet-ing of the Association of TeacherEducators.

———. (1997b, February). Revitalizing the‘public’ in public universities and colleges: Thereciprocal challenge. A draft presented to theCommission of the American Associationof State Colleges and Universities.

Golden-Biddle, K., and Locke, K. (1997).Composing Qualitative Research. NewburyPark, CA: Sage Publications.

Hart, P. D., and Bailey, D. (1991). People versuspolitics: Citizens discuss politicians, campaigns,and political reform. Washington, D.C.:Centel Public Accountability Project.

Henry, G. T. (1996). Community accountabili-ty: A theory of information, accountability,and school improvement. Phi Delta Kappan,78(1), 85–90.

Hill, B.W. (Ed.). (1975). Edmund Burke on gov-ernment, politics and society. Glasgow:William Collins Sons & Co.

Hillegonds, P. (2000). Enlightened leadership.State Legislatures, 26(1), 17–19.

ICR Survey Research Group. (1999). Datafrom telephone interviews conducted June25–July 19, 1999 [On-line]. Available:

References

http://www.publicagenda.org/issues/pcc.cfm?issue_type=education

Jennings, J. F. (1997). An experiment indemocracy. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(10),769–771.

Johnson, J. (1995). Assignment incomplete: Theunfinished business of education reform. NewYork: Public Agenda.

Johnson, J., and Immerwahr, J. (1994). Firstthings first: What Americans expect from thepublic schools. New York: Public Agenda.

Jones, B. (1997). Reconceiving decision-making indemocratic politics: Attention, choice, and publicpolicy. Chicago: The University of ChicagoPress.

Kennedy, M. (1983). Working knowledge.Knowledge: Creation, diffusion, utilization,5(2), 193–211.

Kimball, D. (1992). How to arm for battlewith pressure groups: Two superintendentsdetail their strategies. The SchoolAdministrator, 49(4), 14–16, 18.

League of Women Voters of Oklahoma.(1999). Calling the Roll: Study circles for bet-ter education—Summary report. OklahomaCity, OK: author.

League of Women Voters of Oklahoma.(1997). Balancing justice: Setting citizen pri-orities for the corrections system—Final reportof criminal justice study circles. OklahomaCity, OK: author.

Lincoln, Y., and Guba, E. (1985). Naturalisticinquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

Louis, K. S. (1998). ‘A light feeling of chaos:’Educational reform and policy in theUnited States. Daedalus, 127(4), 13–40.

Massell, D. (1993, January). Achieving consen-sus: Setting the agenda for state curriculumreform. A paper presented at the annualmeeting of the American EducationalResearch Association, Atlanta, Georgia.

Massell, D., Fuhrman, S., Kirst, M., Odden,A., Wohlstetter, P., Carver, R., and Yee, G.(1994). Ten years of state education reform,

1983–1993: Overview with four case studies.New Brunswick, NJ: Consortium forPolicy Research in Education, RutgersUniversity.

Matthews, D. (1996). Is there a public for publicschools? Dayton, OH: Kettering FoundationPress.

Mawhinney, H. B. (1993). An advocacy coali-tion approach to change in Canadian edu-cation. In P. A. Sabatier and H. C. Jenkins-Smith (Eds.). Policy change and learning: Anadvocacy coalition approach, 59–82. Boulder,CO: Westview Press.

Miles, M. B., and Huberman, A. M. (1994).Qualitative data analysis: An expanded source-book. Thousand Oaks, CA: SagePublications.

Mitchell, D. E., and Boyd, W. L. (1998).Knowledge utilization in educational policyand politics: Conceptualizing and mappingthe domain. Educational AdministrationQuarterly, 34(1), 126–140.

Mutchler, S. E. (1993). Education activism ofcultural conservatives. INSIGHTS . . . oneducation policy and practice, No. 3. Austin,TX: Southwest Educational DevelopmentLaboratory.

Mutchler, S. E., and Knox, L. (1998, April).Changing the state political context for educa-tion through local deliberative dialogue. Paperpresented at the annual meeting of theAmerican Educational ResearchAssociation, San Diego, CA.

National Governors’ Association. (1994).Communicating with the public about educa-tion reform. Washington, D.C.: author.

National Parents and Teachers Association.(1992). National PTA’s guide to extremism.(Available from National PTA, 700 NorthRush Street, Chicago, IL 60611-2571).

Ornstein, N. (2000). Deliberative democracyheaded for the ‘Dark side?’ StateLegislatures, 26(1), 20–23.

Introduction

86

References

References

87

Page, B. I. (1994). Democratic responsiveness?Untangling the links between public opin-ion and policy. PS: Political Science andPolitics, (27)1, 25–28.

Page, B. I., and Shapiro, R. Y. (1992). TheRational Public. Chicago: University ofChicago Press.

Pan, D., Mutchler, S. E., and Knox, L. (1998).Calling the Roll: Statewide study circle pro-gram on education in Arkansas andOklahoma—Program description and researchplan. Austin, TX: Southwest EducationalDevelopment Laboratory.

Potapchuk, W. R. (1991, Spring). Newapproaches to citizen participation:Building consent, National Civic Review,158–168.

Public Agenda. (2000). Education: People’s chiefconcerns [On-line]. Available:http://www.publicagenda.org/issues/pcc.cfm?issue_type=education

Reich, R. B. (1988). The power of public ideas:Policy making in a democracy. Cambridge:Harvard University Press.

Rich, R. F. (1983). Knowledge synthesis andproblem solving. In S. A. Ward and L. J.Reed (Eds.). Knowledge structure and use:Implications for synthesis and interpretation,287–312. Philadelphia, PA: TempleUniversity Press.

Rose, L. C., and Gallup, A. M. (1999). The 31st

Annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup poll of thepublic’s attitudes toward the public schools [On-line]. Available:http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kpol9909.htm#1

Rossi, P. H., and Freeman, H. E. (1993).Evaluation: A systemic approach. NewburyPark, CA: Sage Publications.

Sabatier, P. A. (1988). An advocacy coalitionframework of policy change and the role ofpolicy-oriented learning therein. PolicySciences, 21, 129–168.

Sabatier, P. A., and Jenkins-Smith, H. C.(Eds.). (1993). Policy change and learning: Anadvocacy coalition approach. Boulder, CO:Westview Press.

Sato, H. (1999). The advocacy coalitionframework and the policy process analysis:The case of smoking control in Japan.Policy Studies Journal, 27(1), 28–44.

Southwest Educational DevelopmentLaboratory. (2000). Making the connection:A guide to involving policymakers in a commu-nity dialogue on education. Austin, TX:author.

Stimson, J. A., Mackuen, M. B., and Erikson,R. S. (1995). Dynamic representation.American Political Science Review, 89(3):543–565.

Strauss, A., and Corbin, J. (1990). Basics ofqualitative research: Grounded-theory proce-dures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA:Sage Publications.

Study Circles Resource Center. (2000). Whatis a study circle? [On-line]. Available:http:/www.studycircles.org/pages/what.html

———. (1997a, Fall). Laboratories fordemocracy. Focus on Study Circles, 8(4).

———. (1997b, Winter). Balancing justice inOklahoma. Focus on Study Circles, 8(1).

———. (1995a, Winter). It doesn’t have to bethis way: Dialogue can change ‘politics asusual.’ Focus on Study Circles, 6(1).

———. (1995b). Education: How can schools andcommunities work together to meet the chal-lenge? Pomfret, CT: author.

———. (1993). The study circle handbook.Pomfret, CT: author.

Tyack, D. (1997). Civic education—Whatroles for citizens? Educational Leadership,54(5), 22–24.

Wagner, T. (1997). The new village com-mons—Improving schools together.Educational Leadership, 54(5), 25–28.

Introduction

88

References

Weaver, S. W., and Geske, T. G. (1997).Educational policy making in the state leg-islature: Legislator as policy expert,Educational Policy, (11)3, 309–329.

Weiss, C. (1977). Research for policy’s sake:The enlightenment function of socialresearch. Policy Analysis, 3, 531–545.

Wong, K. W. (1995). The politics of educa-tion: From political science to multi-disci-plinary inquiry. In J. D. Scribner and D. H.Layton (Eds.). The Study of Educational

Politics: The 1994 Commemorative Yearbookof the Politics of Education Association(1969–1994), 21–35. Washington, D.C.:The Falmer Press.

Yankelovich, D. (1999). The magic of dialogue:Transforming conflict into cooperation. NewYork: Simon and Schuster.

Yankelovich, D. (1991). Coming to public judg-ment: Making democracy work in a complexworld. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse UniversityPress.

Introduction

90

Introduction

91

Government & Nonprofit

Calling the Roll: Study Circles for Better Schools