A tale of two giants: Coalitions, policy -oriented learning and major change in state reading subsystems.

Abstract

For decades, policy scholars have searched for ways to generate a reliable understanding of how policymaking takes place. Even though a host of policy theories have been proposed, none has been able to fully explain the complex nature of policy creation in representative democracies. One promising generalized and testable policy theory, the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF), attempts to unify several approaches to policy analysis. Given the multidimensional aspect of reading policy, the burgeoning size of the reading policy community and the fact that different education policy decisions are made at different governmental levels, state reading policy subsystems are an excellent venue for testing the ACF. This study poses 10 hypotheses to assess how well the ACF is able to describe and explain the processes and changes in state reading policy. Relying on a structured case-study approach, this study focuses on elite policy actors in the states of California (n = 52) and Texas (n = 46). Using interview transcripts and archival documents, the beliefs and relationships of these actors are quantified. These two factors are then used to divide the subsystems' participants into coalitions. The statements of coalition members are then analyzed for themes that relate to the concepts proposed in the ACF. Analyses indicate support for seven hypotheses, qualified support for two and the rejection of one. Hypotheses regarding subsystem maturity, coalition boundaries, policy-oriented learning and major change all revealed evidence consistent with the ACF's predictions. Evidence concerning coalition formation as it is associated with the devil shift was not completely convincing but still important, as it partially explained the formation of extreme coalitions. The ACF's ability to explain intra-coalition variation in the subsystem failed. Taken as a whole, the findings of this study support the claim that the ACF is a useful way of interpreting policy change in a variety of subsystems, including that of state-level reading policy. Future researchers using similar methods should be careful to create questionnaires that fully ascribe to the ACF tenets and understand that the use of a rigorous case-study approach limits generalizabilty beyond the ACF theory itself.