INTRODUCTION The research study national policy advocacy

The purpose of this dissertation research study is to articulate and map the

changes found in historical discourses of P-16 national policy advocacy and state-level

policy formation. Understanding how and when the discourses of P-16 initiatives evolve

highlights how the changes in motivations and rationales behind policy development can

potentially influence sustainability of education policy. This research also explores the

relationship between the momentum to create education reform through policy and the

actual creation of policy through state level regulatory entities. By exploring this latter

relationship, this research also adds to the policy analysis research base and provides

information about the mechanisms of educational policy creation. This historical analysis

combines both mapping of discourses and an examination of the influence of discourse in

policy processes in order to understand a national large scale education reform initiative.

Policy discourse analysis is used as the methodology to develop the narrative of

changing discourses. Policy discourse analysis is an examination of policy language.

Discourse can be understood as a type of communication, written, verbal, or non-verbal.

In this dissertation, discourse refers to the language found in the texts of national P-16

policy advocacy documents and state level P-16 policy formation documents.

Understanding discourse is a way to understand the meanings, practices, and agendas of

policy processes. Through policy discourse analysis, a deeper understanding of P-16 as an

education reform is attained. In particular, the incorporation of time provides a method

for mapping historical discourse development of P-16 initiatives in the United States,

providing a vital component in understanding the role of discourse in the creation of

education policy.

Previous research on P-16 education, while extremely informative, has generally

examined the outcomes of programs or it has taken on a tone of advocacy. This

dissertation is a departure from both previous research and advocacy based reports

because it positions the research study as a policy analysis. This chapter establishes the

groundwork for this dissertation research. First, an overview of P-16 initiatives is

developed, including what they are and a short history of the reform effort to date. This

introduction to ―P-16‖ and the subsequent review of the P-16 educational reform

advocacy literature provides a basis for this dissertaion research. This is followed by a

brief exploration of the theoretical foundation used in this study. The research questions

are next. This chapter concludes with the assumptions and limitations of the study and the

organization of the dissertation.

What is P-16? – Defining P-16 Initiatives

―P-16‖ is an educational reform initiative encompassing statewide systemic

policy changes that refocus the way the current educational system is configured,

governed, authorized, and funded. P-16 advocates highlight the creation of one aligned

educational system, a pipeline of education, where all the subsystems, preschool through

higher education, work together to provide a better education for students (Van de Water

and Rainwater 2001). P-16 is often described by the advocates (Portch 2006; Rochford et

al. 2005; Van de Water and Rainwater 2001) as a systemic reform initiative which creates

a seamless educational system, in which students enter ready to learn through a quality

preschool program (P) and exit with a degree (16) and/or a career.

P-16, as a state level reform initiative, encompasses several elements of

educational reform, including teacher training, curricula, student outcome measures,

alignment of high school graduation requirements with postsecondary requisites, state

level data gathering and use of data to form scientific justification for reforms, and

governance alignment of efforts (Consortium for Policy Research in Education 2000; Van

de Water and Rainwater 2001). P-16 is generally implemented in one of two ways, either

legislatively or through policy formation from state governance agencies (Cohen and

Spillane 1992; Imber and vanGeel 2004).

P-16 initiatives, known alternatively as P-20, K-20, K-16, B-20, PK-20, PK-20+,

and PreK-16, are state level policy reform initiatives. The moniker ―P-16‖ came into the

educational reform lexicon in the mid-1980s. As was typical of this time period, calls for

changes in the current educational system were prominent. National reports, such as A

Nation at Risk (1983), highlighted problems and concerns with the educational systems

throughout the Unites States. In 1985, the concept of P-16 was introduced by Harold

Hodgkinson in his seminal policy report All One System. Hodgkinson developed the idea

that education systems should connect K-12 with postsecondary education. P-16

proponents advocated for continued change, calling for concrete systemic change for the

purpose of meeting America‘s educational ideals of democracy, equity, access, as well as

to serve the purpose of developing a more educated workforce and economically strong

nation.

In the early 1990s, several states developed P-16 councils and began the process

of working toward a P-16 system. Georgia, Texas and Oregon pioneered the P-16 systems

in the United States, creating statewide systems which connected K-12 and public higher

education programs. Throughout the 2000s, states increasingly became involved in the P-

16 movement. In 2000, six states had formed a P-16 council. By 2010, 38 states had

formed a P-16 council. In addition, by 2010, 46 states had either developed or were in the

process of developing a state level P-16 program (Durand 2010). The increased presence

of this reform throughout the United States, as well as the continued national advocacy

for the development and implementation of further P-16 efforts forms the foundational

relevance of this dissertation research.

P-16 Advocacy Literature Review

In this section, a concise review of the relevant literature follows. The literature on

P-16 is predominantly policy advocacy based. In this dissertation, advocacy literature is

defined as that literature which seeks to promote or advocate for a particular education

reform. This type of literature is not empirical research, but rather advocates for change

for a variety of reasons. In this case, it refers to reports, articles, or papers which seek

change through written arguments for an educational reform initiative through the policy

process. In contrast to research studies, advocacy literature clearly has a bias or

predisposition toward a certain outcome. The ―P-16 system‖ as described in the

advocacy literature can be considered an ideal type of system (Weber 1947). In viewing

the P-16 system as a general phenomenon of educational reform and subjectively

grouping the characteristics and ideas associated with P-16, it is possible to construct a

common ideal type. In this way, the ideas, thoughts, and actions of what P-16 advocates

promoted nationally (based on their research and educational ideals) are used to both

understand P-

16 as an education reform initiative, as well as to map the consequent actions of states‘

policy formation. Key P-16 advocacy literature is covered in brief here, with a more

detailed examination in Chapter Two.

In their seminal research study, Michael Usdan et al.‘s 1969 book, Education and

State Politics: The Developing Relationship between Elementary-Secondary and Higher

Education, set the stage for education reformists to make connections between K-12

education and postsecondary education. This study, although not an advocacy based

piece, was the first effort to make the connection between K-12 and postsecondary

education. It is widely cited as the first ―P-16‖ study and used in future advocacy reports

as evidence of the need for one continuous educational system.

Following on this concept of aligning educational sectors, Harold Hodgkinson‘s

policy report All One System (1985) promoted the idea that education systems should

connect K-12 with postsecondary education. He observed that most states view

postsecondary systems as separate and distinct from K-12 schooling and recommended

that state education organizations overcome decades of separation of funding,

governance, accountability, and standards to establish one seamless system. In his

follow-up, All One System: A Second Look, (1999), Hodgkinson continued to promote the

ideal system where education systems are aligned and worked together. In addition, he

advocated for including preschool in this systemic reform effort. These works attest to the

consistency of the P-16 concept throughout the 1980s and 1990s. In addition, these

reports set the stage for future P-16 advocacy reports by developing the concept of P-16

and helping to define the elements that it encompasses.

Continuing the focus on connecting successive levels of education at the state

level, in 2000, The Consortium for Policy Research in Education published the policy

brief, Bridging the K-12 /Postsecondary Divide with a Coherent K-12 System. This brief

noted a division between K-12 and higher education and called for an alignment of

assessments and standards, improvement of teacher training and quality, and improved

data reporting systems.

Van de Water and Rainwater‘s 2001 policy report, What is P-16 Education? A

Primer for Legislators, defines P-16 as a system-wide comprehensive education reform

effort which describes the educational experience as a pipeline, where each level,

preschool to higher education, flows into the next level. Through a clear exposition on the

elements of a P-16 system, as well as outlining the strengths and challenges of P-16, the

authors define what P-16 should be for policy-makers.

Shortly after, the 2002 policy report, Gathering Momentum: Building the

Learning Connection between Schools and Colleges, focused on critical elements of

developing a K-16 system (The Hechinger Institute on Education and Media, The

Institute for Educational Leadership, and The National Center for Public Policy and

Higher Education 2002). They assert that the key elements of the P-16 issue are

improving equity in education, increasing relationships, communication, and levels of

cooperation between various levels of governance within state education settings,

aligning assessments and standards across the state, improving teacher training, and

including community involvement in education efforts.

These advocacy reports are the basis for the P-16 education initiatives because

they provide the reform movement with definitions and guidelines for development.

These were chosen to be highlighted in this study because they are the most quoted and

utilized in both future policy advocacy and policy development.

Research and Evaluation of P-16 Initiatives

Although several P-16 programs have been in progress for more than a decade,

there is very little research evaluating these programs. Generally, this research focuses on

certain aspects of P-16 reforms, such as program evaluations, reports on developments of

parts of a P-16 system (i.e. data warehouses or preschool programs), or on alignment

efforts at the state level, and not on the systems as a whole. Highlights of this research are

provided here with full exploration in Chapter Two.

The first research study on educational alignment efforts was Michael Usdan et

al.‘s book, Education and State Politics: The Developing Relationship between

Elementary-Secondary and Higher Education (1969). They completed a twelve state

study using interviews with key officials and archival state documents to consider three

elements of relationships between K-12 and higher education; the form of the

relationship, any processes affecting relationships and an analysis of the relationship for

patterns and uncovered meanings (Usdan, Minar, and Hurwitz 1969). They reported that

these relationships could be categorized as either conflictual or cooperative, although

conflict and fractured relationships were most common in the studied states.

This empirical research include explorations of alignment efforts between K-12

and postsecondary schooling (Brown and Conley 2007; Dounay 2006; Oregon

Roundtable and Oregon Business Council 2005, 2005) and governance collaborations

(Anderson-Butcher et al. 2005; McGrath 2006; McGrath et al. 2005). States have

conducted their own single state evaluations designed to report on outcomes including

student achievement and program evaluations. For example, Indiana is in the process of

exploring several alignment programs between Indiana Universities and high schools

(Center for P-16 Research and Collaboration- Indiana 2010). Texas and Georgia have also

completed evaluations on the effectiveness of their programs (Texas Education Agency

2008; Kettlewell, Kaste, and Jones 2000).

Additionally, a literature search revealed only two dissertations with P-16 as the

topic. Both were examinations of elements of state- level P-16 initiatives. The first is an

in-depth qualitative case study policy analysis of dual enrollment courses over a 30 year

period in Florida (Rasch 2004). The second is a broad study of the relationship between

two separate sectors of the state budget, K-12 and postsecondary education (Streams

2007). Streams‘ study provides a quantitative national study of fiscal elements of

education. Both are studies of P-16 systems with a focus on outcomes. However, one is a

singular case study, albeit over three decades, that looks in depth at one state. The other is

a broader national study which focuses solely on a particular element of P-16 systems. In

contrast, this dissertation embarks on a policy analysis which includes both an historical

look at P-16 as a reform movement over several decades, as well as provides the breadth

of sampling across all fifty states in the P-16 movement. By looking historically at the

inception of this reform and encompassing all fifty states in this analysis, this study

contributes to the research base by exploring how a large national educational reform

initiative is conceived and sustained.

With this knowledge of the limitations in the research base on P-16 programs and

related policies, this study endeavored to further investigate P-16 initiatives throughout

the United States using policy analysis. The study documents the historical development

and changes of specific types of discourse of the P-16 movement. Utilizing P-16 policy

documents (both national advocacy and state level policy and legislation documents), this

study adds in the dimension of time for two outcomes. First, this study maps and

documents the history of P-16 policy making in the United States. Second, this study

uncovers the historical changes of discourse of P-16 policymaking – from advocacy to

formation - through the use of the theoretical framework described in the next section.

Theoretical Foundation

This research project examined whether the discourses of P-16 shifted over time.

Such an analysis is important because the discourses of the policy process have the

potential to affect both the implementation and the sustainability of education reform

initiatives. This analysis provides policy makers with a clearer understanding of the

underlying rationales and motivations behind the development of P-16 as a policy. The

following theoretical framework was applied to the analysis of the data. This framework

stems from three discourses- sociological, economic, and organizational discourses-

prevalent in the policy advocacy literature previously discussed.

In order to examine P-16 initiatives, various theories from social sciences are

applied to explore discourses in the policy process from advocacy to formation. As

previously noted, policy discourse analysis is an examination of policy language- or

discourse- expressed in policy documents and materials (Clarke 2007). Analysis is done

through coding of documents to develop categorizations of data, sorting and analyzing

patterns within the data, identifying points of conflict that reflect different interpretations

by different documents or policy communities, and explaining the implications of the

different ways of interpreting or developing meaning from the texts (Clarke 2007).

In this study, the researcher turned to theoretical concepts to guide the coding and

categorization of the documents. The theoretical framework developed for this study

utilizes three social science lenses- sociological, economic, and organizational rationales-

prevalent in the policy advocacy literature, in order to focus the analysis and

interpretation of discourses. The theoretical concepts used in this study‘s model have a

long history of use in education reform initiatives, ideals of schooling, and education

policy processes (See for example Bowe, Ball, and Gold 1992; Callan 2001; Coleman

1986; Fuhrman, Clune, and Elmore 1991; Katznelson and Weir 1985; Lagemann 2000;

McGuinn 2006; Rose 2010; Rothstein, Jacobsen, and Wilder 2006; Ruppert 1994; Sanoff

2006; Spring 2001; Zigler and Styfco 2000; Zumeta 2001; Tyack, James, and Benavot

1987). This study aims to examine the use of these theoretical concepts as they apply to

P-16. The three social science rationales utilized for this study are discussed in the

following sections.

Sociological Rationales

Some of the P-16 advocacy literature (Consortium for Policy Research in

Education 2000; Hodgkinson 1985; Hodgkinson 1999; Usdan, Minar, and Hurwitz 1969;

Van de Water and Rainwater 2001) utilizes social justice language as a rationale for the

development of a P-16 statewide initiative. While not explicitly mentioning any

sociological theories or theorists, the discourse within some P-16 policy advocacy

literature contains language (or discourse) which helped to formulate and focus the P-16

reform movement on creating a more socially stable, seamless, interdependent education

system. Examples of this type of language within P-16 advocacy literature includes

support for increased student accessibility, opportunities for preschool programs,

development of systems which address current societal inequities, and utilizing legislative

or regulatory entities to legitimize this movement. In other examples, the widely used

pipeline metaphor which describes an ideal type system where education is seamlessly

and continuously provided to all students from preschool through postsecondary

education is used by advocates. Thus, three sociological lenses, functionalism, conflict

theory, and rational-legal authority, are employed in the analysis of the documents of this

study.

The first sociological theory utilized in the theoretical framework focuses on the

functional nature of education. Functionalist frameworks (Durkheim 1956, 1961, 1964;

Parsons 1959) approach education as a support for the creation of a socially unitized

society, the development of culture, values, and social unity, and determining which

students have the necessary characteristics for particular functions in society. The second

theory explored for this study is that of the conflict theorists (Bowles and Gintis 1976;

Coleman 1966; Jencks et al. 1972; Willis 1977). Conflict theorists critically review the

functionalist paradigm and believe that competition, inequality, conflict, and revolution

are inevitable parts of systems, including education systems. The third sociological

construct brought to bear on this research is the rational-legal authority of Weber (1958).

The concept of rational-legal authority refers to the idea that institutions follow the rules

set up by official legal routes and policy decrees because they hold power and strength of

authority. These sociological concepts are applied to the analysis of discourses within

P16 advocacy and policy formation documents.

Economic Rationales

In addition, the P-16 policy advocacy literature (Krueger 2006; Portch 2006;

Rochford et al. 2005; Venezia et al. 2005), relies on economic rationales for developing a

P-16 system. Examples of this type of language within the P-16 advocacy literature

include developing a P-16 system in order to create a more efficient and productive

education system. This system would develop a more skilled workforce with increased

education attainment. Therefore, three key concepts are employed in this economic

portion of this theoretical framework.

The first concept in the economic portion of the framework is the development of

human capital; defined as the investment of humans in education and learning

experiences (Becker 1993; Hartog, 2000). The second key concept is demonstrated by

Hanushek (1986) who stated that education can lead to a more efficient and productive

society. The third key economic concept in the P-16 advocacy literature is increased

economic growth. Thurow (1977) explains that education systems can lead to a better

trained workforce, with knowledge and skills to participate in a technical and

everchanging competitive economy. This concept stems from the notion that the world

economic boundaries are becoming more blurred and that education can help people be

more prepared to participate in a global economic society. These three economic

theoretical principles were brought to bear upon the discourse analysis of the language of

both national P-16 advocacy literature and the statewide P-16 policy formation

documents.

Organizational Rationales

The third segment of the theoretical framework used in this study is focused on

organizational reform. System change discourses are present in the language of P-16

advocacy, connecting the sociological and economic rationales and providing a stabile

and constant underpinning to this reform effort. Examples of this type of language in the

P-16 advocacy literature include developing a pipeline through alignment programs,

pragmatic matters such as development of a P-16 council or establishing evaluative

structures, and organizational restructuring through increased communication and goal

setting. Thus, the theory of systems change is applied to this study.

This research examined system reform through an organizational lens, to

investigate P-16 systems through a systems organizational framework. Open system

theorists (Hall 2002; Katz and Kahn 1978; Lawrence and Lorsch 1967; Scott 1992, 2001)

believe that as systems are more open, their connections with external elements are

critical, susbsystems have increased communication. In contrast, a closed system is

characterized by inflexible and impenetrable boundaries. Katz and Kahn (1978) describe

the closed system perspective as that which views an organization by examining internal

structures, but little consideration of external environments.

The multi-theoretical model outlined here takes into account three significant

rationales, sociological, economic, and organizational, for the development of P-16

initiatives. These rationales and the model guide the methodology of this study. Further

details on this model are expanded in Chapter Two (see Figure 2.1 for a graphic

depiction). Utilization of this framework provided a conceptual lens for the coding and

categorization of the discourses within P-16 national policy advocacy and state policy

formation documents. Additionally, this theoretical framework comprises the analytical

lens applied to policy discourse analysis of these documents.

Methodology

As previously discussed, the theoretical model developed to frame this study

focused on the analysis of language found in P-16 reform initiative. The multi-theoretical

focus, sociological, economic, and organizational, forms the basis for utilizing policy

discourse analysis as the chosen methodology. This methodology is briefly discussed in

this section with a full description in Chapter Three.

Discourse analysis, as a methodology, can be interpreted in many ways. Many

agree that discourse analysis is the study of language (Fairclough 1992; Gee 1999; Woods

2006). However, approaches to discourse analysis can take many formats and refers to

various definitions of ―language,‖ including texts of all kinds- documents, newspapers,

books, articles, textbooks, etc; verbal communications- speech, conversation, exchanges,

dialogues; and non-verbal communications- gestures, facial expressions, movement (see

for example, Myers 2000; Fairclough 1992; Luke 1995;

Laclau and Mouffe 1985; Woods 2006; Foucault 1972; Jørgensen and Phillips 2002; Van

Dijk 1997). This study uses policy discourse analysis to examine the shifting discourses

in the text-based language found in national P-16 policy advocacy literature and state

level P-16 policy and legislative documents. Using policy discourse analysis provides a

departure from other policy analyses which use critical discourse analysis as their

methodology.

Policy discourse analysis may explore the content and structure of the language of

policy (Ball 2006). This can include policy formation, practice, and contexts of policy.

Ball (2006) discusses two forms of policy discourse, policy as text and policy as

discourse. Policy as text is represented by both documents and outcome while policy as

discourse makes sense of language, understanding contexts and meaning through analysis

of words, word order, and phrases (Ball 2006; Glynos et al. 2009; Lewis and Simon

1986). Interpreting the words within policy documents and seeking understanding,

implications, and assumptions are critical in policy discourse analysis (Ball 2006). Many

reform initiatives attempt to address complex problems and policy discourse analysis

offers the researcher a new way of examining these complexities. Researchers utilize

preestablished theoretical frameworks to guide the policy discourse analysis of policy

formation, establishment, or practice (deLeon 1998; Fischer 1995; Fischer, Miller, and

Sidney 2007).

For this study, three types of documents were studied. The first is a sample of P16

national policy advocacy documents which represent the history of P-16 policy advocacy.

P-16 policy formation documents, including all state level official policy and legislative

documents pertaining to P-16 comprise the other two types. Using the computer aided

software program, NVivo 8 (QSR International 2009), this researcher coded all

documents by sentence in order to uncover and capture the emerging discourses.

Categorical coding was predetermined based on the literature review and the theoretical

framework and focuses on sociological, economic, and organizational elements.

Data analysis utilized a meta- matrix system to explore the depth and breadth of

discourse levels in the documents (Miles and Huberman 1994). Presence (or absence) of

discourse was documented and a depth of discourse was determined by using a

LOW/MOD/HIGH coding system as described by Miles and Huberman (1994). This was

followed by a mapping of the chronology of discourses throughout the cases. Analysis

included the notation of shifting of P-16 discourses, relationships between cases, and

ultimately a narrative policy discourse analysis. These analyses ultimately led to the

validation (or disproof) of the hypotheses.

Research Questions

In summary, the general intent of this dissertation research study is to

articulate the shifting of P-16 policy discourses. Analyzing the rationales behind the

momentum for P-16 to gain a foothold in education reform and the formation of P-16

initiatives constitutes a new focus for the study of P-16. Additionally, the purpose is to

determine if relationships exist between the intersections of discourses found in P-16

national policy advocacy documents and P-16 state level policy formation

documents. This analysis furthers the knowledge of policy mechanisms and processes by

focusing specifically on processes that initiate and formulate policy. By focusing on the

historical changes of a large scale national reform initiative, this study adds information

as to how discourse plays a role in the development and formation of P-16 initiatives.

Thus, the following questions comprise the basis for this dissertation research.

Question One: Do the dominant discourses within the P-16 national policy advocacy

literature and the P-16 state level policy and legislative documents vary by era of time?

Question Two: What are the relationships between time eras of P-16 and the influence of

P-16 national policy advocacy literature and P-16 policy formation (represented by state

level policy and legislation)?

A. What are the volume and frequency of P-16 policy advocacy documents over

time?

B. What are the volume and frequency of P-16 policy formation documents over

time?

C. Do the discourses of P-16 national policy advocacy literature and P-16 policy

formation have influence on each other?

Assumptions and Limitations

Assumptions

This researcher acknowledges the following assumptions about the

research study. It is assumed that official policy and legislative documents are accurate

documentary representations of state level policy formation. Based upon literature

searches of policy and policy formation mechanisms (Bell and Stevenson 2006; Essex

2005; Hawkesworth 1988; Taylor et al. 1997; Yudof et al. 2002; Ball 2006; Clarke 2007;

Fischer 1995; Fischer, Miller, and Sidney 2007; Sabatier 2007; Stone 1997), this

assumption appears to be appropriate.

In this study, it is assumed that how states choose to label their P-16 programs

does not affect the outcomes of this study. In fact, states label their P-16 programs in

many different ways and this could potentially affect how the program is seen (a B-20

program clearly has a different set of parameters and needs than a K-16 program). It

could also potentially affect the types of legislation or policy developed. However, this

study is designed to identify commonalities among programs and thus it is beyond the

focus of this study to determine how differences in program labels might affect the

programs.

Finally, several assumptions about the research questions were made prior to

analysis, particularly in regard to time sequences. These assumptions were based upon the

literature review and lead the researcher toward a natural sequence of early policy

advocacy and formation versus later policy advocacy and formation. These assumptions

were found to be valid in most, but not all circumstances. However, this researcher has

compensated for these errors in the findings section with further time delineations.

Limitations

This researcher also acknowledges the following limitations within this research

study. The first limitation is that the boundaries of time established in this study (January

1, 1985- June 30, 2010) leave the possibility of missing some potential data sources.

There is the possibility that some P-16 policy was officially installed prior to January 1,

1985. However, based upon the literature search of P-16 and prior research (Durand

2007; Mokher 2010), 1992 is the earliest date states claim to have established any official

P-16 programs. Additionally, as P-16 is currently a widespread movement in the United

States, the status of P-16 changes rapidly. Therefore, setting an end date for data

collection of June 30, 2010 leaves the possibility that changes to P-16 in some states may

occur after this date.

Second, as the focus of this effort is on the language of policy formation, it may

not be possible to infer conclusions for policy practice. This study aims to explore the

relationships between the discourses of policy advocacy and formation. In addition, it

maps the shifting of discourses of P-16 initiatives over time. It leaves exploration of the

implementation and practice of P-16 for further study.

Place and context matter, particularly in discourse analysis. It is acknowledged

that states contexts, and in particular, state characteristics such as governance, population,

political conditions, economic environment, and geography could potentially affect

discourse about education policy. Due to the structure established for this study, not

every context can be accounted for in this study. In this study, context is limited to time,

place (state), and text. Contextual issues could be important to future studies.

Finally, the nature of discourse analysis requires the researcher to include some of

their own biases, knowledge, and previous experience with the subject. These biases and

previous knowledge can be both helpful in providing necessary background and

foundation to this study, as well as potentially detrimental if the researcher allows biases

to cloud analytic study. This researcher has developed and followed several steps to

alleviate bias and error in this study. These steps are described in Chapter Three.

However, it is acknowledged that despite great care, the potential for bias still exists and

this researcher accepts all errors as her own.

Organization of the Study

This study is organized as follows. Chapter One consists of an introduction,

summary of the research literature, synopsis of the theoretical foundation, overview of the

methodology, statement of purpose, research questions, assumptions, limitations, and the

organization of the study. Chapter Two provides an overview of the relevant literature of

P-16, including P-16 definitions, current research on P-16 programs, proponents for P16,

and challenges of P-16. Chapter Two also contains the current status of P-16 programs in

the United States, both at the state level and federal level. Finally, the theoretical

foundation is esablished and the theoretical model is introduced in Chapter Two. Chapter

Three explains the methodology in detail. An examination of policy analysis in general

and policy discourse analysis specifically is undertaken. Then,

Chapter Three contains a description of the sampling methods, coding procedures, the

software analytical tool, and the data analysis plan. Chapters Four and Five present the

research findings. Chapter Six presents a summary of the study, a discussion of the

findings in relation to the theoretical model, and implications for policy and practice.

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

AND THEORETICAL FOUNDATION

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study is to develop a historical mapping of the shifts in

dominant discourses of P-16 policy processes. National P-16 advocacy literature and

official state level P-16 policy and legislative documents were explored using a

theoretical model, which takes into account the element of time. This study narrates the

shifting of discourses, relationships between discourses within parts of the policy process,

and articulates the rationales behind P-16- an educational policy reform.

Chapter Two is divided into three sections. The first is a literature review of the

relevant P-16 literature. This includes both P-16 policy advocacy literature and P-16

empirical research studies. The second section comprises a look at policy analysis and its

connection to the study of P-16 initiatives. The third section builds upon the previous two

sections providing the theoretical foundation for this study, with three critical components

to P-16 policy analysis and how they link to the theoretical model developed for this

dissertation.

P-16 Defined

Within the last two decades, a new model of education reform has emerged.

Known generally as P-16, these initiatives are state level policy efforts aimed at

developing an educational system where each stage, from early childhood education to

higher education, builds into the next (Portch 2006). P-16 advocates describe these

initiatives as systemic state level comprehensive reform efforts (Portch 2006; Rochford et

al. 2005; Van de Water and Rainwater 2001). In a P-16 system, all educational

stakeholders, from preschool to higher education, work to improve the system as a whole

(VandeWater and Rainwater 2001). These efforts are described in the policy advocacy

literature as ―policy umbrellas‖ which gather several reform efforts (preschool, data

reform, teacher quality reform, alignment efforts, and economic development) and call

for all educational stakeholders to communicate, coordinate, and make one consistent

system.

In this study, the term ―P-16‖ is defined by the advocacy literature. The

fundamental P-16 literature is primarily based upon these policy reports or literature

issued by education consortiums and P-16 advocates. As previously stated, in this

dissertation, advocacy literature is defined as that literature which advocates for a

particular education reform. This promotion of education reform is not in a salesmanship

or marketing type of way, but rather coherent and consistent arguments for reform. These

arguments are founded in the creation of change because current conditions or

circumstances have been deemed in need of either improvement or advancement. In

contrast to empirical research studies, advocacy literature clearly has a bias or

predisposition toward a certain outcome.

The ―P-16 system‖ as described in the advocacy literature is an ideal type of

system (Weber 1947). When viewing P-16 as a general phenomenon of education reform,

it is possible to construct an ideal type by grouping the characteristics and ideas

associated with P-16. Weber (1947) refers to understanding an ideal type as a way of

focusing on what motivates social action and behavior through the construction of an

abstract typology that incorporates all of the characteristics of the studied phenomenon,

with the understanding that the general typology may not correspond to the

contextualization of specific cases. Weber‘s conception of ideal types is a used as a tool to

frame the general synthesis of ideas, thoughts and actions of what P-16 advocates

promote historically and nationally. Then it is applied at the state level as a means of

documenting how P-16 as a phenomenon manifests as policy formation.

In the case of this dissertation, the advocacy literature is founded on the premise

that the current structure and mechanisms of the education system are deficient in

meeting the needs of students, parents, schools, and the general economy of the state and

nation. This basic foundation, enhanced by current statistics and facts which emphasize

their argument, form the advocacy literature and the primary phase of policy development

of P-16. Therefore, the definition of P-16 is gleaned from this policy advocacy literature.

P-16 Advocacy Literature Review

P-16 literature consists primarily of a significant and influential collection of

reports that are designed to advocate for the creation of a redesigned, reconfigured and

newly governed system of education at the state level. There is currently a lack of

empirical research studies on P-16 as a policy or as a program. In this section, four

seminal P-16 policy literatures are reviewed. While other P-16 advocates and challengers

exist and are noted in the following sections, the four policy advocacy reports reviewed

here were chosen based upon their widespread use in subsequent P-16 policy and

literature and their complete coverage of the P-16 issues.

In their seminal research study, Michael Usdan et al.‘s 1969 book, Education and

State Politics: The Developing Relationship between Elementary-Secondary and Higher

Education, set the stage for education reformists to make connections between K-12

education and postsecondary education. This study, although not an advocacy based

piece, was the first effort to make the connection between K-12 and postsecondary

education. It is widely cited as the first ―P-16‖ research study and used in future

advocacy reports as evidence of the need for one continuous educational system.

In 1985, Harold Hodgkinson‘s policy report, All One System, re-proposed the

initiative that would connect K-12 with postsecondary education. He argued that our

nation‘s postsecondary schools were reliant upon the quality of the K-12 school system

and yet, as he observed, states view these as two separate and distinct systems

(Hodgkinson 1985). In 1999, Hodgkinson returned with a re-examination of P-16 and its

relevant issues in All One System: A Second Look. In this follow-up, he focuses on the

description of a P-16 system and its parts. He first discusses the merits of a quality

statewide preschool program, particularly the strength of the national program Head Start.

He notes that a linkage mechanism that joins early childhood education with later

schooling involves licensing, training, and credentialing staff, creating clear and

attainable goals for kindergarten so that preschool curricula can help meet these goals,

and developing communication linkages between elementary school and preschool

personnel (Hodgkinson 1999, p 4). He also observes that preschool is particularly

important for the poorest children and recommends that children have access to safe,

quality, developmentally appropriate programs with nutrition, physical activity, and

health care as additional goals of such programs (p 5).

Hodgkinson (1999) continues the P-16 discussion by moving up the educational

pipeline and examining elementary schooling and in particular, the transition points from

elementary school to middle school and beyond. He focuses on standardized testing as a

gateway to linking early and middle education (p 8). Then he explores the connections

between high school education and workforce or college. This exploration looks at the

connection in the form of people, guidance counselors, teachers, advisors, and testing,

SATs, College Boards, and ACT tests (p 10). He concludes this report with the following:

―K-16, so far, is an idea: education should be a seamless web from

kindergarten to college graduation. It almost always leaves out the crucial first

five years of life, but has been very useful in some states in which the governors

have supported educational standards that are calibrated across the grades and

levels (p15).‖

Hodgkinson‘s policy reports set the stage for further P-16 advocacy reports and

kept the P-16 idea and name in the education spotlight in the 1980s and 1990s.

Following on the concept of connecting K-12 and postsecondary education

systems, in 2000, The Consortium for Policy Research in Education published a policy

brief called Bridging the K-12/Postsecondary Divide with a Coherent K-16 System. They

observed that cross-system collaborations are starting to be evident in many states, nearly

a dozen by 1999. These collaborative efforts are generated by changing educational

environments including increasing percentages of students attending postsecondary

education, democratic values, and economic motivations (p 1-2). Remarking on the

disjuncture between K-12 and higher education, they called for the ―institutionalization

of a K-16 perspective and improving teaching to meet more demanding K-16 standards

(Consortium for Policy Research in Education 2000, p 2). They found that this schism

between educational levels is evident in conflicting student standards, inequality of

opportunities for some students, high school drop-out rates and college remediation. They

sum up the rifts by stating:

―Because there is not an integrated accountability system for the two

systems, postsecondary faculties blame high schools for sending them poorly

prepared students; high school administrators blame colleges for not doing a

better job preparing teachers; high school teachers blame middle and elementary

schools for not better preparing students for secondary school; students and their

parents often cite a lack of information about what is required for postsecondary

admissions and course placement. Everyone is to blame; no one is responsible (p

4).‖

The Consortium for Policy Research in Education report (2000) called for the

institutionalization of K-16 ideals- particularly the alignment of assessments and

standards between K-12 and postsecondary (p 5). These alignments could be made easier

through student counseling, parent and student college information sessions, and

postsecondary outreach programs. They also explained the need for a K-16 statewide data

reporting system ―that would allow policy makers, educators, and the mass media to

trace the progress of students from high schools through postsecondary institutions (p 5).‖

Additionally, they promoted the improvement of teacher quality and training as a way of

improving the education system as a whole. Noting that there are many obstacles to a

K16 system, such as historical separations of K-12 and postsecondary educators and

political divisions at governance levels, they found that more than a dozen states have

begun to cooperate on P-16 efforts at a state level (p 10).

Shortly after that, Van de Water and Rainwater‘s P-16 policy report, What is P-16

Education? A Primer for Legislators, is written for the Education Commission of the

States in 2001. In this treatise on P-16, Van de Water and Rainwater define P-16, clearly

outline the strengths and challenges of P-16 systems, explore P-16 systems in four states

and finally propose a step by step guide for establishing P-16 education system. Their oft

quoted and idealized explanation of P16 is:

―Imagine a system of education where every child enters school ready to learn,

where all third graders read at or above grade level, where all students have taken

algebra by the end of the 8th grade, where high school exit exams test students at

the 12th-grade level and are aligned with college admissions requirements, where

all young people graduate from high school prepared for college or work, and

where every student who enters college finishes college.(p

1)‖

In an examination of the education system, they found that the system lacks a

coherent and connected plan for meeting the educational needs of its students (p 5).

Noting that previous efforts to reform the education system had been rather piecemeal,

they found that by 2000, twenty-four states reported ―multi-faceted P-16 initiatives‖

(Van de Water and Rainwater 2001). P-16 is thus defined as:

―…the shorthand term for an integrated system of education stretching from

early childhood (the ―P‖ stands for pre-kindergarten or preschool) through a

four year college degree (―grade 16‖). The ultimate goal of P-16 system is to

improve student achievement by getting kids off to a good start, raising academic

standards, conducting appropriate assessments, improving teacher quality and

generally smoothing student transitions from one level of learning to the next (p

3).‖

In addition, this policy brief outlines eight potential strengths of a P-16 system

(Van de Water and Rainwater 2001, p 7-8). The first describes a system that is inclusive

for all learners from all races, social classes, ages, and ability levels. Other possible assets

of a P-16 system include the alignment of educational efforts at all levels, system-wide

support of standards and assessments, creation of a coherent progression of learning,

curricula, and standards, and removes boundaries at transition points. Additionally, they

describe how a P-16 system would potentially reduce the need for remediation at all

levels, is more effective and efficient, and shows the ability of the education system to

adapt to changing needs and wants of the economy.

Conversely, they portray seven potential challenges to a P-16 system (Van de

Water and Rainwater 2001p 8-9). These possible obstacles include the length of time

necessary to develop such a complex system, current structural issues such as fragmented

state educational organizations, leadership issues, and historical boundaries, as well as

acknowledgement that including a preschool element to the educational system creates a

new set of issues including financial, jurisdictional, and assessments. The final challenge

that is covered is lack of evidence that this new system is effective. In conclusion, Van de

Water and Rainwater (2001) examine P-16 efforts in four states, Georgia, Maryland,

Missouri, and Oregon, using them as illustrations of how to create a policy leadership for

P-16. Through a clear exposition on the elements of a P-16 system, as well as outlining

the strengths and challenges of P-16, the authors define what P-16 should be for

policymakers as well as advocate for future P-16 policy development.

These types of policy reports are continuing their focus on alignment of

educational elements within the state system. In 2002, the Institute for Educational

Leadership and the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education published the

proceedings from The Learning Connection Conference. This K-16 policy report,

Gathering Momentum: Building the Learning Connection between Schools and Colleges,

examines five key issues in developing and framing a K-16 system. Proclaiming that

―decades of disconnection have lead to the expectation that two systems should stand

apart,‖ this report looks at improving the connections between K-12 and postsecondary

education (The Hechinger Institute on Education and Media, The Institute for

Educational Leadership, and The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education

2002, p 2). This report asserts that nearly half of all U.S. states are developing policy talks

about K-16 systems and a dozen have already created one (p 3).

The report, Gathering Momentum (2002), explores five critical issues behind K16

efforts. The first fundamental element of K-16 discussions from this advocacy group is

the issue of equity. Stating ―when thinking about strengthening connections and

collaboration between K-12 and higher education, states can start by considering the

equity implications (p 5);‖ the committee promotes the notion that years of race, class,

gender, age and other educational gaps could be rectified through K-16 efforts. The next

critical factor from this advocacy group is governance issues including developing

leaders and policy makers from all levels of education in order to make sustainable

change.

The third essential element promoted by these advocates for reform calls for

discussion between K-16 leaders surrounding the alignment of standards and

assessments. Teacher quality and training, particularly teacher professional development,

comprises the next advocated for critical element of K-16 reform. Finally, this report

includes community resources and the roles of universities as neighborhood builders as

the fifth significant component of K-16 system reform efforts.

In summary, according to the current advocates and leaders of this P-16

movement, the P-16 educational system has many goals. These goals include creation of

an educational system focused on providing equitable and high quality educational access

for students and preparation of all students to participate in the competitive global

economy (Portch 2006; Rochford et al. 2005; Hodgkinson 1985; Hodgkinson 1999; Van

de Water and Rainwater 2001). In order to accomplish these goals, P-16 initiatives focus

on preparing students in preschool, building content knowledge, social skills, critical and

creative thinking skills, and civic and moral values (Portch 2006; Rochford et al. 2005;

National Governors Association 2005). When students emerge from the pipeline they are

ready to contribute to society by holding a job, paying taxes, voting, owning a home, and

raising the next generation of citizens (The Hechinger Institute on Education and Media,

The Institute for Educational Leadership, and The National Center for Public Policy and

Higher Education 2002).

This strong and developing advocacy literature base forms the movement behind

P-16 initiatives. These reports advocate for change. They call for concrete systemic

changes to state-wide education systems. In order to do this, they call upon the American

education ideals of equity, student access, democracy as well as calling on the concepts of

economic growth, a more educated workforce, and increased accountability and

standards.

This advocacy literature and the ideas, both concrete and abstract, that they

promote are the primary literature on P-16. They are the source of definition for the

movement and the resulting policy development. However, they do not provide empirical,

tested, or scientific research on the P-16 initiatives (or parts of the initiatives themselves).

This type of research empirically-based research is sparse. Perhaps for many states, it is

still the beginning of their P-16 programs and evaluations have yet to be undertaken. In

the next section, key empirical studies of P-16 are reviewed.

Empirical Research on P-16 Initiatives

As shown previously, early P-16 policy literature concentrated on defining what

P-16 is, what it could be, developing the central aspects of this reform effort (Preschool,

Teacher Quality and Training, Statewide Data Systems, Alignment Efforts, and Economic

Efforts), and advocating for P-16 efforts to get underway. However, this literature also

noted that there was a considerable lack of research on P-16 efforts currently ongoing and

called for future research studies to provide evidence of success or failure of these efforts

(Hodgkinson 1999; The Hechinger Institute on Education and

Media, The Institute for Educational Leadership, and The National Center for Public

Policy and Higher Education 2002; Van de Water and Rainwater 2001; Venezia et al.

2005). To date, this empirical research is limited.

Much of the empirical research focuses on the alignment element of P-16. In other

words, the research focuses on the connections between K-12 and postsecondary

education and its implementation or outcomes. For example, in the first P-16 study in

1969, Michael Usdan, David Minar and Emanuel Hurwitz Jr. developed the idea of a

relationship between elementary-secondary schools and schools of higher education. In

their book, Education and State Politics: The Developing Relationship between

Elementary-Secondary and Higher Education, they examined a ―sharp division in our

society between elementary and secondary education on the one hand and higher

education on the other.‖ (Usdan, Minar, and Hurwitz 1969, p v.)

This qualitative study examined interviews from twelve states with key officials in

prominent educational and political positions as well as collecting supplementary state

documents (official reports, statistical documents, staff studies, newspapers, and other

relevant materials) through comparative state to state analysis (Usdan, Minar, and

Hurwitz 1969, p 5). In this study, relationships between state educational institutions and

the political institutions and processes are considered, primarily those involved in state

decision making such as legislatures, governors, budget, and finance agencies. Usdan et

al. reported that relationships that they found could be categorized in one of two ways-

either conflict or cooperation. Conflict and outright friction between levels of education

were found in most states. Only three study states had mechanisms for broad coordination

and they found that they were relatively new and unable to be judged on their merits (p

165). Additionally, they noted that the structure of state government and long standing

divisions between elementary-secondary education and higher education greatly affect

coordination and conflict (p 170).

This study, while outdated, provides an early glimpse into the problems that states

encounter when establishing alignment efforts. It is interesting that the authors noted

many of the same difficulties that states currently face in developing and implementing P-

16 efforts. In addition, this study is often utilized by advocates (Hodgkinson 1985;

Hodgkinson 1999), as evidence of long-standing divisions between sectors of educational

governance.

Other P-16 studies focus on the alignment efforts specifically between high school

and post-secondary education. Brown and Conley (2007) frame their study as of import

to P-16 policy makers. They examine the alignment between high school assessment tests

and standards set at institutions of higher education using a two-pronged theoretical

approach. This study applied both theories of systems coherence and alignment, as well

as signaling theory, to the analysis (Brown and Conley 2007). This national study

explored data from twenty states using alignment analysis as the methodology. The

method involves researchers analyzing and rating entry level postsecondary course

documents along a preset ―knowledge development‖ scale and comparing them to

analysis and rating of standards and objectives of high school assessment standards. This

study found moderate to poor levels of alignment between levels of college knowledge

expectation and high school assessments in Math and English.

Another study (Dounay 2006) focused on mapping the current status of alignment

efforts throughout the United States. Although an excellent resource for policy makers

who are looking to compare their state‘s program with others, this report provides no

analysis or recommendations for future policy.

Other studies examine the connection and alignment efforts between high school

and postsecondary education, but refine their studies to a single state level analysis.

Rasch‘s 2004 dissertation research explored Florida‘s dual enrollment policy as it works

within their P-16 system. The historical case study explores the thirty-year history of

dual-enrollment in Florida using inter-organizational and micro-political theory. This

analysis uses interviews and archival data to provide an in depth look at one element of a

P-16 system and offers insight into the challenges of such a model (Rasch 2004). This

single state study provides a limited view of P-16.

Oregon‘s Higher Education Roundtable provides two reports (Oregon Roundtable

and Oregon Business Council 2005, 2005) related to access in higher education which

provides an overview of the current connections and linkages between high schools and

public postsecondary institutions in Oregon. In addition, it offers recommendations for

policy makers. These studies provide an interesting case history of alignment policies

and outcomes in Oregon, which is particularly of interest because Oregon has one of the

longest standing P-16 programs in the United States. It is, however, limited in that it

provides only a single state study and a look at alignment policies only.

National studies of specific aspects of P-16 have been conducted. In 2007,

L‘Orange and Ewell conducted a study on the status of statewide data systems for the

Data Quality Campaign (DQC). This fifty state survey examined states progress in

meeting ten goals established by the DQC. They reported that only one state, Florida, had

established all ten essential elements, while ten more states had established eight

elements. However, all fifty states have committed to establishing all ten essential

elements (L'Orange and Ewell 2007). The Education Commission of the States (ECS) has

issued several reports on the status of certain elements of P-16 in the states. In 2006, the

conducted a study of all fifty states and compared high school graduation requirements

with state college admission requirements (Dounay 2006). In 2008, a report on the

establishment of P-16 councils in the states listed the names of councils, stakeholders

involved in developing the councils, any legislation or statutes establishing the councils

and their responsibilities in each state (Dounay 2008). In 2008, ECS established a

database and a resulting report on the status of data systems in the fifty states, providing

states with data on post secondary students (Colasanti 2008). These reports provide a

national portrait of the status of P-16 in the United States. They are not peer-reviewed

studies and some (Dounay 2006, 2008; Colasanti 2008) offer an account of these

programs, but no analysis or recommendations for policy or practice.

Other national studies add to the research base. Streams‘ 2007 dissertation

research explored issues of policy interaction and public finance of both K-12 and public

higher education. This study develops a theoretical model of public subsidies for public

education where multiple jurisdictions interact with one another. This qualitative study

includes longitudinal data (1984-2001) from forty-seven states and explores changes in

funding support in K-12 versus public higher education. The study concluded that aging

populations correlated with lower state financial support for education, particularly K-12

education. In addition, it found a positive relationship exists between states that states

centralization measures and non- court-mandated support for higher education. While

bringing in P-16 policy development and connections between levels of education as an

impetus for this research, it is primarily a study of finance and public subsidies, rather

than a study of P-16 programs. In fact, although discussed rather extensively in the

literature review section, the connection is not made of findings to P-16 policies in this

study.

A national study of P-16 councils (Mokher 2010) used network theory to frame

the potential relationships between the formation of P-16 councils in the fifty United

States and three state level characteristics; leadership, organizational, and environmental.

For leadership she utilized governor‘s state of the state addresses to determine if they

were an ―education governor‖ (amount of the speech which was geared toward

education, as determined through content analysis), margin of victory for the governor in

office, roles of the governor in certain areas of education boards, and number of terms in

office. In the organizational element, she focused on share of revenue given to K-12

education and consolidation of governance of boards of education. In the environmental

element, she chose percentage of adults with a bachelor‘s degree, unemployment rates in

the state, and size of population of the state. Mokher‘s quantitative study found that most

of the explored factors did not affect the formation of a P-16 council. The exceptions

were that being an ―education governor‖ seemed to influence the likelihood of there

being a P-16 council in the state. In addition, she found that as the population goes up in a

state, states were more likely to have a P-16 council (Mohker 2010). This national study

offers a look at the potential connections between state level characteristics and the

implementation of policy.

Another national investigation of P-16 initiatives across the fifty United States

was undertaken, focusing on documenting P-16 definitions, goals, and challenges, as well

as providing an overview of four policy goals relevant to P-16 at that time; preschool,

teacher quality improvement, data system development, and alignment policies (Durand

2007). Following this initial exploratory study, subsequent research (Durand 2010)

investigated the subject of boundary spanning in P-16 state level legislation and policy

records in a sample of six randomly chosen states. Using open systems theory and content

analysis as the methodology to explore how organizational boundaries are opened

through policy and legislation, this study revealed a lack of consensus between

literaturederived definitions of P-16 initiatives and state level programs. The language of

the studied legislative and policy documents emphasized motivation for aligning and

opening state systems of curricula, funding, governance, and communication. Both

studies provided insight into this future dissertation research by illuminating the lack of

empirical research on P-16 initiatives, providing an overview of P-16 initiatives in the

United States, and refining the methodological and theoretical models used in this study.

For this research study a review and update of Durand‘s (2007) was completed.

This includes a review of the states‘ P-16 initiatives. The practice of P-16 policy is varied

throughout the United States. The vast majority of states have some form of a P-16 policy

initiative. This researcher found that as of 2010, forty-six states have begun a P-16

education reform initiative [See table 2.1 for synopsis, Appendix A for details].

Additionally, according to a 2008 report from the Education Commission of the States,

twenty-nine states have also established some form of P-16 legislation (Dounay 2008).

However, these states were at different stages in implementing policies. Of the forty-six

(46) states that had a P-16 program, twenty-one (21) states were in Phase One, the policy

discussion phase. This is defined as states that may have designated a P-16 council and/or

have initiated discussions around the development of a P-16 system, but have not yet

begun implementing P-16 policies. These states may have clearly defined what goals they

hope to meet and what policies they plan to implement, but they have not yet put them

into practice.

Fifteen states are in Phase Two. These states have moved beyond the initial policy

discussion phase and implemented at least one of the major P-16 policy goals, preschool,

data warehousing, alignment, or teacher training/quality, within the P-16 framework

[Appendix A]. These states have also instituted P-16 policy discussions at the state level

and many have a P-16 Council established to create policy and maintain reform.

However, establishment of a P-16 council is not a mandatory requirement to reach Phase

One.

Ten states are in the final phase, or Phase Three, which means that they have a

statewide, implemented P-16 program [Appendix A]. These states have implemented the

five main P-16 policy objectives to some extent. This does not mean that the policies are

completely meeting statewide goals, but merely that the states are attempting to make

reforms in these areas within their P-16 framework.

Four states have no formal P-16 initiative in place at this time. Many of these

states have participated in P-16 discussions at national P-16 conferences. However, these

states have not designated a P-16 council, nor have they established any P-16 goals

within a P-16 framework. Some of these states have established a statewide early

childhood education program or a data warehouse system; however, these were not

considered in this analysis because they were not explicitly part of a statewide P-16

initiative.

TABLE 2.1 SYNOPSIS OF STATE P-16 PROGRAM STATUS AS OF JANUARY

2010

P-16 Phase # of

States

None- State does not have a P-

16 initiative at this time

4 Alabama, Alaska, Michigan, Vermont

Phase 1- State is in policy

discussions regarding P-16.

State may have established a

P-16 Council

21 California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho,

Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota,

Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New

Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia,

Washington

Phase 2- State has

implemented one to three

policy initiatives

15 Arizona, Arkansas, Hawaii, Indiana, Louisiana,

Montana, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina,

Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, West

Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming

Phase 3– State has

implemented four major

policy initiatives and engages

in P-16 policy discussions at

state level

10 Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Massachusetts, New

Jersey, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas

There is no federal P-16 policy at this time. However, P-16 does get support at the

federal level. The US Department of Education 2006 report, A Test of Leadership:

Charting the Future of Higher Education, found that reforms were urgently needed. The

report called for more data, better alignment of standards between higher education and

K-12, clearer expectations from institutions of higher education, and stronger students

emerging from the education system (U.S. Department of Education 2006, pp vii-viii).

National level government groups, such as the National Governors Association (NGA),

recommend P-16 reforms, particularly the alignment of federal laws and programs to

support P-16 efforts (National Governors Association 2005, 2007). In the 2005 NGA

report (p 1), they stated:

―Federal law should reinforce sound state education practices, including

statewide efforts to strengthen P-16 alignment. This does not mean that Congress

should mandate a one-size-fits-all solution to federal P-16 alignment. State

systems vary significantly and different approaches are needed at different levels

along the education pipeline. Yet one constant is true, federal education law

should roll back restrictions on states‘ ability to align and integrate delivery

systems for students at all levels of education.‖

The recent federal grant program, Race to the Top (2009), also provides financial

support to states that apply for and win grants for the development of education initiatives

for:

―creating conditions for education innovation and reform; achieving significant

improvement outcomes, including making substantial gains in student

achievement, closing achievement gaps, improving high school graduation rates,

and ensuring student preparation for success in college and careers; and

implementing ambitious plans for success in four core education reform areas:

Standards and Assessments, Building Data Systems, Improving Teacher Quality,

and Improving Student Achievement in lowest performing schools (Department of

Education 2009).‖

In addition, federal sources provide financial support for P-16 programs through

other current federal programs, notably Head Start, NCLB, Workforce Investment Act,

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, GEAR UP, and the Higher Education Act,

receive federal funds to operate. These programs have been incorporated within state

level P-16 frameworks (Rochford and Conner 2005; National Governors Association

2005).

Summary of Literature Review

In summary, the previously reviewed studies identify a clear need in the research

base for continued empirical studies of P-16 programs in the United States. The empirical

studies reviewed here offer limited glimpses of P-16 programs, either by focusing on

particular elements of a P-16 program or by focusing on a single state‘s program.

Although, important studies to be sure, they are in direct contrast to this dissertation

research which frames P-16 from a policy analysis viewpoint. This longitudinal and

comparative study of P-16 policy discourse explores the shifting of discourse from policy

advocacy to policy formation.

P-16 as a Policy Analysis

This research study offers an exploration from a policy analysis viewpoint,

exploring P-16 as a policy from advocacy to formation. It examines the relationships and

linkages between impetus for policy and policy structure and formation through a

national historical exploration of policy discourse. An appreciation and comprehension of

how policy discourse analysis is achieved and understood is critical to the process of

policy study (Bell and Stevenson 2006; Heck 2004; Taylor et al. 1997). To that end, an

examination of the policy analysis process is the next section of this chapter. First, this

section begins with a look at law and its relationship to state level policy making and its

relevance for exploration in this study. A description of the policy process follows.

Discourse analysis as a methodology is next. Then, an explanation as to why policy

discourse analysis is the best method to investigate the chosen research questions.

Law and Policy

This research looks at state systems because the power for education, through law

and policy, resides predominantly within states. The federal constitution‘s 10th

Amendment, which limits federal power over the states, gives state legislatures absolute

power to make laws that govern education (Cambron-McCabe, McCarthy, and Thomas

2004). Legislatures can dictate who can and may attend schools, allow governance

arrangements, and designate standards for curricula, teacher quality, and assessments

(Imber and vanGeel 2004). Legislatures can designate authority to subordinate agencies,

such as state departments of education or state boards of education and their leaders.

These centralized powers have control over state education policy as well (Essex 2005).

State level polices are not mandates, but rather are a strong recommendation that is

backed by high level executive offices (Essex 2005). P-16 laws and official policies that

are established by these authorities are of interest because they are the first line in

attempting to create education practice.

Policy Analysis

Policies, at any level, are developed to create a change in the current situation; that

is to address particular social, economic, or political problems (Heck 2004, 2). Public

policy is defined as ―what the government, acting on our behalf, chooses to do or not to

do, such as law, regulation, ruling, decision, or order, or a combination of these (Birkland

2005, 139).‖ Ball (2006) adds that ―policies embody claims to speak with authority, they

legitimate and initiate practices in the world, and they privilege certain visions and

interests (26).‖

Understanding the process by which policies are conceived, developed,

established and implemented is critical to the study of why some policies are effective,

why some policies are partially effective, and why some do not have the desired

outcomes (Heck 2004). Policy research is both complex and dynamic, leading to a variety

of tools for study and analysis. This section first examines what the policy analysis

process is and then explores the ways and means of undertaking policy research.

The analysis of policy can be viewed through a number of lenses. A review of the

literature finds that policy analysis is multifaceted with different definitions depending

upon the focus of the researcher. Policy appears to be both a product and a process.

Taylor et al. (1997) defines policy as a process which ―involves the recognition of a

‗problem‘ which requires a policy response (p 24). Others describe policy as a product,

―the bringing of resources of government –money, rules, and authority- into the service

of political objective; and by using those resources to influence the actions of individuals

and institutions (McDonnell and Elmore 1991, 157).‖

Policy analysis can be classified in two ways, analysis for policy or analysis of

policy (Bell and Stevenson 2006; Heck 2004). When a researcher is working on an

analysis for policy, there are three possible motivations. First is policy advocacy which

strives to promote or advance a particular policy (or set of policies). The second is to

provide policy makers with information and advice so that they can make more informed

decisions and take more promising actions. The third involves monitoring and evaluating

existing policies to determine performance and evaluate the need for change. On the other

hand, when a researcher undertakes an analysis of policy she can examine either the

development and history of the policy or the content of the policy (Bell and Stevenson

2006, 10-11). Birkland (2005) adds that laws and decisions of the policy process can be

thought of as outputs of the policy system (158).

Taylor, et al. (1997) caution that analyzing policy is about more than the words in

a document. They state ―to analyze policies simply in terms of the words written in

formal documents is to overlook the nuances and subtleties of the context which give the

text meaning and significance. Policies are thus dynamic and interactive and not merely a

set of instructions or intentions (Taylor et al. 1997, 15).‖ They also view policy as

complex and ever-changing. However, they include the analysis of underlying values to

policy analysis, asking what the justifications for the policy are, whose interest are they in

and how are they prioritized (Taylor et al. 1997).

Broadly defined, qualitative research of the policy process examines context,

cases, and social processes to interpret or find meaning in situations (Neuman 2006).

Traditional, positivistic policy analysis is guided by the scientific method which finds that

there is a logic to inquiry (Yanow 2000). This logic can be reapplied, tested, and is

deductive (Fischer, Miller, and Sidney 2007). In a scientific inquiry, the policy process

can be examined as a series of linear steps (Fischer, Miller, and Sidney 2007). Policy

analysis, in this tradition, can examine any of the following steps or the entire process of

policy making and implementation. The rational process of policy development and

implementation utilizes the following systematic and comprehensive process (Lindblom

1959).

1. Identify the problem – structure the problem with facts and knowledge – a

problem is the difference between the current situation and the preferred

solution.

2. Specify goals and other values.

3. Evaluate alternatives and the consequences of alternatives.

4. Identify the optimal solution.

5. Collect feedback, data and evaluate.

However, the rational policy process is limited by resources and human capacity

leading to bounded rationality (Simon 1982), where decisions are made based upon the

best available knowledge at the time. Others argue that this model does not take into

account political considerations and social contexts, and assumes that there is only one

solution to any given problem (Hawkesworth 1988; Lindblom 1993). Postpositivist

theorists (Fischer, Miller, and Sidney 2007; Sabatier 2007; Stone 1997; Yanow 2000)

also take issue with the linear framework of policy formation and take a myriad of

complicating factors, such as debates, politics, economics, stakeholders, party interests,

power, beliefs, and goals, into account in their analyses. The post-positivistic researcher

acknowledges that no one individual can perfectly see the world and that bias and

objectivity are part of research. Theoretical frameworks help guide the post-positivistic

researcher toward a concept of reality.

In this project, the context of policy meaning is represented in the language within

P-16 advocacy documents and state level policy and legislative documents. These

documents represent the policy discussion/identification of the problem phase as well as

the policy formation phase. The discourse found within these documents was examined

with the aforementioned overarching theoretical focus, searching for sociological,

economic, and organizational theoretical rationales for P-16 systems and initiatives.

Discourse Analysis

The use of discourse analysis in qualitative research takes many forms. In general,

many researchers (Fairclough 1992; Gee 1999; Gill 2000; Woods 2006) agree that

discourse analysis is the study of language. Discourse analytic approaches share an

interest in determining meaning through the structure and construction of language

(Glynos et al. 2009). However, the study of discursive language takes on many formats.

A brief survey of the literature on discourse analysis finds that there are multiple types of

discourse analysis, each with their own formats, methodologies for analysis, and

theoretical backgrounds; including conversation analysis (Myers 2000), critical discourse

analysis (Gee 1999; Wodak 2001; Fairclough 1992; Luke 1995; Vavrus and Seghers

2009), political discourse analysis (Laclau and Mouffe 1985) discourse analysis of the

law or medicine (Woods 2006), discourse analysis in psychology (Parker 2004)

(Jørgensen and Phillips 2002), semiotics or critical language studies (Fairclough 1992),

poststructural discourse analysis (Foucault 1972, 1980), organizational discourse analysis

(Grant et al. 2004), and policy discourse analysis (Ball 2006; deLeon 1998; Fischer

1995).

Additionally, discourse analysis can study different types of language including

texts of all kinds- documents, newspapers, books, articles, textbooks, etc, verbal

communications- speech, conversation, exchanges, dialogues , and non-verbal

communications- gestures, facial expressions, movement (vanDijk 1997; Jørgensen and

Phillips 2002). VanDijk (1997) characterizes discourse as a ―communicative event,‖

either simple or complex, and describes three dimensions of discourse (p 2). Discourse

can involve (a) language use, (b) cognition or communication of beliefs, and (c)

interaction in social situations (VanDijk 1997, 2). He continues, beyond ―systematic

descriptions, we may expect discourse studies to formulate theories that explain such

relationships between language use, beliefs and interaction (VanDijk 1997, 2).‖ His

analysis of the types of discourse and their uses make clear the need for explicit

definitions of the modes of discourse as well as the methods of analysis in research

projects. The current research study, rooted in the previously discussed policy

frameworks, uses a policy discourse analysis framework to study the shifting of

discourse, over time, in the language of state level P-16 policy and legislative documents.

Policy Discourse Analysis

Policy discourse analysis examines the structure and content of the language of

policy and policy making. Policy discourse analysis aims to understand policy formation,

practice, and the contexts surrounding them (Ball 2006). Ball (2006, 6) describes policy

as statements about what could or should be and the way things are. He then claims,

―Discourse provides a particular and pertinent way of understanding policy formation,

for policies are, pre-eminently, statements about practice- the way things could or should

be- which rest upon, derive from, statements about the world- about the way things are.‖

He further defines the difference between policy as text and policy as discourse. Policy as

text is a symbolic representation of a complex and ever-changing process of policy, a

product of compromise, negotiation, serendipity, and agenda (p 44-45). Policies as text

are ―interventions into practice‖ and ―both a product and a tool of production (p 46).‖

Policy as discourse is a way of making meaning, appreciating policy formation,

understanding contexts through the order and organization of words, phrases, chunks of

language (p 48). Ball finds that, in analysis, policy as discourse forms a complement to

policy as text. Lewis and Simon (1986) provide a similar explanation. Policy as text

refers to concrete products that exist within a particular policy discourse. Policy discourse

refers to the organization of meaning-making practices (Lewis and Simon 1986, 457-8).

Policy discourse analysis can utilize the language of policy documents to find out

―what a policy means‖ (Glynos et al. 2009, 21). Interpreting context within text

―enables the researcher to test her assumptions about the limits of the policy community,

the significance of the gathered artifacts, and the meaning of the narratives gathered

(Glynos et al. 2009, 23). This approach to research sees policy as an evolving social

process which is founded on a network of assumptions and meanings (Ball 2006). This

tactic of understanding policy through discourse follows the postpositivist traditions

which find that complex or ―wicked‖ problems cannot be predictable (deLeon 1998;

Fischer 1995). The researcher made judgments and emphasize certain selected contexts,

based upon chosen frameworks or theoretical lenses (Fischer, Miller, and Sidney 2007).

Policy discourse analysis has been used in several recent policy studies. Three

(Allan 2008; Fimyar 2008; Iverson 2008) are highlighted here. In the first example,

Fimyar (2008) utilized policy discourse analysis to examine recent policy documents for

examples of emerging governance in post-communist Ukraine. She analyzed three state

issued policy documents, dated 1999-2003, as cultural and ideological artifacts and

determined the dominant discourses, renewal, subordination, competency, choice and

autonomy, in them (Fimyar 2008). Her study ―unraveled the dominant and competing

discourses embedded in policy documents and connected them to broad socio-political

contexts and the theoretical framework (Fimyar 2008, 579). Employing Foucault‘s

governmentality framework, Fimyar analyzes the documents to show how emerging

governmentality was evident.

In the second example, Iverson (2008) examined twenty-one diversity action plans

in United States Land-Grant Universities for discourses in diversity. Iverson frames

discourses as ―frameworks or ways of viewing issues‖ and through discourse, social

identity is determined (Iverson 2008, 184). Utilizing a poststructuralist view and a

multiple theoretical framework including a commitment to social justice, a belief that

many competing truth claims exist, and recognition of power as a productive force,

Iverson examined twenty-one diversity action plan documents. Using NVivo to help her

qualitative discourse inquiry, four discourses emerged, marketplace, excellence,

managerialism, and democracy, and through these emergent discourses, action plans for

future policy were recommended.

Finally, Allan (2008) examines the discourses within twenty-one university

women‘s commission reports at four research universities in the United States. Allan

(2008) uses policy discourse analysis to examine the ―silences‖ within policy reports,

explaining that understanding silences can help determine how to solve social problems

through policy (p 49). Allan describes policy discourse analysis as ―an explicit focus on

policy discourses and the discursive shaping of positions through policy. The approach

highlights the discursive power of policy by investigating the written text of policy

documents as primary data sources situated within a larger sociopolitical context (Allan

2008, 49).‖ She applies lenses of feminism, critical analysis, and poststructural

perspectives in order to frame her study and explore how dominant discourses of

femininity, access, and professionalism play a role in women‘s status within university

settings. Her study concludes with recommendations for future policy, including

increasing awareness of silences, constructing images of women, and promoting

discourse analysis of policy. These three studies provide example of using policy

discourse analysis as a method for deeper understanding of the processes of policy. This

current study utilizes the above examples as templates for policy discourse analysis,

while going beyond previous studies to incorporate the study of discourses of a national

large-scale education reform policy.

Summary of Policy Analysis

In summary, policy discourse analysis is used as the methodology to develop the

narrative of changing discourses. Policy discourse analysis is an examination of discourse

found in the texts of national P-16 policy advocacy documents and state level P-16 policy

formation documents. Understanding discourse is a way to understand the meanings,

practices, and agendas of policy processes. Through policy discourse analysis, a deeper

understanding of P-16 as an education reform is attained. In addition, it provides a vital

component in understanding the role of discourse in the creation of education policy.

Theoretical Foundation

Introduction to Theoretical Foundation

The purpose of this dissertation is to determine if there are changes in the

discourse of P-16 over time and if so, how the discursive changes of advocacy may affect

the discourse of policy formation. This study focuses on articulating the changes in

discourse of both national P-16 policy advocacy literature and P-16 policy formation

documents of all fifty United States.

The theoretical concepts used in this study‘s model have a long history of use in

education reform initiatives, ideals of schooling, and education policy processes (see for

example Bowe, Ball, and Gold 1992; Callan 2001; Coleman 1986; Fuhrman, Clune, and

Elmore 1991; Katznelson and Weir 1985; Lagemann 2000; McGuinn 2006; Rose 2010;

Rothstein, Jacobsen, and Wilder 2006; Ruppert 1994; Sanoff 2006; Spring 2001; Zigler

and Styfco 2000; Zumeta 2001; Tyack, James, and Benavot 1987). Reforms such as the

preschool and the school choice are examples of using ideals such as access, equity,

accountability, and student achievement to advocate for and develop their initiatives. This

study examines the use of these theoretical concepts (and others) as they apply to P-16.

This analysis is based upon a theoretical model developed for this project. There

are three elements to this theoretical model, sociologic, economic, and organizational.

The first, sociological framework, is based upon reviews of the language formulated by

policy advocates for an ideal P-16 system. Some discourses communicate and

emphasize sociological or social justice rationales, including providing schooling for all

and the good of society. The policy advocacy language in some documents also focuses

on economic rationales for a statewide P-16 system, particularly creating a skilled and

ready workforce and improving the economy, thus providing the second element of the

theoretical framework. The final element is based on organizational system reform

language. Throughout the history of P-16 advocacy, there are discourses calling for

restructuring and aligning the education system. This alignment language encourages the

transformation of the organization from a disjointed, fractured system to one that has new

characteristics, namely a system with more open communication between subsystems, as

well as cooperation and coordination of goals and efforts. This organizational reform

language seems to represent a foundational basis for the P-16 reform movement. It

remains consistent throughout the history of P-16 initiatives while the frameworks of

priorities and goals of the P-16 movement have shifted through different theoretical

lenses, sociological and economic.

In this section, these three theoretical constructs are discussed and developed.

Following these discussions, a theoretical model is introduced as the conceptual

framework from which this research project commences.

Sociological Rationales in P-16

The first element of the mulit-theoretical model for this research stems from the

language within P-16 advocacy literature. The advocacy literature (Hodgkinson 1985;

Hodgkinson 1999; Usdan, Minar, and Hurwitz 1969; Van de Water and Rainwater 2001;

Consortium for Policy Research in Education 2000) utlizes language that claims that a

P16 initiative would create an education system that has the characteristics and purpose

of a socially integrated, stable, and interdependent organization with a particular focus on

providing access and equity for all students. While not explicitly mentioning sociological

frames or theorists, the advocates appeared to use language from sociology that helped

formulate, focus, and frame the larger P-16 reform movement in order to substantiate

their policy reform movement.

For example, one of the constructs of P-16 focused on the functional or

structuralist nature of education. While not specifically citing these theories or theorists,

advocates nevertheless seem to have employed the language of this point of view.

Functionalist theory of education finds that the education system can be utilized to create

a socially cohesive and congruous society (Durkheim 1964, 1956). Durkheim (1964)

emphasizes that society is held together by this mutual interdependence and that leads to

stability. From this lens, education is valuable as a support for culture, values, and social

unity. He also believed that society is the source of morality and that education is utilized

to perpetuate societal morality and create individuals who can function in society

(Durkheim 1961).

The advocacy literature further describes how a P-16 system fulfills a societal

purpose of education as selection; where education takes into account differing abilities

and backgrounds of students, measuring accomplishments of students based on more than

grades (for example, being able to meet cultural and moral standards of the time). In

using these constructs, advocates are in essence utilizing the theoretical concepts put forth

by Parsons (1959) who finds that education becomes a way of determining which

students have the necessary characteristics, or the ability to learn and develop them, for

certain roles and responsibilities in society. Through this lens, he describes the

interdependence between education and society, thus theorizing a direct link between the

institution of education and the perpetuation of society (Parsons 1959).

P-16 advocates also stressed the importance of including state level officials,

particularly legal and governmental administrators, in order to lend legitimacy and

authority to these reform initiatives. In utilizing these ideas, supporters of P-16 seem to

have adopted some of the sociological frameworks of Weber (1958) who conceived of

rational-legal authority and its influence on institutions. Rational-legal authority is

described by Weber (1958) in his analysis of three different types of authority (traditional,

charismatic, rational-legal). In a system which utilizes rational-legal authority, power is

formed through the law (legal) or through natural law (rationality). Weber believed that

systems that abide by law or rules did so because of their beliefs that the legitimacy of the

rules was strengthened by the power and status of the government. P-16 advocates

highlight the need for empowering P-16 councils and reform initiatives through

governmental support, legal mandates, and policy directives.

Therefore, P-16 advocacy literature appears to be influenced by these frameworks

(Durkheim 1956, 1961, 1964; Parsons 1959; Weber 1958) when using discourses that

emphasized how education, in a P-16 system, creates a better society with individuals

who are qualified for their responsibilities when they emerge from the system. The

primary functions of education, as seen in a P-16 system, would be to create good

citizens, socialize and adapt generations of students to society, and increase access for all

students to education. In addition, P-16 reforms result from official state level policy

reform through legislative and policy decrees. Examples of this language in the P-16

literature (Hodgkinson 1985; Hodgkinson 1999; Usdan, Minar, and Hurwitz 1969; Van de

Water and Rainwater 2001; Consortium for Policy Research in Education 2000) include

legislative authority, providing more education for all students, the value of education as a

goal for building a better society, and the promotion of societal culture and values.

P-16 advocacy literature also acknowledges that the current status of the education

system is not addressing many societal inequities. P-16 advocates aim to provide a

mechanism, through organizational change, for the education of all students and make use

of language emphasizing access, fairness, and equal educational opportunities to stress

these intentions. This line of reasoning seems to be fundamentally influenced by the

sociological conflict theorists who explore constructs of equity and access.

Conflict theorists (Bowles and Gintis 1976; Jencks et al. 1972; Jencks and Brown

1975) are critical of some of the concepts put forth by sociological functionalists. Conflict

theorists believe that the functional constructs in education systems inevitably lead to

stratification and thus conflict. As individuals and organizations seek to maximize their

benefits they find that current systems maintain certain opportunities and access for elite

(higher socioeconomic status) members of society. In education, conflict theory is often

used to examine reform movements, inequalities, and issues of equity and access

(Bowles and Gintis 1976; Coleman 1966; Jencks et al. 1972; Jencks and Brown 1975).

Bowles and Gintis, in their 1976 book, Schooling in Capitalist America, describe

an education system in the United States that perpetuates opportunities for higher

socioeconomic status (SES) families while maintaining inequality of attainment, access,

and achievement for lower SES children. They state

―The educational system serves- through the correspondence of its social

relations with those of economic life- to reproduce economic inequality and to

distort personal development. Thus under corporate capitalism, the objectives of

liberal education reform are contradictory: It is precisely because of its role as

producer of an alienated and stratified labor force that the educational system has

developed its repressive and unequal structure. In the history of U.S. education, it

is the integrative fucntion which has dominated the purpose of schooling, to the

detriment of the other liberal objectives (Bowles and Gintis 1976, 48).‖

This educational system, ripe for conflict, generates many forms of reform

movements focused on repairing inequities and providing access. In the 1960s, 1970s,

and 1980s, many years prior to P-16 reform conversations on a national level, there were

many studies examining the educational system and its flaws in providing educational

opportunities for all children. In particular, some examples of research (Bowles and

Gintis 1976; Coleman 1966; Jencks et al. 1972; Willis 1977) focusing on inequalities in

schools and school systems demonstrate that the institution of education was not meeting

the needs of all of its students.

Coleman, et al‘s 1966 landmark study of the Equality of Educational Opportunity

national data (often referred to as The Coleman Report) explored the disparities in

educational opportunities for children based on race, religion, national origin and color.

This study concluded that academic achievement was related to school environment,

particularly student peers. In other words, if a student was surrounded by other students

with higher educational goals and higher family educational backgrounds, then they were

more likely to have higher student achievement. This study led to many national policy

decisions, in particular busing in order to achieve racial balance within schools.

Bowles and Gintis (1976) exploration of educational attainment in the 1970s. In

this study, they reported that socioeconomic background of families was tied to

attainment levels of education of children, holding IQ constant; higher SES levels were

associated with increased attainment of schooling (Bowles and Gintis 1976). In another

study, Jencks et al (1972) explored the relationships between school inputs and resources

and student achievement at the K-12 level. This research, consistent with Coleman‘s 1966

study, detailed statistical analyses and reported that student achievement was related to

socioeconomic status of schoolmates (Jencks et al. 1972). Willis‘ ethnographic study of

social class, Learning to Labor (1977), conveyed that alienation of working class boys by

the educational system leads to their resistance to school and the continuation of their

lives in working class.

While the previously mentioned studies predate P-16 initiatives, they represent

influences leading to the larger P-16 conversation in the 1980s and subsequent refrom

movement in the 1990s. These frameworks seemingly influenced the advocates of P-16

whose some discourses referred to changing the current education system to provide

access to all students, creating educational opportunities through systemwide changes

such as transitional programs, teacher quality reform, and offering universal preschool

opportunities to all young students.

Economic Rationales in P-16

The second element of the mulit-theoretical model is based on economic theories.

The discourses of advocates for P-16 also use economic rationales to promote the

development of a P-16 education system. Prominent in some advocacy literature are the

utilization of economic frameworks for the creation of a statewide P-16 system. Again,

while advocates do not explicitly mention theory or theorists in their rationales, the

language employed by the literature seems to have changed its focus to economic

rationales discourses.

For example, the development of human capital has been touted as a goal of a P16

system. The construct of human capital refers to the idea that humans have the ability to

accumulate capital through their investment in educational experiences (Becker 1993).

Becker (1993) also states,

―… expenditures on education, training, medical care, etc., are investments

in capital. However, these produce human, not physical or financial, capital

because you cannot separate a person from his or her knowledge, skills, health, or

values the way it is possible to move financial and physical assets while the owner

stays put (p 16).‖

Human capital is a method of valuing human skill and knowledge (Hartog 2000).

Hartog (2000) further explains, ―Capital is the value of productive services that can be

generated, it is the potential performance of the engine.‖ (p 7) Human capital and

education research has shown that increasing investment in human capital provides many

returns, including increased lifetime earnings and higher salaries (Hartog 2000; Becker

1993; Langlett 2002), better health (Becker 1993; Schultz 1961), societal economic

growth (Becker 1993), and intergenerational effects such as increased human capital of

offspring, improved prenatal and infant care, and decreased fertility (less offspring)

(Currie and Moretti 2003) .

Additionally, some P-16 advocacy literature appears to focus on articulating the

goal of increasing production and efficiency, through language such as increasing

workforce production, more efficient system, global and national economic development,

creation of a knowledge society, and generating a skilled and productive workforce.

These economic concepts are influenced by the frameworks of production and efficiency

presented by Hanushek (1986). Extensively reviewing his studies of how and if

education can lead to increased production, as well as how schools can increase their

efficiency as organization, he shows that studies of expenditures in education have

reflected a connection to student retention, enrollment, and completion rates, teacher

skills, salary, and performance, and student achievement (Hanushek 1986).

Finally, the reviewed policy literature discusses economic growth. This is found in

language such as global and national economic development, creation of a knowledge

society, and generating a skilled and productive workforce. P-16 advocates seem to have

been influenced by economic growth frameworks such as those from Thurow (1977),

who states that education has many benefits to society. He discusses how education leads

to a more productive, better trained workforce which leads to a more technical and

skillbased society. These types of jobs lead to a more industrious economy with higher

economic standards of living (Thurow 1977, 332). Again, these key concepts are

prevalent in the P-16 policy advocacy literature as motivations for the establishment of a

new, aligned education system.

Organizational Rationales in P-16

The third element of the theoretical model is based on organizational system

change theories. The P-16 advocacy literature uses discourses of organizational systems

change to frame the conversation of how P-16 initiatives can shift state education systems

from fragmented and disorganized to more coherent, coordinated, and cooperative

systems. P-16 initiatives, as defined in the advocacy literature (Hodgkinson 1985;

Hodgkinson 1999; Usdan, Minar, and Hurwitz 1969; Van de Water and Rainwater 2001;

Consortium for Policy Research in Education 2000), call for P-16 reforms to occur

through the restructuring and realignment of the current education system. Systems

change, in P-16 advocacy, utilizes ideas of systems-building and creation of ―all one

system‖ as scaffolds for change. Systems change and the discourses that surround it,

including realigning elements within the educational system, increasing communication

between stakeholders, evaluation of systems in order to improve, and coordinating

elements, form the discourses of P-16 advocacy. Thus they are the basis for imposing

organizational discourses on the discourse policy analysis framework of this study.

A state level P-16 program works within the education system. A system is

characterized by inputs which go through processes to produce outputs, all of which work

together to accomplish the system‘s overall goals (Scott 1992, 589; Katz and Kahn 1978).

Systems can be comprised of subsystems (Scott 1992), as states are comprised of many

subparts; including legislatures, governors, judicial offices, departments, and school

districts. Each subsystem has its own set of boundaries, inputs, outputs and processes

(Scott 1992). In this study, the subsystems considered are state level education

departments (including higher education, K-12, Early Childhood Education), legislatures,

and P-16 councils.

This study investigates whether the discourses are predominently focused on

creating a more open or a more closed organizational system. In an open system

organizational model interdependence and connections between subsystems is critical

(Weick 1976). In an open system organization, all of the subparts of the system work

together through interdependent and coherent connections (Scott 1992; Katz and Kahn

1978). In an open systems perspective, ―environments shape, support, and infiltrate

organizations. Connections with ‗external‘ elements may be more critical than those with

‗internal‘ components…‖ (Scott 1992, p 25) According to Lawrence and Lorsch (1967),

open system organizations can use increased communication to maximize their flexibility.

Additionally, members within an open system have behaviors that are interrelated and are

oriented toward particular goals (Lawrence and Lorsch 1967).

In the open system perspective, analysts would consider external components such

as finance, outside governance, and politics (Katz and Kahn 1978). Katz and Kahn

(1978) further explain that open systems have subsystems with communication, feedback,

and governance links between them. Scott (1992) defines organizations in open systems

as not a formal structure but as a system of interdependent activities. Scott adds:

Organizations are systems of interdependent activities linking

shifting coalitions of participants; the systems are embedded in -

dependent on continuing exchanges with and constituted by-- the

environments in which they operate (Scott 1992, 25).

In contrast, a closed system is characterized by inflexible and impenetrable

boundaries. Katz and Kahn (1978) describe the closed system perspective as that which

views an organization by examining internal structures, but little consideration of external

environments. Traditionally, closed systems are seen as isolated or independent from their

environment. Scott (2001) adds that closed system ideas are based upon rational system

models and bureaucratic notions of organizations (see for example, Taylor 1911; Barnard

1936; Weber 1947), and that some of these original ideas are still prevalent in the closed

system model of today. These constructs include promotion of efficiency of the

organization, fixed division of labor, and hierarchy of governance.

P-16 systems, as described in the advocacy literature, have some of the features of

an open system. In a P-16 education system, advocates call for the traditional boundaries

to be set aside for a new way of thinking about education (VandeWater and Rainwater

2001; Hodgkinson 1985; Hodgkinson 1999; Portch 2006; Rochford et al. 2005; Venezia

et al. 2005). P-16 requires a change in viewpoint; thinking about education as a long-term

process with aligned standards and assessments, blended funding, and increased

communication between stakeholders (Portch 2006; VandeWater and Rainwater 2001;

McGrath et al. 2005). In contrast, the P-16 advocacy literature portrays an ideal P-16

system as having some of the features of a closed system such as being stable, efficient,

and self-sustaining (Portch 2006; Rochford et al. 2005; Van de Water and Rainwater

2001; Venezia et al. 2005).

The organizational discourse of change in this advocacy literature seems to lay the

groundwork for the P-16 education reform movement and appears to remain constant

throughout the lifetime of P-16. The P-16 dialogue is reliant upon this continuity of the

organizational theoretical focus to hold the movement together and weather the changes

through the previously mentioned sociological and economic theoretical lens shifts.

Theoretical Model

In order to build upon the advocacy literature foundation, this researcher utilized

the following theoretical framework [see Figure 2.1] as a lens to investigate the research

questions. This model takes on three perspectives, outlined previously. The first is based

upon the sociological frameworks of Durkheim (1956, 1964), Parsons (1959), Weber

(cite), Coleman et. al. (1966), and Bowles and Gintis (1976). Through this sociological

perspective, language was explored that focuses on sociological concepts such as

providing access, creating a more integrated seamless education system, developing an

equitable system, and creating a better society through more civic-minded, better

prepared citizens.

The second perspective is based upon the economic concepts of human capital

(Becker 1993; Currie and Moretti 2003; Hartog 2000; Langlett 2002; Schultz 1961),

production and efficiency (Hanushek 1986), and economic growth (Thurow 1977).

Through this economic framework, language was explored that focuses on these

concepts. Finally, the framework that remains constant throughout all documents, the

organizational systems reform framework. Through this organizational construct, ideas

such as creating a new system were analyzed with the characteristics of an open system

and a closed system compared and contrasted (Weick 1976; Hall 2002; Katz and Kahn

1978; Scott 1992; Lawrence and Lorsch 1967). This theoretical framework served as an

overarching conceptual tool in the analysis of P-16 advocacy and policy formation

documents.

Figure 2.1 Theoretical Framework

Using the theoretical model developed for this research, both national P-16

advocacy documents and state level P-16 legislative and policy documents of fifty states

were examined to identify discourses within the language of these documents. The

overarching conceptual tool provided a multi-perspective focus, examining two

theoretical motivations, sociological and economic, and one widespread theory of utility,

organizational systems theory. Based upon the transformation of focus in the language of

P-16 policy advocacy literature, this research aims to examine the language within P-16

policy documents to see if they also represent a shifting of motivation behind P-16

policy initiatives through the shifting of discourses.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it has been demonstrated that through the span of P-16 as an

educational reform movement, proponents have transformed the underlying discourses

from sociological constructs to economic constructs, while utilizing a strong foundational

overarching concept, organizational open system theories continually throughout.

Through this literature analysis, it is seen that reform through policy is constantly

evolving and that the formation of P-16 is also undergoing continual and progressive

transformations. This study is framed in a policy analysis lens in order to explore the

shifting of discourse throughout the policy process of P-16 initiatives. The theoretical

framework provided forms the conceptual lens through which this research project is

approached. The purpose of this study is to explore and enhance the understanding of P16

initiatives through the examination of discourse within official state level P-16 policy and

legislative documents. In the next chapter, Chapter Three, the methodology and research

design is discussed.

CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY

Introduction

This dissertation research study examines the discourses of P-16 policy advocacy

and formation, explores historic shifts of these discourses, and investigates whether the

discourses of advocacy influenced the discourses of policy formation. To do this, P-16 is

viewed through a theoretical framework using policy discourse analysis as the

methodology to explore changes in the discourses of official P-16 policy and legislative

documents. In this chapter, the methodology of this dissertation research is described and

explained. First, the research questions are restated. Then, an explanation of how the

documents utilized for this dissertaion research were chosen and collected. Then a

description of the chosen qualitative software, NVivo8, as well as an accounting of the

coding process follows. Finally, the research questions are explored and anticipated

findings (hypotheses) of those questions with an explanation of how each of these

hypotheses were responded to using policy discourse analysis as the methodology.

Research Questions, Assumptions, and Hypotheses

Question One: Do the dominant discourses within the P-16 national policy advocacy

literature and the P-16 state level policy and legislative documents vary by era of

time?

Assumption I: This question begins a multilayered analysis that maps a

relationship between time, policy advocacy, and policy formation.

Assumption II: There are two time frames for each type of document being

collected. The advocacy literature started several years before policy

formation began in any state, thus accounting for the expected differences in

the early time frames. The Hodgkinson advocacy literature (1985) is the

beginning of the advocacy literature Time Era 1. Policy formation began about

three years later. Texas started P-16 legislation in 1993, Maine in 1995, and

Maryland had P-16 policy in 1996 thus setting the 1987 beginning time frame

for policy formation as a starting point.

The second time frame is established to explore the potential shifts in

discourses. This time frame is about 2002, but is flexible in that there are

some changes in levels of discourse prior to 2002. 2002 was chosen as a

starting point for the second time eras (for both advocacy and policy

formation) based on reading and previous research.

Assumption III: There is a time lag between policy advocacy and policy

formation. This lag is described in the literature and is prevalent in policy

formation studies.

Contexts:

•Advocacy Literature Time Era 1: 1985-2002

•Advocacy Literature Time Era 2: 2002-2010

•Policy Formation Time Era 3: 1987-2002

•Policy Formation Time Era 4: 2002-2010 Categories:

•Sociological Discourses

•Economic Discourses

•Organizational Discourses

Hypotheses:

1a. If the national policy advocacy documents have a published date during Time

Era 1, then the dominant discourses are more likely to be focused on sociological

discourses than economic discourses.

1b. If the national policy advocacy documents have a published date during Time

Era 2, then the dominant discourses are more likely to be focused on economic

discourses than on sociological discourses.

1c. The organizational discourses within national P-16 policy advocacy literature

have remained constant throughout Time Eras 1 and 2.

1d: If the state level P-16 policy and legislation documents are created in Time

Era 3, these documents will have dominant discourses that will be more likely to

be focused on sociological discourses than economic discourses.

1e: If the state level P-16 policy and legislation documents are created in Time

Era 4, these documents will have dominant discourses that will be more likely to

be focused on economic discourses than sociological discourses.

1f: The discourses of organizational change within state level P-16 policy and

legislation documents have remained constant throughout Time Eras 3 and 4.

Question Two: What are the relationships between time eras of P-16 and the

influence of P-16 national policy advocacy literature and P-16 policy formation

(represented by state level policy and legislation)?

A. What are the volume and frequency of P-16 policy advocacy documents

over time?

B. What are the volume and frequency of P-16 policy formation documents

over time?

C. Do the discourses of P-16 national policy advocacy literature and P-16

policy formation have influence on each other?

Assumption IV: This question and the more specific follow-up questions

examined the entry points where states became a part of the P-16 world by

creating policy or legislation. It is designed to observe how states depict P-16

through their policy/legislative language depending on their time entering into

P-16. For example, a state that started a program in the 1990s is likely have

many iterations of what P-16 ―is‖- how it‘s legislated or made into policy

over the past twenty years. It is also likely that a state that has only recently

formed a P-16 program may have skipped discourses and gone straight to

economic rationales.

Assumption V: The time frame assumptions from Question One continue here

in Question Two.

Assumption VI: Discourse analysis, by its nature, allows the researcher to

make judgments based on theory and frameworks outlined in advance by the

researcher. In this case, the theoretical framework is set up to examine any

shifting of discourses across time. The final steps of policy discourse analysis

call for the researcher to look beyond the ―counts‖ of words/phrases and to

determine the meaning of policy. Influence is used in this research to

demonstrate how the language and meaning behind the advocacy literature

may be observed in the language and meaning of policy formation.

Contexts:

•Advocacy Literature Time Era 1: 1985-2002

•Advocacy Literature Time Era 2: 2002-2010

•Policy Formation Time Era 3: 1987-2002

•Policy Formation Time Era 4: 2002-2010 Categories:

•P-16 National Policy Advocacy Literature

•P-16 State Policy and Legislation

Hypotheses:

2a: The volume (number of pages) and frequency (how often) of P-16 national

policy advocacy literature will be greater in Time Era 1 and less in Time Era 2.

2b: The volume (number of pages) and frequency (how often) of P-16 state policy

and legislation will be greater in Time Era 4 and less in Time Era 3.

2c: If a state formulated P-16 policy (through legislation or state level policy) in

Time Era 3, then the language is influenced by the language of the advocacy

literature of Time Era 1.

2d: If a state formulated P-16 policy (through legislation or state level policy) in

Time Era 4, then the language is influenced by the language of the advocacy

literature of Time Era 2.

2e: If a state formulated P-16 policy (through legislation or state level policy) in

Time Era 4, then the language is also influenced by the language of state level

policy/legislation in time Era 3.

Data Collection

For this dissertation research study, three types of documents were gathered, (1)

national P-16 policy advocacy literature; (2) P-16 state level policy documents; and (3) P-

16 state level legislative documents. Comparison between national P-16 advocacy

documents and state level P-16 formation documents is warranted because national level

policy advocacy may influence state level policy formation. States utilize national policy

advocacy documents in their rationales behind the development and formation of policy,

as evidenced by their use of these advocacy documents on their P-16 websites. These

advocacy documents are referenced and cited on the websites in suggested reference lists,

mission statements, and state level analyses of P-16 programs (or parts of programs).

The first type of document collected for this study is a representative sampling of

the national P-16 policy advocacy literature. The chosen documents met the following

criteria. They were from national policy advocacy organizations or authors associated

with these organizations. The chosen documents represent an overall P-16 agenda, not

specific parts of a P-16 agenda. For example, national organizations such as the Pew

Foundation and Education Commission of the States were consulted. However, while

they have a stake in P-16 initiatives, advocacy agendas from organizations such as the

National Federation of Teachers or NIEER were not included as they promote particular

parts of P-16 rather than the whole of P-16. While some of these policy advocacy

documents have been cited as representative of the overall policy advocacy literature in

previous chapters of this proposal, there are additional advocacy documents included in

the analysis portion of this project. State P-16 council websites were also searched for

potential documents for this project.

Documents were collected that were published during the time period 1985

(Hodgkinson 1985 as a starting point) to June 30, 2010 in order to match the exclusion

point established for the archival policy and legislative documents. Seventeen national

policy advocacy documents were selected; see table 3.1 ―Number of Advocacy

Documents by Year‖ for the breakdown. See Appendix C for a list of the national policy

advocacy documents chosen and used in this study.

Table 3.1 Number of Advocacy Documents by Year

Year Number of Advocacy Documents

1985 1

1999 2

2000 2

2001 2

2002 4

2003 1

2004 0

2005 1

2006 2

2007 0

2008 2

2009 0

2010 0

Total 17

An historical archival document search was conducted for the second type of

documents in this study. All state-level P-16 legislative documents were collected from

state level government sources. For the purposes of this study, P-16 legislation is defined

as those laws enacted by a state legislature that pertain to P-16 (or as named by the state)

initiatives. Pending bills or legislation were not included in this study as they are not final

and have no power to create practice. The search gathered documents from state-level

governments.

Legislation is publically accessible through several sources. These sources include

each state‘s legislature website, state government portals, and each state‘s law libraries.

Laws that do not explicitly mention P-16 (or the state‘s alternative name) were not

included in this study. This may have inadvertently left out some P-16 legislation. In

order to mitigate this possibility, the researcher cross-checked lists of P-16 legislation

collected on the Education Commission of the States website. In addition, each state‘s

own P-16 websites were checked for potential P-16 legislation. A total of 157 legislative

documents were discovered in twenty-four states (see Table 3.2 Number of Policy

Formation Documents by Year and Map 3.1 for a map of states with legislative

documents).

Map 3.1

P-16 Policy Formation Documents – States with Legislative Documents

The third type of documents that were collected includes all official state level

P16 policy documents. State P-16 policy documents are defined as those that are from an

official state government education agency. Policy documents are also publically

available. An archival historical search of state government sites was used to gain access

to obtain official PDFs (or other formats) of state level P-16 policy. Searches were limited

to those policy documents that explicitly refer to P-16. This excluded policy documents

that may have included some part of the P-16 policy objectives, but are not part of an

official state agency P-16 policy. For example, if there is a state preschool policy but the

policy is not a part of a P-16 initiative, it is not included in the documents for the

proposed study. Unless these policies are explicitly included within P-16 legislation or

States with P-16

legislative

documents

state policy, they were considered beyond the scope of this research study. A total of 89

policy documents were discovered in twenty-four states. In addition, 24 other types of

policy documents (including by laws and Governor‘s Executive Orders) were collected

from fourteen states (see Table 3.2 Number of Policy Formation

Documents by Year and Map 3.2 for a map of states with policy and other documents).

Map 3.2

P-16 Policy Formation Documents – States with Policy Documents

Previous studies have shown that the first states to implement their programs did

so in 1992 (Durand 2007; Mohker 2010) , so by searching for any legislative or policy

States with P-16

Policy, Governor’s

Executive Orders or

Bylaws

documents from 1985 and later, this research covered the relevant legislative and official

policy documents from all fifty United States. The cutoff date for inclusion of documents

was June 30, 2010. This allowed recent policies to be included but established a point of

exclusion. A total of 270 state level P-16 policy formation documents were accumulated

(Table 3.2 Number of Policy Formation Documents by Year); 157 (58%) were legislative

documents, 89 (33%) were state level policy documents, and 24 (9%) were other

(Governor‘s Executive Orders and P-16 Council By-Laws). There are documents from 39

states and they range from one page to sixty-eight pages long. The vast majority (70%) of

state level documents were dated from 2003-2010. A complete categorization and

summarization of all documents collected can be seen in Appendix B. In addition,

Appendix C contains a citation list of all collected documents.

Table 3.2

Number of Policy Formation Documents by Year

YEAR Number of

Formation

Documents

Number

of Policy

Docs

Number

of Law

Docs

Number

of Other

Docs

1985 0 0 0 0

1987 3 0 3 0

1990 1 0 1 0

1991 2 0 2 0

1993 2 0 2 0

1994 1 0 1 0

1995 3 0 3 0

1996 0 0 0 0

1997 1 0 1 0

1998 0 0 0 0

1999 2 0 2 0

2000 30 13 17 0

2001 10 7 2 1 exec

order

2002 21 7 14 0

2003 19 4 12 3 exec

order

2004 19 9 9 1 exec

order

2005 29 4 19 6 exec

order

2006 23 8 13 2 exec

order

2007 35 11 21 3 exec

order

2008 22 10 10 2 exec

order

2009 27 10 14 3 exec

order

2010 20 6 11 3 bylaws

TOTALS 270 89 157 24

Computer Aided Software- NVivo 8

Policy discourse analysis as the methodology and the qualitative software program

NVivo 8 (QSR International 2009) as the means were used to qualitatively analyze the

270 policy formation and 17 policy advocacy documents. NVivo 8 is a comprehensive

qualitative software package that assists the researcher in organizing and sorting data, as

well as supporting the coding and categorization process. Cohen, Manion, and Morrison

(2007) found that using a computer program for qualitative analysis is particularly

effective when coping with data overload and retrieval, coding, comparison, linkages, and

ultimately analysis (p 488). However, they caution that the programs do not actually

perform any analysis, but rather ―facilitate and assist it‖ (Cohen, Manion, and Morrison

2007, 489). Others (Krippendorff 2004; Miles and Huberman 1994) affirm that the

benefits of using software programs include processing large amounts of data quickly and

reliably, assistance with coding, search and retrieval within documents, offering data

display methods, and strengthening theory-building.

Coding

Once the documents for each of the fifty states were collected, categorical coding

of each document, including words in titles, table of contents, captions, sidebars,

committee membership lists, and glossaries (but not bibliographies, author names, or

appendices) occurred, utilizing the software program NVivo8. In particular, a priori

categories developed from the literature review and the theoretical model were utilized to

help guide the coding process (Neuman 2006).

Table 3.3 demonstrates the codes that were determined by this researcher through

a systematic, sentence-by-sentence, examination of P-16 policy formation documents

from two states. The first document is a state level P-16 policy document from New

Jersey (The New Jersey High School Redesign Steering Committee 2008). The second is

the legislation pertaining to P-16 from Texas (Texas Constitution and Statutes: Education

Code Sec. 7. 005- 006., Sec. 7. 010, Sec 61.001.-002., Sec 61. 076.- 0761.- 0762. 2009).

Each sentence within each of the documents was examined for any and all phrases that

could fit within the three predetermined frameworks: organizational, sociological, and

economic.

All of the words and phrases were collected and then sorted into similar coding

categories. Each of these categories was given a name. In each of these categories,

multiple words represent each theme; therefore, these are truly categorical

representations, rather than a count of a particular word. Table 3.3 represents the

categories and examples of the phrases collected within those categories. There are nine

category codes within each framework. Nine codes were chosen in order to use a

metamatrix framework (Miles and Huberman 1994). Using nine codes allows for a

comparative analysis in which ―levels of code depth‖ can be measured through even

numbers of categorical codes within each level of code depth. In this case, one to three

codes represents LO, four to six codes represents MOD, and seven to nine codes

represents HIGH. The meta-matrix gives the qualitative researcher a way to structure the

counting process beyond simple counts (Miles and Huberman 1994).

Nine codes were chosen (as opposed to 12 or 16) because when going through the

pre-coding process with the aforementioned documents, eight or nine categories appeared

in each framework. In the organizational framework, where only eight appeared after the

pre-coding process, this researcher added an organizational code, P-16 Councils, which

seemed likely to appear based on the literature review.

The coding categories were designed to help the researcher find commonalities

among the documents. In other words, find the areas where categories match up and are

common between the types of documents. The categories are based upon the previously

established theoretical model and fall under three main discourses, sociological,

organizational, or economic. These codes were applied to all three types of documents.

The coding process involved a two-step process. First, each document was read in

its entirety by this researcher. This process helps the researcher gain insight into the

overall themes and discourses that might emerge from the more detailed coding.

Documents were then downloaded into NVivo8 and a sentence-by-sentence coding was

begun. Previous studies (Durand 2010) have shown that paragraphs of differing sizes are

not a representative analysis. This is because the varying styles of policy advocacy, state

legislation, and state policy language mean that paragraph by paragraph analysis misses

the depth to which certain categories are represented. Weber (1990) explains that

sentences are often the recording units of analysis when the investigator is interested in

words or phrases that occur closely together and a sense of words with multiple meanings

might occur (p 22). He also finds that investigators might code an entire paragraph to

reduce the effort required however, this reduces the reliability of the study (Weber 1990,

23).

Upon the reading of each sentence, a determination of which (if any) codes were

apparent in the sentence. A sentence could have no codes or all of the codes could apply

to the sentence. Sentences were expected to have overlapping between codes; i.e.

sentences may fit into more than one category on the coding chart. This was handled by

coding a sentence with multiple codes. The following examples demonstrate the coding

process and how each sentence would fit within the coding categories designated.

The first example is from New Jersey (The New Jersey High School Redesign

Steering Committee 2008). The direct quote from the document is in italics. Following

this, the codes for that were assigned to the sentence are outlined and the part of the

sentence that corresponds to the coded category is listed.

The Steering Committee‘s mission was to recommend those education policy

revisions required to ensure that all students graduate from high school prepared

for work, further education and citizenship.

Coded:

•Achievement – graduate from high school

•Workforce Preparation- prepared for work

•College Readiness- prepared for … further education

•Organization- The steering committee

•Equity- all students

•Citizen- prepared for…citizenship

•Goals- mission

The second example is from Minnesota (Minnesota Law 127A.70, subdivision 13,

2009). The direct quote from the document is in italics. Then the codes and the part of the

sentence or a reason why it was coded follows.

A P-20 education partnership is established to create a seamless system of

education that maximizes achievements of all students, from early childhood

through elementary, secondary, and postsecondary education, while promoting the

efficient use of financial and human resources.

Coded:

•Pipeline- to create a seamless system of education

•Equity- all students

•Achievement- maximizes achievements

•Efficiency -while promoting the efficient use of financial and human resources

•Allocation- while promoting the efficient use of financial and human resources

•P-16 Council- A P-20 education partnership is established

•Collaboration- education partnership

•Alignment- from early childhood through elementary, secondary, and

postsecondary education

Appendix E provides another example of the coding process by showing a screen

shot of a coded document as it appears in NVivo8. For this study, each sentence in its

entirety was coded within NVivo 8 under a narrow context. This allowed for easier

analysis after the coding stage was completed because NVivo 8 has the ability display the

sentence for context and allows linkage back to entire paragraphs if more background or

context is needed. NVivo8 allows for multiple coding options in the same sentence, while

keeping track of individual code counts.

Miles and Huberman (1994) describe coding as a form of analysis because

selections are made by the researcher as to what to code for and what to exclude, based

upon chosen theoretical models, frameworks, or lenses. The coding process has some

limitations embedded within; particularly the notion that the researcher is doing little

more than counting, researcher bias, and the idea that a priori codes are the only codes

possible (Miles and Huberman 1994). However, Miles and Huberman (1994) suggest

ways to combat these hazards, such as to revisit coded material, understand that emerging

codes may occur, acknowledge potential researcher bias, and require a rigorous

examination of the data from multiple perspectives. Validity and reliability of this study

are addressed below.

Table 3.3

CODING SEARCH TERMS

CATEGORY NAME Examples of language category

Sociological

Pipeline Education continuum, pipeline(ideal), pathways, seamless system

Access Access, recruit minority students, financial assistance

Equity Equity, equal educational opportunity, bridge programs,

disadvantaged students, closing the gap, education for all,

Learning Community Learning community, 21st century skills

Lifelong Learning Lifelong learning, comprehensive education

Quality of Life Quality of Life, Sociological

Culture Culture, organizational culture, culturally sensitive

Citizenship Citizenship, civic literacy, civic engagement, voting,

democracy, Demographics

High Quality Education High quality education, quality programs

Economic

Achievement Achievement, performance indicators, degree attainment,

student assessment, graduation requirements

Efficiency Efficiency, efficient system

Effectiveness Effective

Workforce Preparation Workforce demands, highly educated workforce, jobs,

entrepreneurial experience, preparation for work

College Readiness College readiness, high school to college, college preparation

Knowledge Knowledge, skill attainment, skilled and educated workforce,

knowledge economy

Competition Global competitiveness, dissolving geographic boundaries,

competition, comparisons between states

Accountability Accountability, testing, standards

Economic Growth Brave new world, industrialized society, economic growth,

technical society

Organizational

Alignment Align, continuity, ease of transition, articulation between

systems, coordination, pipeline (concrete)

Goals Shared action agenda, strategic action plan, agreement on

expectations, mission, vision

Collaboration Unified efforts, links, partnership, cooperate, consensus

building, collaborate, coordinate people/groups

Organization Redesign, coordinate, develop infrastructure, framework for

change, governance, change of structure

P-16 Council P-16 council (or the name that the state uses)

Allocate Reallocate, shared budgets, funding, resources

Communication Exchange information, communicate, report, share

Boundary Organizational boundaries, borders, challenges, difficulties

Evaluation of Programs Evaluation of programs

Reliability, Validity and Potential Biases of Project

In order to assess the validity and reliability of the coding framework a collection

of passages from a sample of all three types of documents was accumulated. In order to

address potential vulnerabilities in this study (Miles and Huberman 1994), several steps

were taken. First, the data was examined from multiple perspectives. Several chosen

paragraphs from the policy formation documents were coded by two other doctoral

students in the department after they were trained in coding techniques and expectations.

An 85-90% inter-rater reliability was achieved.

Second, the researcher was open to the potential for emerging codes and coded all

documents with codes that emerged. However, there were no codes that emerged that

were critical to this research study, so they have been saved for future studies. Third, this

researcher acknowledges that the a priori coding scheme can be a source of researcher

bias. This potential bias was combated by collecting emerging codes and examining those

codes for potential importance to this study. Finally, coded material was revisited. Ten

percent of the documents were randomly sampled for recoding and that recoding was

measured for reliability. The inter-rater reliability for the recoding process was 93-100%.

In addition, in order to meet the requirements of the Institutional Review Board

(IRB) of University at Albany, SUNY, the researcher has completed the CITI training and

submitted this project to IRB for review. Because this research does not include any

human subjects and involves only documents that are accessible in the public domain, an

expedited approval from IRB has been given. This letter has been copied and attached in

Appendix D.

While this project was designed to eliminate as many potential biases as possible,

the nature of the project introduces a few biases that are discussed here. The sampling

process, although designed to include all P-16 policy formation documents, potentially

excludes some documents due to the restrictions set by the researcher. In particular, not

including policy or legislation that is potentially used by P-16 committees or councils but

has not been labeled P-16 could introduce some bias. This is likely to occur in states that

have firmly established programs, such as a statewide preschool program, but the

program is not explicitly and unambiguously linked to P-16 in policy or legislation. This

research has been set up to match the policy advocacy literature which talks about

explicitly linking all parts of a P-16 system.

Research Questions- Analyses and Hypotheses

This section contains a description of how each research question was examined.

Then, anticipated findings of that question are described. The first step, following coding,

was to include qualitative descriptions of the found discourses. This first step detailed the

existence (or not) of any discourses. In order to do this, a meta-matrix was used for

analysis. Miles and Huberman (1994) define a case ordered meta- matrix as an analysis

problem that sorts and demonstrates the cases to show the data for each variable across all

cases. The effects can be clustered in order to more easily exhibit the potential results.

This type of matrix is appropriate for making comparisons and contrasts, noting relations

between variables including patterns and themes (p 190).

In the case ordered meta- matrix developed for this study (see Meta-Matrix One:

Existence of Codes within Documents), each document was considered one case. The

cases were ordered by date (earliest to latest). A classification of each coding category

was entered in the cells of the meta-matrix, a 1 if the key term is present in the document

and a 0 if it is not. This first step provides a record of discourse representation within

each case/document.

In the next step, this researcher performed an assessment to determine the depth of

the three types of discourses (sociological, economic, and organizational) in each

document. Miles and Huberman (1994) describe researcher assessment within qualitative

analysis to include notation of relationships between variables, counting, and evaluating

strengths based on prior knowledge and literature searches. In this study, a scaled rating

to represent the presence of key terms within documents was a priori created by this

researcher based upon study of discourse policy analysis (deLeon 1998; vanDijk 1997)

and literature and theoretical reviews in Chapters Two. For each document, a scaled

rating was assigned for the three types of discourses (Miles and Huberman 1994) based

on the following scale:

High Presence of 7-9 key terms- high level of discourse in document

Moderate Presence of 4-6 key terms- medium level of discourse in document

Low Presence of 1-3 key terms- low level of discourse in document

None Presence of 0 key terms- none- discourse not present in document

Thus, each document receives three scores, a discourse level for sociological

discourses, a discourse level for economic discourses, and a discourse level for

organizational discourses. (An example of the meta-matrix and the scoring process is

available in Appendix F).

Discursive depths were found by using the meta-matrix and determining whether

a code exists in the document. If it did, regardless of how much it exists, it was labeled 1.

There are nine potential discourses found in each discourse category. Thus, nine

sociological discourses, nine economic discourses, and nine organizational discourses

were examined. It follows then that each document has a potential score of 0-9 in each of

three measured discourses.

Once all the documents were analyzed individually and the entire meta-matrix

was filled in, the next step involved creating a timeline of discourse levels. This was

easily captured in the policy advocacy documents. However, because of the sheer

numbers of policy formation documents in each year, it is difficult to see the trend of

discourses over the course of twenty-five years. To alleviate this problem, a measure to

capture average annual discourses for the state level policy formation documents was

created. Average annual discourses levels give a portrait of the trend by year. This process

involved separating the documents by year and then taking the levels of discourse for

each document within a year and creating an average. As an example, in the year 2001 the

discourse levels of all of the documents (n=11) from that year were determined first. Each

document received a score of 0-9 for sociological discourses, 0-9 for economic

discourses, and 0-9 for organizational discourses. Then an average sociological score for

2001 was created by summing the sociological scores across the 11 documents and

dividing the total by 11. The same process was repeated to get an average economic

discourse score and an average organizational score for 2001. This process continued for

every year over the twenty-five year time frame- generating average annual discourse

levels for the policy formation documents. This process is demonstrated in Appendix F.

Table 3.4

Meta-Matrix One -Existence of Codes within Documents

Cases/ Documents Earliest

(1995)

→ → Latest

(2010)

P-16 Discourses Case 1 Case 2 … Case N

SOCIOLOGICAL

Access y/n y/n y/n y/n

Citizenship y/n y/n y/n y/n

Culture y/n y/n y/n y/n

Equity y/n y/n y/n y/n

High Quality Education y/n y/n y/n y/n

Learning Community y/n y/n y/n y/n

Lifelong Learning y/n y/n y/n y/n

Pipeline y/n y/n y/n y/n

Quality of Life y/n y/n y/n y/n

Discourse Level/Research Assessment H/M/L/N H/M/L/N H/M/L/N H/M/L/N

ORGANIZATIONAL

Alignment y/n y/n y/n y/n

Allocation y/n y/n y/n y/n

Boundary y/n y/n y/n y/n

Collaboration y/n y/n y/n y/n

Communication y/n y/n y/n y/n

Evaluation of Programs y/n y/n y/n y/n

Goals y/n y/n y/n y/n

Organization y/n y/n y/n y/n

P16 Council y/n y/n y/n y/n

Discourse Level/Research Assessment H/M/L/N H/M/L/N H/M/L/N H/M/L/N

ECONOMIC

Accountability y/n y/n y/n y/n

Achievement y/n y/n y/n y/n

College Readiness y/n y/n y/n y/n

Competition y/n y/n y/n y/n

Economic Growth y/n y/n y/n y/n

Effective y/n y/n y/n y/n

Efficient y/n y/n y/n y/n

Knowledge y/n y/n y/n y/n

Workforce Preparation y/n y/n y/n y/n

Discourse Level/Research Assessment H/M/L/N H/M/L/N H/M/L/N H/M/L/N

Research Questions

Question One

Do the dominant discourses within the P-16 national policy advocacy literature and

the P-16 state level policy and legislative documents vary by era of time?

This question started the multilayered analysis to examine a mapping of a relationship

between time, policy advocacy, and policy formation. In order to answer this question the

analysis took several steps. First, a timeline mapping of each document, advocacy and

policy formation, occurred. This timeline laid out each document by year, from 1985 to

2010, giving a picture of the frequency of occurrence of each type of document over time.

A second timeline mapped three levels of discourse, sociological, economic, and

organizational. The scaled researcher analysis was then layered into this analysis to

determine depth of discourse within documents over time.

Anticipated Findings for Question One

•Advocacy Literature Time Era 1: 1985-2002

•Advocacy Literature Time Era 2: 2002-2010

•Policy Formation Time Era 3: 1987-2002

•Policy Formation Time Era 4: 2002-2010

Hypotheses:

1a. If the national policy advocacy documents have a published date during Time

Era 1, then the dominant discourses is more likely to be focused on sociological

discourses than economic discourses.

1b. If the national policy advocacy documents have a published date during Time

Era 2, then the dominant discourses is more likely to be focused on economic

discourses than on sociological discourses.

1c. The organizational discourses within national P-16 policy advocacy literature

have remained constant throughout Time Eras 1 and 2.

1d: If the state level P-16 policy and legislation documents are created in Time

Era 3, these documents will have dominant discourses that are more likely to be

focused on sociological discourses than economic discourses.

1e: If the state level P-16 policy and legislation documents are created in Time

Era 4, these documents will have dominant discourses that are more likely to be

focused on economic discourses than sociological discourses.

1f: The discourses of organizational change within state level P-16 policy and

legislation documents have remained constant throughout Time Eras 3 and 4.

Question Two

What are the relationships between time eras of P-16 and the influence of P-16

national policy advocacy literature and P-16 policy formation (represented by state

level policy and legislation)?

A. What are the volume and frequency of P-16 policy advocacy documents

over time?

B. What are the volume and frequency of P-16 policy formation documents

over time?

C. Do the discourses of P-16 national policy advocacy literature and P-16

policy formation have influence on each other?

This question and the more specific follow-up questions examined the entry points

where states become part of the P-16 world by creating policy or legislation. It was

designed to observe how states depict P-16 through their policy/legislative language

depending on their time entering into P-16. For example, a state that started a program in

the 1990s is likely have many iterations of what P-16 ―is‖- how it‘s legislated or made

into policy over the past twenty years. It is also likely that a state that has only recently

formed a P-16 program may have skipped discourses and gone straight to economic

rationales. In order to answer Research Question Two (and its sub questions), this

research took the following steps. For Part A- a count of page numbers and timeline

occurrences created a volume and frequency of all types of documents studied in this

project. This provides the researcher and reader with some background of what is

happening in P-16 policy advocacy and formation in the United States. This counting

(and charting of) the documents volume and frequency formulates the response to

hypotheses 2a and 2b. Below are the predicted outcomes of this question.

In order to respond to part B, this researcher conducted an in- depth policy

discourse analysis based upon the findings from the data of P-16 discourses within the

P16 policy advocacy, legislative, and policy documents (Miles and Huberman 1994). This

historical analysis examined the chronology of discourses in state level P-16 legislation

and policy. The narrative of this historical process involved noting patterns of discourse

shifts and relationships between cases in order to extrapolate the ways that the dominant

discourses of P-16 shape the realities of P-16 for the states. In order to determine any

shifting of discourses or any potential influence of discourses from one type of policy to

another (advocacy influencing formation perhaps), the researcher used policy discourse

analysis. Discourse analysis, by its nature, allows the researcher to make judgments based

on theory and frameworks outlined in advance by the researcher. In this case, the

theoretical framework was set up to examine any shifting of discourses across time. The

final steps of policy discourse analysis call for the researcher to look beyond the

―counts‖ of words/phrases and to determine the meaning of policy. Influence is used in

this research to demonstrate how the language and meaning behind the advocacy

literature may be observed in the language and meaning of policy formation. It also

allows this researcher to determine if the expected findings in hypotheses 2C-2E are

valid. Further discussion of this question continues in Chapter Five.

Anticipated Findings for Question Two

•Advocacy Literature Time Era 1: 1985-2002

•Advocacy Literature Time Era 2: 2002-2010

•Policy Formation Time Era 3: 1987-2002

•Policy Formation Time Era 4: 2002-2010

Hypotheses:

2a: The volume (number of pages) and frequency (how often) of P-16 national

policy advocacy literature is greater in Time Era 1 and less in Time Era 2.

2b: The volume (size and number of pages) and frequency (how often) of P-16

state policy and legislation is greater in Time Era 4 and less in Time Era 3.

2c: If a state formulated P-16 policy (through legislation or state level policy) in

Time Era 3, then the language is influenced by the language of the advocacy

literature of Time Era 1.

2d: If a state formulated P-16 policy (through legislation or state level policy) in

Time Era 4, then the language is influenced by the language of the advocacy

literature of Time Era 2.

2e: If a state formulated P-16 policy (through legislation or state level policy) in

Time Era 4, then the language is also influenced by the language of state level

policy/legislation in time Era 3.

Summary

In summary, this study employed policy discourse analysis as a methodology

and utilized the qualitative software program NVivo8 as the means to explore and

examine constructs and context of the language of P-16 policy. This study focused on

investigating the historical transformation of discourse over the lifetime of P-16 policy

advocacy and formation. A priori coding schemes were based upon previous literature

reviews and theoretical foundations found in Chapter Two. Two hundred and eightyseven

documents were found and coded on a sentence-by-sentence basis. In the next chapter,

findings from analysis are presented.

CHAPTER FOUR FINDINGS PART ONE

Introduction

This study examined the shift of discourses of P-16 through the examination of

language of both policy advocacy literature and policy formation documents. A

multitheoretical framework was developed in order to set the context for the analysis.

This theoretical framework involves three primary perspectives: (1) sociological

framework; (2) organizational framework; and (3) economic framework. In this chapter,

the results and findings from this analysis are explored and answers to the previously laid

out research questions are expounded upon. These questions are:

Question One: Do the dominant discourses within the P-16 national policy advocacy

literature and the P-16 state level policy and legislative documents vary by era of

time?

Question Two: What are the relationships between time eras of P-16 and the

influence of P-16 national policy advocacy literature and P-16 policy formation

(represented by state level policy and legislation)?

A. What are the volume and frequency of P-16 literature and policy over

time?

B. Do the discourses of P-16 national policy advocacy literature and P-16

policy formation have influence on each other?

This chapter responds to each question and its corresponding hypotheses in

sequence. A synopsis of findings is presented at the end of the chapter. A discussion of

analysis and implications follows in Chapter Six.

Question One Findings

Question One: Do the dominant discourses within the P-16 national policy advocacy

literature and the P-16 state level policy and legislative documents vary by era of

time?

In order to examine the relationships between time, policy advocacy, and policy

formation, several steps were taken. In the first step, a meta-matrix which lays out both

time and type of policy document (advocacy vs. formation) was developed. This process

made possible the development of a timeline of frequencies of pre-established discourses

within the policy documents. In addition, a mapping of the existence of documents was

undertaken.

The P-16 advocacy documents sampled to represent this category were

predominantly found to be published during the five year span from 1999-2003. 65% of

the sampled advocacy documents were published during this five year span (see Graph

4.1). In contrast, the five year span that encompasses the greatest number of policy

formation documents is 2005-2009. Fifty-one percent of the policy formation documents

were dated during this time period (see Graph 4.2). This finding is expected because the

literature review indicated that policy advocacy leads to policy formation, with a lag time

between them. Thus, it is found that the period of greatest P-16 policy formation is about

2 years behind the period of greatest P-16 policy advocacy.

Graph 4.1

P-16 Sampled Policy Advocacy Documents

Graph 4.2

Total P-16 Policy Formation Documents

The next step in the analyses involved the mapping of coded discourses over the

twenty-five year time span. Two maps were developed- one for policy advocacy

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Number of Advocacy Documents (n=17)

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Total Policy Formation Documents (n = 270)

documents and one for policy formation documents. These maps show the comparison of

the three discourses, sociological, organizational, and economic, that occur in the P-16

policy formation and advocacy documents. As described in Chapter Three, discursive

depths were found by using a meta-matrix (see Appendix F for example) and determining

whether a code exists in the document. If it did, regardless of how much it exists, it was

labeled 1. There are nine potential discourses found in each discourse category. Thus,

nine sociological discourses, nine economic discourses, and nine organizational

discourses were examined. It follows then that each document has a potential score of 0-9

in each of three measured discourses. Average annual discourses were taken for the policy

formation documents to portray the annual trends. Graph 4.3 (P-16 Policy Advocacy

Documents Average Annual Discourses) demonstrates the average discourses found in the

P-16 advocacy formation documents in each year, from 1985- 2010. Graph 4.4 (P-16

Policy Formation Documents Average Annual Discourses) demonstrates the average

annual discourses found in the P-16 policy formation documents, from 1987- 2010. A

more detailed examination of data points follows below in response to the predetermined

hypotheses.

Graph 4.3

P-16 Policy Advocacy Documents Average Annual Discourses

Graph 4.4a

P-16 Policy Formation Documents Average Annual Sociological Discourses

Graph 4.4b

P-16 Policy Formation Documents Average Annual Economic Discourses

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

SOCIOLOGICAL

Graph 4.4c

P-16 Policy Formation Documents Average Annual Organizational Discourses

Graph 4.4

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

ECONOMIC

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

ORGANIZATIONAL

P-16 Policy Formation Documents Average Annual Discourses

Analysis of coding of the P-16 documents found that an important distinction

between the discourses of P-16 policy advocacy and that of P-16 policy formation

emerged. In each of the advocacy documents sampled, all three expected discourses

(sociological, economic, and organizational discourses) were present at some level.

However, the policy formation documents differed greatly in terms of their discursive

levels. It was found that most in the policy formation documents (98%) had

organizational discourses. This is not surprising because policy and legislative formation

documents are geared to the development and establishment of policy. Organizational

discourses often speak to a practical set of discourses which explore the set of actions or

plans for the establishment of a program or policy.

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

SOCIOLOGICAL ORGANIZATIONAL ECONOMIC

Economic discourses were found in 80% of the policy formation documents.

Although this represents a vast majority of documents, it was still surprising that

economic discourses did not appear in more of the formation documents. Although

strong levels of economic discourses were not expected in all documents over the

twentyfive year time frame, based on the presence of economic discourses throughout the

historic span of advocacy literature, it was expected that some level economic discourse

would be present in all documents.

In another surprising finding, only 39% of the policy formation documents had

any sociological discourses. This was unexpected, as sociological discourses remained

prevalent throughout the advocacy documents and it was expected that more sociological

discourses would be found.

Question One Hypotheses

Hypothesis 1a

Hypothesis 1a: If the national policy advocacy documents have a published date during

Time Era 1 [1985-2002], then the dominant discourses are more likely to be focused on

sociological discourses than economic discourses.

Seventeen P-16 policy advocacy documents were purposively sampled for this

analysis. As previously stated, these documents were chosen based upon their impact on

P-16 based on citations in (1) other advocacy documents; (2) state level P-16 documents

(i.e. mission statements, information about state level P-16 programs); and (3) reports or

articles about P-16 program analyses. As expected, and as demonstrated in Graph 4.5 (P16

Advocacy Documents Sociological and Economic Average Annual Discourses), 55% of

the documents within the 1985-2002 (Era 1) time period were rated slightly higher on

sociological discourses than they were on economic discourses. A score of nine was the

highest rating given for any document‘s discourse level. In the given time frame, 55% of

the documents (n=11) rated HIGH (received a score of 7-9) on the sociological discourse

scale, while only 45% of the same documents rated HIGH on the economic discourse

scale. The linear trend lines in Graph 4.5 show the relative stability of the economic

discourses of the advocacy documents, with the trend line decreasing slightly over the

time period 1985 to 2002. However, the linear sociological trend line shows a definitive

decrease in sociological discourses over this time, starting in the HIGH range and ending

in the MOD discourse scale.

The unexpected finding of this time frame is that the economic discourses of the

earliest P-16 policy advocacy documents were more evident than they were expected to

be. Early policy advocacy documents utilized economic rationales within the discourses

nearly on parity with the amount of sociological discourses. In fact, economic discourses

remained a relatively steady presence throughout the P-16 policy advocacy documents

included in this study.

Graph 4.5

P-16 Advocacy Documents Sociological and Economic Average Annual Discourses

1985- 2010

Hypothesis 1b

Hypothesis 1b: If the national policy advocacy documents have a published date during

Time Era 2 [2003-2010], then the dominant discourses are more likely to be focused on

economic discourses than on sociological discourses.

As expected, 83% of the documents within the 2003-2010 time period (Time Era

2) were rated higher on economic discourses than they were on sociological discourses.

As before, a score of nine was the highest given rating in any one document‘s discourse

level. In the given time frame, 50% of the documents rated HIGH (7-9) on the economic

discourse scale, while the other 50% rated MOD (4-6) on the economic discourse scale.

In contrast, 67% of the documents rated MOD on the sociological discourse scale, the

highest score achieved during Time Era 2. The linear trend lines in Graph 4.5 show the

relative stability of the economic discourses of the advocacy documents, with the trend

1985 {n=1}

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1997

1998

1999 {n=2}

2000 {n=2}

2001 {n=2}

2002 {n=4}

=1}

2003 {

2004

2005 {n=1}

2006 {n=2}

2007

2008 {n=2}

2009

2010

Sociological Economic Linear (Sociological) Linear (Economic)

line decreasing slightly over the time period 2003 to 2010. However, the linear

sociological trend line shows a definitive decrease in sociological discourses over this

time, starting in the MOD range and ending in the LOW discourse scale.

Hypothesis 1c

Hypothesis 1c: The organizational discourses within national P-16 policy advocacy

literature have remained consistent throughout Time Eras 1 and 2 [1985-2010].

As expected based on the literature search of P-16 policy, the analysis

demonstrates a generally stable level of organizational discourse throughout 1985-2010

(Time Eras 1 and 2). As demonstrated in Graph 4.6 (P-16 Advocacy Documents Average

Annual Organizational Discourses), the sampled P-16 advocacy documents are most

likely to be rated HIGH on the organizational discourse scale. In the 1985-2010

timeframe, 76% rated HIGH on the organizational scale, with 100% of the average annual

organizational discourses scored at MOD or HIGH. The linear organizational trend line

shows an increasing trend of organizational discourse over time, with the trend line

showing an increase from the MOD scale of 6 over time to the HIGH scale of 9.

Graph 4.6

P-16 Advocacy Documents Average Annual Organizational Discourses 1985-2010

Hypothesis 1d

Hypothesis 1d: If the state level P-16 policy and legislation documents are created in

Time Era 3 [1987-2002], these documents will have dominant discourses that are more

likely to be focused on sociological discourses than economic discourses.

The expected outcome was not found for this hypothesis. In examining Time Era

3 [1987-2002], very few policy formation documents were found prior to 2000. From

1987- 1999, there were fifteen P-16 policy formation documents from 7 states. In

contrast, from 2000-2002, sixty-one P-16 policy formation documents from 12 states

were found. Average annual discourse levels for sociological and economic discourses

can be seen in Graph 4.7 (P-16 Policy Formation Documents Average Annual

Sociological and Economic Discourses 1987-2002).

Prior to 2000, the average levels of sociological discourse and economic discourse

in the P-16 policy formation documents are generally the same; i.e. NONE (no evidence

1985 {n=1}

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999 {n=2}

2000 {n=2}

2001 {n=2}

2002 {n=4}

2003 {

=1}

2004

2005 {n=1}

2006 {n=2}

2007

2008 {n=2}

2009

2010

Organizational Linear (Organizational)

of any sociological discourses in the document) or LOW (scored 1-3). The average annual

levels of sociological and economic discourses are LOW throughout Time Era 3 [1987-

2002], with no average discourse level score rising above a scaled score of 2.5 (out of 9)

in any year. A close look at individual documents reveals that all fifteen documents dated

prior to 2000 scored either LOW or NONE in economic and sociological discourses. A

slight increase of average annual economic discourses over sociological discourses can be

found in 1987. A detailed examination of the data points reveals three documents found in

1987 with no sociological discourses in any of them and only one had any economic

discourses with a low level score of 3.

However, in 1999, a trend emerges and the level of economic discourses begins to

outpace the level of sociological discourses in the P-16 policy formation documents. In

the years 2000-2002, the average annual levels of economic and sociological discourses

remain low, but steadily increasing. Examining the documents in these years in depth, it

is found that the documents are dominantly scored NONE or LOW in sociological

discourses (90% of the scores were either NONE or LOW). In contrast, while the

documents are also primarily scored LOW or NONE in economic discourses (77% of

documents scored LOW or NONE), more economic discourses are starting to emerge-

10% scored HIGH on the economic discourse scale and 13% had MOD scores. As seen in

Graph 4.7, from 1999-2002 economic discourses are generally scaled twice as much as

sociological discourses.

Graph 4.7a

P-16 Policy Formation Documents

Average Annual Sociological Discourses 1987-2002

Graph 4.7b

P-16 Policy Formation Documents Average Annual Economic Discourses 1987-2002

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

SOCIOLOGICAL

Graph 4.7

P-16 Policy Formation Documents Average Annual Sociological and Economic

Discourses 1987-2002

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

ECONOMIC

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

SOCIOLOGICAL ECONOMIC

Hypothesis 1e

Hypothesis 1e: If the state level P-16 policy and legislation documents are created in

Time Era 4 [2003-2010], these documents will have dominant discourses that are more

likely to be focused on economic discourses than sociological discourses.

In Time Era 4, Hypothesis 1e is upheld. As Graph 4.8 (P-16 Policy Formation

Documents Annual Average Sociological and Economic Discourses 2003-2010) shows,

the P-16 policy formation documents are more likely to be focused on economic

discourses than they are on sociological discourses. There are 209 P-16 policy formation

documents dated 2003-2010 from thirty-nine of the fifty United States. During this time

period, the average annual coded score of the formation documents is generally two

scaled points higher in economic discourses than it is in sociological discourses

throughout this time period. The average annual levels of discourse remain relatively

steady over this seven year period. The average annual economic discourse level is MOD

throughout this time, fluctuating between a score of 3 and 4.5, with a very slight trend up

over time. The average annual sociological discourse continues its steady LOW course,

with scores between 1.5 and 2.8, again with a slight trend up over time.

With closer examination of the data during this time period, another trend is

revealed. Over time, the documents become more likely to receive HIGH or MOD scores

in economic discourses. As previously noted, from 2000-2002, 23% of the documents had

HIGH or MOD scores. Over the next seven years, the P-16 policy formation documents

that scored HIGH or MOD ranged from 37% to 60%, with an overall 47% of the

documents with these scores. The linear economic discourse trend line shows a slight

increase in economic discourses over this time period, from 3.5 to nearly 4.5.

The documents of this time era are most likely to be scored LOW or NONE in

sociological discourses- 76% of the documents in this time era are scored thusly.

However, it is significant to note that the level of sociological discourse, while still low

overall, rose slightly over time. The linear sociological trend line shows this slight

increase over time, increasing about a half a point on the scale over this time period.

Graph 4.8

P-16 Policy Formation Documents

Annual Average Sociological and Economic Discourses 2003-2010

Hypothesis 1f

Hypothesis 1f: The discourses of organizational change within state level P-16 policy and

legislation documents have remained consistent throughout Time Eras 3 and 4

[19872010].

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

SOCIOLOGICAL ECONOMIC Linear (SOCIOLOGICAL) Linear (ECONOMIC)

The state level P-16 policy formation documents demonstrate a steady moderate

average annual level of organizational discourses from 1999-2010 (see Graph 4.9 P-16

Policy Formation Documents Average Annual Organizational Discourses 1987-2010).

Prior to 1999, there is fluctuation in the average annual levels of organizational

discourses, from LOW to MOD. This fluctuation may be due to the fact that only 15

documents are in this time span, thus each data point represents one or two document

scores, rather than the average of 9-35 document scores that are represented in later years.

From 2000-2010, the documents average annual organizational discourse scores remain

in the MOD range with a slight increase over time from a score of 3.23 in 2000 to 4.65 in

2010. The linear economic discourse trend line shows this slight increase in scaled score

discourse levels over this time period.

Graph 4.9

P-16 Policy Formation Documents Average Annual Organizational Discourses 1987-

2010

Summary

In this chapter, the findings from Research Question One and its

hypotheses are presented. Chapter Five presents findings from Research Question Two

and resulting hypotheses. This study has found that the discourses of P-16 policy

advocacy and formation documents have shifted over time. The evidence collected shows

that the discourse shifts are more clearly seen after the late 1990s when more documents

are available for study. Although P-16 clearly got its start in the late 1980s, there were not

enough documents for study until approximately 1998/1999. However, from 19982010,

the hypotheses generally find empirical support and the shift from more sociological

discourse to more economic rationales discourse is evident over time. It also appears that

the organizational discourses generally remain steady and stable during this

time frame.

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

ORGANIZATIONAL Linear (ORGANIZATIONAL)

CHAPTER FIVE

FINDINGS PART TWO

Question Two Findings

Question Two: What are the relationships between time eras of P-16 and the

influence of P-16 national policy advocacy literature and P-16 policy formation

(represented by state level policy and legislation)?

A. What are the volume and frequency of P-16 policy advocacy documents

over time?

B. What are the volume and frequency of P-16 policy formation documents

over time?

C. Do the discourses of P-16 national policy advocacy literature and P-16

policy formation have influence on each other?

The examination of relationships between time, policy advocacy, and policy

formation aims to explore how and when states become a part of the P-16 world. This

research uses official policy language to determine what is happening in policy formation

and when it is happening in relationship to policy advocacy. The first part of this question

gathers some background information on P-16 in the fifty United States through some

basic frequencies and mapping of information. The second part (part B) provides an in

depth historical policy discourse analysis of P-16 policy advocacy and formation

documents.

Question Two Hypotheses

Hypothesis 2a

Hypothesis 2a: The volume (number of pages) and frequency (how often) of P-16

national policy advocacy literature is greater in Time Era 1 and less in Time Era 2.

There are seventeen total P-16 policy advocacy documents sampled for this study.

The frequency and volume of the sampled national policy advocacy literature, as shown

in Table 5.1, are greater in Time Era 1 [1985-2002] than they are in Time Era 2

[20032010]. There are eleven total sampled advocacy documents published between 1985

and 2002. These eleven documents have a total of 195 pages, with documents ranging

from 2 to 68 pages long. There are six total sampled advocacy documents published

between 2003 and 2010. These six documents have a total of 144 pages, with documents

ranging from 5 pages to 68 pages long. However, the average page number per document

is greater in Time Era 2 than it is in Time Era 1. The average number of pages per

document in Time Era 2 is 24 pages/ document, while the average in Time Era 1 is 18

pages/ document. Thus, as expected, the volume and frequency of P-16 policy advocacy

are greater in earlier years of the history of P-16 (Time Era 1) than they are in the later

years (Time Era 2).

It should be noted that although there appears to be a great gap in the advocacy

literature between 1985 and 1999, this is not the case. It appears that there was no

advocacy for P-16 in the years 1986-1998. However, this is due to the sampling

procedure for the advocacy documents. Not all P-16 advocacy documents were selected

to be included in this study. The criteria for sampling advocacy documents required that

the most prevalently cited or quoted advocacy documents are included in the sample.

Thus, the seventeen chosen documents were sampled. These documents were cited in

both subsequent P-16 advocacy and on the P-16 state level websites as sources of P-16

information. There was P-16 advocacy during this ―gap‖, but it did not fit within the

sampling criteria of this particular study.

Table 5.1

Sampled Advocacy Documents- By Year

YEAR # ADVOCACY

DOCUMENTS

PAGES of ADVOCACY

DOCUMENTS

1985 1 22

1987 0 0

1990 0 0

1991 0 0

1993 0 0

1994 0 0

1995 0 0

1996 0 0

1997 0 0

1998 0 0

1999 2 47

2000 2 14

2001 2 11

2002 4 101

2003 1 5

2004 0 0

2005 1 68

2006 2 50

2007 0 0

2008 2 21

2009 0 0

2010 0 0

TOTALS 17 339

Hypothesis 2b

Hypothesis 2b: The volume (number of pages) and frequency (how often) of P-16 state

policy and legislation is greater in Time Era 4 and less in Time Era 3.

There are 270 total P-16 policy formation documents collected for this study. The

frequency and volume of the sampled national policy advocacy literature, as shown in

Table 5.2, is greater in Time Era 4 [2003-2010] than it is in Time Era 3 [1987-2002].

There are 209 total P-16 policy formation documents published between 2003 and 2010.

These documents have a total of 1426 pages, with documents ranging from 1 to 90 pages

long. The average page length per document in Time Era 4 is 7 pages/ document. There

are 61 total P-16 policy formation documents published between 1985 and 2002. These

61 documents have a total of 172 pages, ranging from 1 to 23 pages long. The average

page number per document in Time Era 3 is 3 pages/ document. Based upon the

literature, it was expected that the volume and frequency of policy formation documents

would be greater in the later years of P-16 policy history.

Table 5.2

Policy Formation Documents

YEAR Total

Forma

tion

Docs

No. of

Policy

Docs

No.

Law

Docs

No. of

Other

Docs

Pages

Policy

Pages

Law

Pages

Other

Total

Page

1985 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1987 3 0 3 0 0 3 0 3

1990 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1

1991 2 0 2 0 0 3 0 3

1993 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 2

1994 1 0 1 0 0 5 0 5

1995 3 0 3 0 0 3 0 3

1996 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1997 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1

1998 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1999 2 0 2 0 0 15 0 15

2000 30 13 17 0 36 19 0 55

2001 10 7 2 1 exec

order

16 7 2 25

2002 21 7 14 0 34 28 0 62

2003 19 4 12 3 exec

order

10 32 7 49

2004 19 9 9 1 exec

order

92 10 2 104

2005 29 4 19 6 exec

order

8 65 12 85

2006 23 8 13 2 exec

order

122 72 4 198

2007 35 11 21 3 exec

order

170

102 11 283

2008 22 10 10 2 exec

order

262 22 5 289

2009 27 10 14 3 exec

order

172 114 8 294

2010 20 6 11 3 54 62 8 124

bylaws

TOTAL 270 89 157 24 976 566 59 1601

Hypothesis 2c

Hypothesis 2c: If a state formulated P-16 policy (through legislation or state level policy)

in Time Era 3 [1987-2002], then the language is changed by the language of the

advocacy literature of Time Era 1 [1985-2002].

The analysis of this hypothesis is divided into two time sections, 1987-1999 and

2000-2002. This is because during the 1987-1999, there were only fifteen laws passed in

seven states (Oregon, Texas, Maine, Colorado, North Carolina, Wyoming, and Indiana)

regarding P-16. In 2000-2002, there were a sixty-one policy formation documents, 27

were official state level policy documents from six states (Illinois, Indiana, New Jersey,

California, Florida, and Maryland), 33 were state laws from five states (Florida, Georgia,

Texas, Kentucky, and North Dakota), and 1 Governor‘s Executive Order (Iowa). The two

time periods are different in respect to development of P-16 because of the amount of

policy formation documents that were found during these time periods and thus warrant

two findings discussions.

1987-1998

In the first time section, 1987-1999, six states passed P-16 laws. These laws were

generally short in text- ranging from less than a page to seven pages in length. The laws

generated were focused on two subjects. The first is the coordination of state agencies

under one state authority. This authority may not have been named P-16 at the time, but

later became the P-16 agency (Wyoming) or the law developed into the P-16 laws of that

state (Texas). The second is the development of a P-16 council in order to study or

evaluate the process of developing a P-16 education system within the state. In this very

early time of P-16, rather than being heavily influenced by P-16 policy advocacy

language, states policy formation relied on general ideas put forth by Hodgkinson (1985),

but not actual discourses. In other words, the language within the Hodgkinson policy

report is not replicated or similar to the language within early policy formation. However,

the ―idea of P-16‖ which included connecting the levels of education and developing

councils to create further policy is found. National Governors Association (www.nga.org)

meetings in the 1990s where discussions were held on P-16 concepts, as well as state and

local level voluntary and Governor led efforts in states such as Georgia, Texas, and

Oregon also likely influenced the early development of P-16 initiatives during this time

period.

These early P-16 laws were beginning efforts for creating a coordinated education

system. Language examples are included here in order to provide the reader with clarity

as to discourses represented within the P-16 policy formation documents. The language

examples provided here demonstrate the types of ―development of programs or systems‖

that is found in this early time frame. Discourses refer to connecting of systems,

coordinating activities and elements within the system, and developing plans for further

alignment. Examples include:

― (1) The State Board of Higher Education [,] and the State Board of

Education [and the Oregon Educational Coordinating Commission] shall hold at

least one meeting annually for the purpose of coordinating their activities and

facilitating the solution of problems of mutual concern.‖

―The State Board of Education and the Texas Higher Education

Coordinating Board, in conjunction with other appropriate agencies, shall ensure

that long-range plans and educational programs established by each board

provide a comprehensive education for the students of this state under the

jurisdiction of that board, extending from early childhood education through

postgraduate study.‖

The creation of P-16 councils (under various names) was also prominent in the P-

16 laws of 1987-1999. Language of P-16 council creation examples include:

―The Education Cabinet is created. The Education Cabinet shall be

located administratively within, and shall exercise its powers within existing

resources of, the Office of the Governor. However, the Education Cabinet shall

exercise its statutory powers independently of the Office of the Governor.‖

―The Education Roundtable is established.‖

Other language clarifies the intent of the P-16 councils, their membership and

leadership, and meetings information (how often, where, who attends), as well as

allocation of funds information for P-16 council operations. Thus, the findings are that

during the time period 1985-1999, P-16 policy advocacy documents sampled for this

study do not influence the state‘s policy formation in a measurable or observable way.

1999-2002

In the second time period, 2000-2002, eleven states had policy formation

documents. Of the sixty-one documents, 54% were laws and 46% were policy (including

one executive order). Overall, these documents varied in length, from one to sixty-eight

pages long, however the policies average 4 pages/ documents while laws average 1.7

pages/ document. During this time frame, the emergence of some influence of advocacy

language on policy formation begins.

P-16 Policy Advocacy Dominant Discourses 1999-2002

In the P-16 policy advocacy literature published between 1999 and 2002, strong

discourses are apparent (see Table 5.3 Dominant Discourses Advocacy vs. Formation

1999-2002). In these ten documents, the three dominant economic discourses are

accountability, achievement, and college preparation/ readiness. These three discourses

appear in 100% of the advocacy documents of this time period.

Table 5.3

Dominant Discourses Advocacy vs. Formation 1999-2002

DOMINANT

DISCOURSES

#1 D

#2 D

# 3 D

1999-2002

Accountability Achievement College Preparation

2000-2002

Accountability Achievement Efficient

1999-2002

Pipeline Access High Quality

Education

2000-2002

Equity Pipeline Access and

High Quality

Education

1999-2002

Alignment Boundary Goals

2000-2002

Evaluation of

Programs

Alignment Organization

As previously mentioned, language examples are included here in order to provide

the reader with clarity as to discourses represented within the P-16 policy advocacy

documents. These examples are given to demonstrate how the sentences were coded as

types of discourses. Discourse examples (sample sentences) from the advocacy

documents from1999-2002 are provided. Each sentence is quoted in full. Then, in order

to demonstrate how the sentence was coded either a portion of the sentence is bolded or

an explanation from the researcher follows in bold.

*Accountability in Advocacy Documents 1999-2002

―Today, national standards, in national tests, as well as state testing programs

are on the front burner and equity issues get less attention than in the past.‖

―Currently, K-12 and postsecondary institutions move in different orbits,

upholding different sets of standards regarding what students should know and

be able to do.”

―Regardless of the type of system a state or local community chooses, it is

important to note that the goal is the same: to create a system of education that

begins in early childhood and ends after college, and promotes access, standards,

accountability and lifelong learning.‖

―This roundtable focused on the need for stringent accountability systems

linked to standards, and on system reform in place of remediating students after-

the-fact on postsecondary campuses‖

*Achievement in Advocacy Documents 1999-2002

―It is important to keep both quality and equality in mind, as we need a set of

equity/ linkages that will help reduce the effects of economic and social

differences, and a set of content-based linkages that will smooth students' passage

through the system and allow them to achieve at the highest levels they are

capable of.‖

―A system of incentives could be used to encourage and reward student

achievement and parent involvement along the P-16 path.‖

―Math achievement in the 8th grade clears the way for students to take

advanced classes in high school.‖

―K–12, for example, might be held accountable not only for improving student

achievement and closing gaps between groups, but also for assuring that all of its

secondary teachers have deep and substantial knowledge in the subject areas they

are teaching.‖

*College Preparation/Readiness in Advocacy Documents 1999-2002

―Uninformed students are likely to miss taking important academic courses,

almost ensuring that they will be inadequately prepared for postsecondary

work.”

―This idea has major implications for community colleges and other

postsecondary institutions and raises a basic question: What does it mean to be at

an academic level appropriate to begin college?‖

―The goal is to increase the chances that high school graduates will be

wellprepared for college-level work and can move smoothly to the next level

without requiring remediation.‖

―Finally, the lack of early and high-quality college counseling for all, combined

with widespread ―senioritis‖ in the final year, mean that many students are

poorly prepared for college.‖

The three strongest sociological discourses are pipeline, access, and high quality

education, appearing in 90%, 80% and 80% of the advocacy documents, respectively. As

previously noted, discourse examples (sample sentences) from the advocacy documents

from1999-2002 are provided. Each sentence is quoted in full. Then, in order to

demonstrate how the sentence was coded either a portion of the sentence is bolded or an

explanation from the researcher follows in bold. Examples of these sociological

discourses in the 1999-2002 policy advocacy documents follow.

*Pipeline in Advocacy Documents 1999-2002

―K-16, so far, is an idea: education should be a seamless web from

kindergarten to college graduation.”

―The shorthand term for such initiatives, P-16, reflects the central vision of a

coherent, flexible continuum of public education that stretches from preschool

to grade 16, culminating in a baccalaureate degree.‖

*Access in Advocacy Documents 1999-2002

―All children will have access to high-quality and developmentally appropriate

preschool programs that help prepare children for school.‖

―New technologies may mean the end of distance as a barrier, and allow states

to reformulate the goal of providing access.‖

―In response to this dramatic change and other developments, communities and

states across the country are looking for ways to improve student achievement,

access to and success in higher education.‖

―Expanding access to early learning for children ages 3 to 5, and improving

their readiness for kindergarten.‖

*High Quality Education in Advocacy Documents 1999-2002

―Children who attend a quality preschool program experience higher rates of

graduation and enrollment in postsecondary institutions, as well as lower rates of

grade retention, fewer special education placements, fewer dropouts and teenage

pregnancies, and higher employment rates as teens and young adults.‖

―Provides access to high-quality education opportunities for all students

regardless of race, ethnicity, income or gender…thereby preparing all learners to

be successful as citizens and workers.‖

―High-quality, easily accessible programs: Services for young children that are

available inequitably and that further segregate children by income do not

characterize any public service in this nation, and they should not characterize

those services for our youngest and most vulnerable citizens.‖

The three dominant organizational discourses found in the 1999-2002 policy

advocacy literature are alignment, boundary, and collaboration, appearing in 100%,

100%, and 90% of the documents, respectively. Language examples of these

organizational discourses in the 1999-2002 policy advocacy documents are included here

in order to demonstrate the types of discourses represented within the P-16 policy

advocacy documents. Discourse examples (sample sentences) from the advocacy

documents from1999-2002 are provided. Each sentence is quoted in full and either a

portion of the sentence is bolded to demonstrate why this sentence was coded the way it

was.

*Alignment in Advocacy Documents 1999-2002

―No faculty member in higher education ever got tenure because of a concern

for the linkage of higher education with ‘lower education’."

―Aligning these different standards and then providing all students hoping to

attend postsecondary institutions with the information and academic skills they

need to succeed would represent enormous leaps forward, especially during this

time of declining affirmative action admissions‖

―Putting together a comprehensive bill requires recognition of the crucial

interconnectedness of the various components of a P-16 system.‖

―Here are a few of the reasons that it is crucial to work toward a fully aligned

system.‖

*Boundary in Advocacy Documents 1999-2002

―There are some new jurisdictional issues as well.‖

―Guarantee permeable boundaries between schools and colleges that ensure all

advanced high school students have the opportunity to pursue college-level

instruction at their school or local college.‖

―American education has long been characterized by a profound disjuncture

between K-12 and postsecondary education—two systems that often act

independently and at cross-purposes from one another.‖

―Other options include sponsoring a policy audit to identify various

opportunities and barriers, or establishing an advisory body to help build the P16

vision and sell the idea.‖

*Collaboration in Advocacy Documents 1999-2002

―Attempts at collaboration usually fail against segmentation unless there is

some kind of broad-based institutional effort.‖

―In many states the voluntary and cooperative relationship between state boards

of education and higher education systems is seen as the success behind their

effort.‖

―The earliest efforts at cross-system collaboration tended to be piecemeal; that

is, they focused on a portion of the P-16 continuum, such as teacher education or

high school exit standards and college admission requirements, and did not

attempt to create a full-fledged seamless education system.‖

―A P-16 system seeks to improve student flow and raise student achievement

through collaboration and coordination across all education levels.‖

P-16 Policy Formation Dominant Discourses 1999-2002

If the advocacy discourses are influential, it would be expected, based on the

literature, that policy formation documents would have the same dominant discourses in

their text. In exploring the dominant discourses of P-16 policy formation literature

published in 2000-2002, it is apparent that in the comparison of all three discourse

categories, it is found that the discourses found within advocacy documents are also

primarily the same discourses found in the formation documents.

The top three dominant economic discourses of the policy formation literature are

accountability (79%), student achievement (39%), and efficient (27%). In contrast,

college readiness, in only 18% of the policy formation documents, is not considered a

primary economic discourse during the 2000-2002 timeframe. Discourse examples

(sample sentences) from the P-16 policy formation documents from1999-2002 are

provided. Each sentence is quoted in full and in order to demonstrate how the sentence

was coded, either a portion of the sentence is bolded or an explanation from the

researcher follows in bold.

*Accountability in Policy Formation Documents 1999-2002

―Contribute to the development of an assessment system that links student

learning in schools to higher education admissions and placement processes in a

manner that provides students and parents with a consistent message as to the

importance of mastering State Board of Education standards;‖

―7)’Sunshine State Standards’ are standards that identify what public school students

should know and be able to do‖

―Enabling students to meet high standards‖

―The Alignment Commission shall develop and agree upon common standards

for all core curriculum courses taught by P-16 educators in the state.‖

*Achievement in Policy Formation Documents 1999-2002

‗Publish and make presentations on Achievement in California that contains a

comprehensive picture of the current situation in terms of the performance of

students across multiple educational levels in order to inform the development of

policy and programs;‖

―During the second meeting, the staff team reached a similar conclusion about

progress in Illinois, but also determined that the current P-16 initiative is neither

comprehensive nor bold enough to adequately address issues of student

achievement and teacher quality.57‖

―WHEREAS, meaningful improvement in student achievement at all

educational levels requires leadership that promotes and facilitates improvements

from kindergarten through college graduation;‖

―Given New Jersey‘s growing number of immigrants and minorities and the

increasing importance of a college degree in our high-tech economy, EOF must

build on this success to help more students overcome disadvantaged backgrounds

to succeed in college and achieve their educational goals.‖

*Efficient in Policy Formation Documents 1999-2002

―Develop a plan for a comprehensive and coherent system that efficiently uses

State, institutional, and private resources in a collaborative manner to facilitate

access by students, families, and educators on preparing and applying for higher

education;‖

―WHEREAS, our traditional educational system can sometimes lead to

inefficiencies including; inconsistent admission criteria; service duplication;

inefficient funding strategies; and delayed responses to critical state needs;‖

―New Jersey‘s community colleges strive to provide a convenient and efficient

transfer route for baccalaureate seekers, reducing overall tuition outlays.62‖

When comparing the P-16 advocacy documents to the policy formation

documents of the 1999-2002 time-period, it was found that the dominant sociological

discourses of the policy formation documents are the same as those for advocacy

documents. The primary sociological discourses of the policy formation documents are

equity (28%), pipeline (18%), and access and high quality education (13% each). While

pipeline, access, and high quality education appear in both lists of dominant discourses,

equity is not among the top three discourses for advocacy documents. Nevertheless, it is

a critical discourse within the advocacy documents of this time period, appearing in 80%

of them. Examples of the discourses found within the policy formation documents of this

time period are found below. As previously noted, the sentences below are direct quotes

from policy formation documents (1999-2202) and then are bolded to demonstrate how

they would be coded as such.

*Equity in Policy Formation Documents 1999-2002

―The outcome of this collaboration is to develop a coherent, high quality

educational experience for each and every learner - kindergarten through

postgraduate programs.‖

―(3) PURPOSE.--The purpose of the Florida K-20 Education Code is to

provide by law for a state system of schools, courses, classes, and educational

institutions and services adequate to allow, for all Florida's students, the

opportunity to obtain a high quality education.‖

―The institutions are expanding their capacity to meet increasing enrollment and

needs, enhancing flexibility to serve students effectively through nontraditional

means, and strengthening parity among all minority groups in respect to

enrollment, academic performance, faculty retention, and graduation rates.‖

*Pipeline in Advocacy Documents 1999-2002

―Despite the need for increased educational attainment by all students, the

pipeline is leaking badly;‖

―12) To establish a Citizen Information Center responsible for the preparation,

publication, and distribution of materials relating to the state system of seamless

K-20 public education‖

―To achieve within existing resources true systemic change in education

governance by establishing a seamless academic educational system that fosters

an integrated continuum of kindergarten through graduate school education for

Florida's citizens.‖

*Access in Policy Formation Documents 1999-2002

―The report must specify, for each limited-access program within each

institution, the following categories, by race and gender:‖

―Providing all children and youth in Georgia with access to a quality program

which supports their development of essential competencies in order that they may

realize their potential;‖

―Every student must have access to and take course content that is rigorous and

relevant.‖

―As colleges and universities strive to provide both access and success for all

potential students, government support for institutions is crucial.‖

*High Quality Education in Policy Formation Documents 1999-2002

―3) PURPOSE.--The purpose of the Florida K-20 Education Code is to provide

by law for a state system of schools, courses, classes, and educational institutions

and services adequate to allow, for all Florida's students, the opportunity to

obtain a high quality education.‖

―WHEREAS, the Partnership focuses on providing to Maryland students a

seamless path of high quality academic opportunity from pre-kindergarten

through college and beyond‖

―New Jersey‘s system of higher education aspires to be among the best in the

world, embracing excellence, access, and affordability.‖

Finally, in comparing the organizational discourses, there is only one that is

dominant in both policy advocacy and formation documents. Alignment is in 100% of the

advocacy documents, but in 49% of the policy formation documents of this time frame.

The other two primary discourses that appear in the policy formation documents appear

to be related to creation of programs. The first, evaluation of programs (in 61% of the

documents), is coded language which refers to P-16 councils evaluating the work of

education organizations in the state or evaluating their own work. The second,

organization (44%), is language which refers to governance, reorganization, and

restructuring. As previously mentioned, examples of each of the dominant organizational

discourses of the policy formation documents of the 1999-2000 time-period are provided

in order to demonstrate the types of language within each primary discourse. These

examples are quoted directly from policy formation documents (in italics) and then are

bolded to emphasize why this sentence was coded as such.

*Alignment in Policy Formation Documents 1999-2002

―c) Alignment of standards and resources.--Academic standards for every level

of the K-20 education system are aligned, and education financial resources are

aligned with student performance expectations at each level of the K-20 education

system.‖

―Strategic Imperative 5: Setting and Aligning Academic Standards at Every

Level of the K-20 Education System‖

―Matches high school graduation and college admission requirements (seek

changes in legislation, if necessary, as early as next spring);‖

―A local P-16 council shall promote the preparation and development of

teachers, the alignment of competency standards, and the elimination of barriers

that impede student transition from preschool through baccalaureate programs.‖

*Evaluation of Programs in Policy Formation Documents 1999-2002

―The Governor, as chairperson of the council, may appoint such study

commissions as he or she shall deem appropriate to the purposes of this chapter

to study education questions, issue findings, and make recommendations to the

council.‖

―(a) Before June 30, 2000, the Indiana state board of education (as defined in

IC 20-10.1-1-17) shall obtain an independent evaluation of all state education

programs and policies for the purpose of:‖

*Organization in Policy Formation Documents 1999-2002

―The State Board of Community Colleges is abolished.‖

―(b) The member agencies of the council and other departments, boards, and

offices of this state shall cooperate fully with the office and shall provide the

office with all information that the council deems necessary for the office to

discharge its accountability duties under this article regarding the education

programs and units governed by such member agencies or other departments,

boards, or offices.‖

―This Memorandum of Understanding defines the individual and joint

obligations of the Maryland State department of Education (MSDE), the

Maryland Higher Education Commission (MHEC) and the University System

of Maryland (USM), the primary partners, for the full implementation of the

Maryland Partnership for Teaching and Learning K-16 as reflected in the vision

statement, mission statement, and the commitments set forth below‖

Policy Discourse Analysis of Influence 1999-2002

From 1999-2002, it is clear that the dominant sociological and economic

discourses are generally the same from P-16 advocacy documents to P-16 policy

formation documents. However, it is not as clear when looking at the dominant

organizational discourses that there is a policy advocacy to policy formation connection.

This study‘s analysis goes to a second level to explore the discourses within the

documents through policy discourse analysis to see if the same themes or discourses

emerge. This analysis found evidence that themes that emerged in P-16 policy advocacy

documents were also present in P-16 policy formation documents during the 1999-2002

time period. This analysis goes beyond the ―counting of codes‖ to determine what

underlying themes emerged during the coding process. For this section, several examples

of analysis are provided to demonstrate the policy discourse analysis process and the

outcomes from the process.

For example, in the economic discourses, achievement is a dominant discourse in

both advocacy and formation documents (1999-2002). In a closer examination of the

discourses that were coded achievement, a key theme emerged. This theme refers to

increasing achievement of students in the state education system through several means,

including increasing high school graduation rates, increasing college completion rates,

and increasing the access to higher level courses throughout their educational career. As

This quote from the 2001 policy report, What is P-16 Education?: A Primer for

Legislators (Van de Water and Rainwater 2001), is an example of this type of discourse

within the P-16 policy advocacy literature of this time.

―Imagine a system of education where every child enters school ready to learn,

where all third graders read at or above grade level, where all students have taken

algebra by the end of the 8th grade, where high school exit exams test students at

the 12th-grade level and are aligned with college admissions requirements, where

all young people graduate from high school prepared for college or work, and

where every student who enters college finishes college.‖

Through policy discourse analysis, it was found that during 1999-2002, states

were using similar language to describe student achievement and to develop policy. Two

examples are provided here. These are not the only examples of this type of discourse, but

are provided here as examples of what the economic discourse of achievement is during

this time frame. The first example is from a 2002 Florida Law (1000.03).

―(a) Learning and completion at all levels, including increased high school

graduation rate and readiness for postsecondary education without remediation.-

All students demonstrate increased learning and completion at all levels, graduate

from high school, and are prepared to enter postsecondary education without

remediation.‖

The second example of state policy formation discourse which refers to

achievement is from the Illinois State Board of Education 2000 P-16 Plan.

―Build a safety and support net around every student to ensure they stay in

school and are successful in their educational and career endeavors.‖

Sociological discourses found in the 1999-2002 documents also had emerging

themes. As previously stated, the dominant sociological discourses were initially able to

be traced from advocacy to policy formation through the notation of what discourses

appeared most often. A closer examination of the sociological discourses found that there

is evidence of a connection between the discourses of P-16 advocacy and the discourses

of P-16 policy formation.

For example, access emerged as a key discourse of the P-16 advocacy documents

in 1999-2002. In an exploration of the discourses of these documents, it became clear that

within the access coded portions of the document, a theme emerged. This theme is that

education should do a better job of providing access to students, particularly in the areas

of access to postsecondary education and access to preschool education. Two

representative quotes are provided here. The first is from the 1985 policy report, All One

System (Hodgkinson 1985). The second is from the 2001 policy report, What is P-16

Education?: A Primer for Legislators (Van de Water and Rainwater 2001).

―On the second criterion, we undoubtedly have a long way to go, although

access to the best institution can be improved by better institutional publicity at

the college level so that the student knows what the institution expects, plus,

better guidance from secondary schools and employers, so that the student's

aspirations are realistic and clear.‖

―Expanding access to early learning for children ages 3 to 5, and improving

their readiness for kindergarten‖

Then in P-16 policy formation documents of the 1999-2002 time period, the same

discourses are found which promote the increase of access to both college and preschool

for students in the state. Two examples are provided here. The first is from the Governor

of Iowa‘s 2001 Executive Order:

―Potential topical issues that the Roundtable may consider can include, but shall

not be limited to: Expanding access to early learning opportunities; smoothing

student transitions between learning levels and across learning sectors; closing

the achievement gap between students of different backgrounds; upgrading

teacher education and professional development; strengthening relationships

between families/communities and schools; creating a wider range if learning

opportunities and experiences for students in the final two years of their

secondary education; improving and streamlining remedial services; coordinating

programming and curricula; and assessing employer needs within the state and

implementing those needs into a comprehensive educational policy.‖

And from Florida‘s 2002 K-20 policy, K-20 Strategic Plan:

―Increase Access to and Production of Baccalaureate, Master and Doctoral

Degrees‖

As previously discussed, using the dominant discourses as the sole basis of

analysis for determining the connection between discourses of policy advocacy and

policy formation revealed there were few obvious connections in the organizational

discourses. However, a closer examination of the discourses, through policy discourse

analysis, found that the same types of discourses are occurring in the 1999-2002 P-16

policy advocacy and policy formation. In an organizational discourse example, it was

found that boundary was a key coding category. The boundary discourses stress the

potential barriers between different agencies and ways to maneuver around them through

policy.

As an example of this type of discourse, this quote from the 2001 policy report,

What is P-16? A Primer for Legislators, is provided: ―One of the most challenging parts

of a P-16 system is getting legislators and education leaders from different systems to

think about early learning, elementary, secondary and postsecondary education as one

system instead of several.‖ (Van de Water and Rainwater 2001)

States utilized this organizational boundary discourse in their 1999-2002 P-16

policy formation documents. Two examples of the organizational boundary

discourse follow. The first is from Georgia Law (20-14-8 2000)

―(15) To mediate disputes among the Department of Education, the University

System of Georgia, the Department of Technical and Adult Education, the

Professional Standards Commission, the Office of School Readiness, and the

Office of Education Accountability in matters regarding accountability or

education system seamlessness.‖

A second example from Iowa 2001 Governor‘s Executive Order also uses this

boundary discourse to point out the difficulties that the current educational system

boundaries and barriers can create when developing a P-16 system.

―WHEREAS, the state‘s current educational system reflects a traditional

approach, wherein the structure of education delivery is divided into three distinct,

and somewhat disjointed levels: (1) early childhood; (2) kindergarten through

12th grade; and (3) post secondary, with each level being further divided into

public and private educational systems;‖

Thus, there is evidence that the discourses of P-16 advocacy documents have

influence on the discourses of P-16 policy formation documents in the time era

19992002.

Hypothesis 2d

Hypothesis 2d: If a state formulated P-16 policy (through legislation or state level policy)

in Time Era 4 [2003-2010], then the language will be changed by the language of the

advocacy literature of Time Era 2 [2003-2010].

In the time period 2003-2010, there are six national P-16 policy advocacy

documents sampled. During this same time period, 209 state level policy formation

documents were found. There are 62 state level official policy documents from

twentyfour states, 20 Governor‘s Executive Orders from twelve states, and 3 P-16 council

By Laws from Minnesota. Additionally, there are 109 state laws from twenty-four states.

Total number of pages per document ranges from one to sixty-eight. However, there is a

wide range in average number of pages by type of document- 2.5 pages/ document for

executive orders, 4.4 pages/ document for laws, and 14.3 pages/ document for policy.

During this time frame, as in the previous time frame, some influence of P-16 policy

advocacy discourses on policy formation discourses is evident.

Table 5.4

Dominant Discourses Advocacy vs. Formation 2003-2010

DOMINANT

DISCOURSES

#1 D

#2 D

# 3 D

2003-2010

Accountability Achievement College Preparation

and

Economic Growth

2003-2010

Accountability Achievement College Preparation

and

Workforce Preparation

2003-2010

Pipeline Citizenship Culture and

Equity

2003-2010

Equity Pipeline Access

2003-2010

Alignment and

Boundary

Communication and

Evaluation of

Programs

Goals and

Organization

2003-2010

Collaboration Alignment Allocation

In the P-16 policy advocacy literature published between 2003 and 2010, strong

discourses are apparent (see Table 5.4). In these six documents, four dominant economic

discourses emerge. They are accountability, achievement, college preparation/ readiness,

and economic growth. Each of these discourses occurs in 100% of the advocacy

documents of this time period. Examples of the discourses present (by coded category)

are presented below. In order to demonstrate how the coding of language was done each

sentence is quoted directly (in italics) and then a portion of the sentence is bolded in order

to emphasize why this sentence was coded as such.

P-16 Policy Advocacy Dominant Discourses 2003-2010

*Accountability in Advocacy Documents 2003-2010

―States need to connect their accountability systems to span K–12 and

postsecondary education.‖

―There are few accountability systems that track college readiness from

secondary to postsecondary education.‖

―For successful transitions, standards must be rigorous at all levels and must

prepare students to move through transitions smoothly.‖

*Achievement in Advocacy Documents 2003-2010

―Every state needs to increase the percentage of students who complete high

school and finish some form of postsecondary education; existing governance

structures and policies cannot meet this overwhelming need.‖

―There is widespread agreement among policymakers, the business community,

and educational leaders that the United States needs to raise the educational

achievement of its young population.‖

―P-16 – an integrated system of education designed to raise student

achievement at all levels, preschool through a baccalaureate degree – has gained

interest in many states because of its focus on collaboration, alignment and

educational attainment.‖

―Noble goals set forth for P-16 councils in enabling legislation or executive

orders — improving student achievement, improving postsecondary completion,

etc. — need to be distilled into actionable specifics.‖

*College Preparation/Readiness in Advocacy Documents 2003-2010

Despite their high aspirations, many students are not well prepared for college,

and too few complete their college programs.‖

Today, however, when the vast majority of high school students aspire to attend

college, states need policies that require K–12 and postsecondary education to

collaborate to improve the college readiness of all high school students.‖

―In place of a goal such as, ―Students will enter college ready to learn,‖ a goal

might state, ‗The postsecondary remediation rate in mathematics at four-year

public institutions will be reduced to 25% by 2016‘.‖

―It is necessary to consider innovation, real-world skills, and depth beyond

subject-specific skills in determining what students need to succeed in college

and the work force.‖

*Economic Growth in Advocacy Documents 2003-2010

―This challenge places the United States at a crossroads: we can improve

college readiness and completion rates and thereby prepare the workforce for the

economic and civic challenges of the next generation, or we can allow gaps in

educational achievement to undermine our competitive edge and our

communities’ economic prosperity.‖

―States that are successful in integrating precollegiate and higher education

share the presence of an external civic culture that stresses a belief that the two

levels must come together to improve the labor force and the economy.‖

The four dominant sociological discourses are pipeline, citizenship, culture and

equity, appearing in 100%, 83%, 67% and 67% of the advocacy documents, respectively.

Examples of the discourses of the policy advocacy documents from the 2003-2010

timeperiod follow and as previously noted, these examples are direct quotes from Policy

advocacy documents in italics and then bolded portions of the text to demonstrate how a

sentence would have been coded within the given category.

*Pipeline in Advocacy Documents 2003-2010

―States must create high-quality data systems that span the K–16 continuum.‖

―Leaks in the Pipeline‖

―It focuses on the interrelated nature of the education pipeline, an idea that

goes as far back as the 1980s.‖

―Many states have correctly perceived that they cannot improve the P-12 to

postsecondary pipeline if no early learning student data are collected.‖

*Citizenship in Advocacy Documents 2003-2010

―It must also produce students who are prepared to take their place in society

as active citizens.‖

―Or can the system be deemed successful if high school students who choose not

to enter postsecondary education are nevertheless productive members of society

and skilled laborers?‖

*Culture in Advocacy Documents 2003-2010

―The history of public education in the United States has several defining

moments in which economic, political, and cultural forces demanded a more

diverse and better informed student body.‖

―In addition, this report identifies the role of other factors— such as leadership

and state culture and history—in implementing and sustaining K–16 reforms

within states.‖

―Each state‘s responses to these challenges will be unique, tempered by

historical context, political culture, and the educational and other resources that

are available.‖

―States that are successful in integrating precollegiate and higher education

share the presence of an external civic culture that stresses a belief that the two

levels must come together to improve the labor force and the economy.‖ *Equity in

Advocacy Documents 2003-2010

―inequities in college preparation opportunities‖

―Today, however, when the vast majority of high school students aspire to attend

college, states need policies that require K–12 and postsecondary education to

collaborate to improve the college readiness of all high school students.‖

―Policymakers know the results of the current system – achievement gaps, low

participation rates and remediation.‖

Five organizational discourses emerge as dominant in the advocacy documents of

the 2003-2010 time-period. They are alignment, boundary, communication, evaluation of

programs, organization-each appearing in 100% of the documents. The discourses of

collaboration and P-16 council are also significant discourses in the policy advocacy

documents, with occurrences in 83% of the documents each. The following examples of

organizational discourse within policy advocacy documents are presented as direct quotes

(in italics) with bolded portions to demonstrate why the sentence was coded within the

given category.

*Alignment in Advocacy Documents 2003-2010

―For instance, in almost every state, high school students must meet coursework

requirements that are not connected to the requirements for college admission.

In those states that require course alignment, the secondary and postsecondary

sectors may find agreement in the number of math courses but not in the course

title or content of these courses.‖

―To reverse this course, we must connect high school and postsecondary

education standards, policies, and practices.‖

―This report identifies four state policy dimensions for improving college

readiness and success: the alignment of coursework and assessments; state

finance; statewide data systems; and accountability.‖

―P-16 – an integrated system of education designed to raise student achievement

at all levels, preschool through a baccalaureate degree – has gained interest in

many states because of its focus on collaboration, alignment and educational

attainment.‖

*Boundary in Advocacy Documents 2003-2010

―As research has documented, reforms that focus either on K–12 schools or on

colleges and universities are likely to perpetuate some of the key barriers to

improving educational achievement for students.‖

―Historically, the three levels of the modern American education system – early

learning, K-12 and postsecondary – have developed and operated independently

of each other, leading to a fractured and disjointed educational path for students

to follow.‖

―And conversely, K-12 and postsecondary leaders can learn from political

leaders the roadblocks their solutions may encounter, and ways to overcome

these roadblocks.‖

*Communication in Advocacy Documents 2003-2010

―We caution state education leaders that convening a commission and holding

cross-system discussions may be helpful, but are not sufficient for creating

meaningful and lasting K–16 reform.‖

―As P-16 has progressed in the states, a common language and understanding

of what it means has developed.‖

―Community and business voices, by contrast, are present to inform state

leaders of needs identified on-the-ground, assist in defining policy solutions to

address those needs, inform their constituencies of the council‘s activities while

seeking their buy-in or feedback, and to bring this feedback back to the council.‖

*Evaluation of Programs in Advocacy Documents 2003-2010

―Without such systems, it is impossible to assess needs effectively, understand

where the problems are, gain traction for changes needed, and evaluate reforms.”

―A robust statewide data system is needed to determine the effectiveness of

programs and reforms in improving student achievement.‖

―But assessing the impact of P-16 in most states is a difficult matter..‖

―To evaluate the effectiveness of a P-16 system, states need to develop

evaluation mechanisms that examine the system's goals, activities undertaken to

achieve those goals, performance indicators to determine whether or not the goals

have been achieved, and how the goals and activities should be revised.‖

*Organization in Advocacy Documents 2003-2010

―This report is based on findings from Partnerships for Student Success (PSS), a

four-state study that analyzed K–16 educational governance and policies at the

state level, such as organizational structures, leadership, finance, curricula and

assessment, accountability, and data systems.‖

―Currently, most states maintain separate legislative committee structures

governing K–12 and postsecondary education.‖

―Does a successful P-16 education system require a governance change?‖

P-16 Policy Formation Dominant Discourses 2003-2010

As noted above, if the advocacy discourses are influential, it would be expected,

based on the literature, that policy formation documents would have mostly the same

dominant discourses in their text. In the analyses of the dominant discourses of the P-16

policy formation literature published in 2003-2010, there is evidence of policy advocacy

documents influencing policy formation documents in all three discourse categories (see

Table 5.4 Dominant Discourses Advocacy vs. Formation 2003-2010). The dominant

economic discourses of the policy formation literature are accountability (65%), student

achievement (55%), and college readiness (44%). Economic growth, a significant

discourse in the advocacy literature is in 1/3 of the policy formation documents of this

time frame. Workforce preparation (42%) emerges as an important discourse in the policy

formation documents and is often used in tandem with college preparation in the

literature. This is reflected by the similar percentages of occurrence in the documents.

Examples from policy formation documents (2003-2010) are presented here with direct

quoted sentences in italics and a bolded portion which demonstrates why a sentence

would be coded within that category.

*Accountability in Policy Formation Documents 2003-2010

―WHEREAS, the strengths of a P-20 system are inclusion, alignment of effort,

support for standards and assessment, logical progressions for learners, reduced

need for remediation, removal of artificial barriers and opening the door to

building on previously successful partnerships and furthering such partnerships

on behalf of the State,‖

―With the exception of matters relating to the State University System, the State

Board of Education shall oversee the enforcement of all laws and rules, and the

timely provision of direction, resources, assistance, intervention when needed, and

strong incentives and disincentives to force accountability for results.‖

―GOAL 3: TRANSPARENT ACCOUNTABILITY - Increase transparency and

accountability in Idaho‘s public education system.‖

―The roundtable shall make recommendations to the state board for improving

the academic standards under IC 20-31-3.‖

―Public accountability for learning outcomes and stewardship of public funds

are priorities for Missouri‘s higher education institutions.‖

*Achievement in Policy Formation Documents 2003-2010

―Connecticut‘s future young workers are expected to be less prepared for the

21st century careers than those they are replacing in large part because nearly

half our future workforce will be coming out of the state‘s urban centers where a

significant and stubborn achievement gap persists.‖

―Provide leadership in the development, implementation, evaluation, and

revision of a comprehensive school counseling plan that contributes to school

renewal by promoting increased academic success, career preparedness, and

social/emotional development for all students.‖

―Mission: Ensure Higher Academic Achievement for All Students‖

―WHEREAS, a seamless, coherent state system of education is carried out best

by a formal structure that ensures improved student achievement at all levels

through more formalized and systemic communication and alignment between

Rhode Island‘s elementary, secondary and post secondary (―PK-16‖) education

systems and workforce development programs;‖

*College Preparation/Readiness in Policy Formation Documents 2003-2010

―The commissioner shall have unlimited access to such data solely for the

purposes of conducting studies, reporting annual and longitudinal student

outcomes, and improving college readiness and articulation.‖

―Furthers the goal of raising Maine‘s high school-to-college rate from 55% to

70%;‖

―The department shall ensure that the readiness assessment system is

aligned with state academic content and performance standards, college

placement tests and entry-level career skill requirements.‖

―Finally, high school students must be provided guidance and curricula that will

enable them to complete successfully their individual graduation plans, preparing

them for a seamless transition to relevant employment, further training, or

postsecondary study.‖

*Workforce Preparation in Policy Formation Documents 2003-2010

―To articulate a framework for systemic educational improvement and

innovation that will enable every student to meet or exceed Illinois learning

standards and be well-prepared to succeed in the workforce and community.‖

―An integrated high quality educational system that prepares Kansans for life

and work ”

―Maryland‘s business and education communities recognize the importance of

aligning education policies to the State‘s economic needs in order to better

prepare students for the job market and to allow the State to grow economically;‖

―One of the report‘s specific recommendations is to create a P-20 Council to

evaluate early learning, K-12, higher education and workforce preparation with

the goal of increasing accountability in our education system.‖

The primary sociological discourses of the policy formation documents during this

time frame are equity (36%), pipeline (33%), and access (29%). While pipeline and

equity appear in both lists of dominant discourses, access is not among the top three

discourses for advocacy documents. Nevertheless, it is a critical discourse within the

advocacy documents of this time period, appearing in 50% of them. Citizenship and

culture are critical discourses from the advocacy literature of this time period, but they do

not appear to be dominant in the policy formation documents, appearing in only 19% and

15% respectively. Examples of this language are provided below as a demonstration of

the types of primary discourses found in the policy formation documents of this time

frame. As before, the sentences are direct quotes from the policy formation documents

and with bolded portions to demonstrate why a sentence was coded within the given

category.

*Equity in Policy Formation Documents 2003-2010

―Eliminating the achievement gap between groups of students, especially those

gaps associated with socio-economic status and racial-ethnic background.‖

―Vision: Create a World-Class Education System for All Students in Louisiana

Mission: Ensure Higher Academic Achievement for All Students‖

―WHEREAS, all Nebraska students deserve a high quality of education‖

―They foresee a New York in which gaps in achievement have closed, and the

overall level of knowledge and skill among the people matches or exceeds the best

in the world.‖

*Pipeline in Policy Formation Documents 2003-2010

―The P-20 Council shall explore ways Arizona can achieve a more effective,

efficient and equitable education pipeline through some or all of the following

strategies‖

―To remain competitive in the 21st century, Connecticut must renew its efforts to

ensure a talent pipeline that must be all-inclusive, diverse, and operate as a

seamless continuum, encompassing the state‘s early childhood education efforts

at one end and world-class‖

―(a) The General Assembly finds that preparing Illinoisans for success in school

and the workplace requires a continuum of quality education from preschool

through graduate school.‖

―Increasingly, however, more and more people are calling for what is often

called a K-16, or P-16, perspective on education—a recognition that this is

155 ideally

‘all one system.’ ‖

*Access in Policy Formation Documents 2003-2010

―VISION: The State Board of Education envisions an accessible, seamless

public education system that results in a highly educated citizenry.‖

―What other post-secondary programs/offerings are available in Kansas (e.g.,

concurrent credit, developmental education)?‖

―That the goals of the P-16 Working Group shall be to increase access and

success at all education levels by regularly assessing educational

accomplishments, bridging curricula, increasing articulation, and sharing data,

including the development of a shared data system.‖

―Provide better pathways to higher education for low-income residents;‖

Finally, in the analyses of organizational discourses, it is clear that organizational

discourses are dominant throughout the advocacy documents, with six out of nine

discourses (alignment, boundary, communication, evaluation of programs, organization)

appearing in all advocacy documents, two more (collaboration and P-16 council)

appearing in 83% of the advocacy documents, and the last (allocation) in 67% of this time

-period. Thus, all nine organizational discourses are significant in the advocacy

documents in 2003-2010. Five organizational discourses in the policy formation

documents are significant- collaboration (64%), alignment (63%), allocation (62%),

communication (56%) and P-16 Council (50%). Examples of discourses found in the

policy formation documents are provided below. These sentences are direct quotes from

P-16 policy formation documents with bolded portions to explain why a sentence would

be in that coded category.

*Collaboration in Policy Formation Documents 2003-2010

―Whereas, the ARRA funds are also subject to increased accountability and

reporting responsibilities that will require all of the critical stakeholders in

education to collaborate in new ways;‖

―WHEREAS, growing 21st century talent is no longer the province of any single

agency, but necessarily involves multiple entities functioning in collaborative

ways with a unified purpose;‖

―WHEREAS, the Community College System and the University of Maine

System established a Coordinating Advisory Council in 2003 to increase

collaboration;‖

―Accomplishing these two related goals requires unprecedented collaboration

among parents, employers, elected leaders and educators.‖

*Alignment in Policy Formation Documents 2003-2010

―Recognize that the alignment of high-quality kindergarten with high-quality

preschool is critical to a successful P-20 system in the state of Colorado;164‖

―(c) Alignment of standards and resources.--Academic standards for every

level of the K-20 education system are aligned, and education financial resources

are aligned with student performance expectations at each level of the K-20

education system.‖

―Whereas the P-16 Plan calls for ensuring that Indiana‘s requirements for high

school graduation be aligned with the expectations of college and a

knowledgebased economy;‖

*Allocation in Policy Formation Documents 2003-2010

―This diversity contributes to the Council‘s success by increasing understanding

of issues and barriers for all stakeholders, by maintaining communication across

agencies and organizations, by reducing the potential for duplication of efforts,

and by gaining the support of elected leaders who influence policy and authorize

funding.”

―Align resources to strategic goals‖

―The Council shall coordinate the implementation and evaluation of the plan,

including resource alignment in the use of federal, state, district and private

funds to support policy ‖

―Institution funding from competitive Federally funded grants‖

*Communication in Policy Formation Documents 2003-2010

―WHEREAS, the Kansas State Board of Education and the Kansas Board of

Regents have jointly endorsed a collaborative effort to improve communication,

cooperation and coordination at all levels of education governance in the state;‖

―Assist agencies in public relations aspects of LDS in communication with

school districts and charter schools, higher education institutions and the

public.‖

―The Subcommittee refined its specific charge, created definitions and developed

a plan for communicating with other subcommittee members and developmental

education stakeholders.

*P-16 Council in Policy Formation Documents 2003-2010

―(a) There shall be formed a P-20 Council to coordinate educational efforts of

publicly-funded programs from early care through higher education and to foster

partnerships among groups concerned with public education.‖

―To audit and inspect or cause to be audited or inspected for the purpose of

verification, research, analysis, reporting, or for other purposes related to the

performance of its powers and duties as provided in this article and for the

purposes of auditing pre-kindergarten, elementary, middle grades, and secondary

education, postsecondary education, and education work force programs and

schools, local school systems, institutes, colleges, universities, regional

educational service agencies, and other public education programs and entities as

defined by the council;‖

―Whereas the Education Roundtable was created by the Indiana General

Assembly in 1999 and signed into law by Governor Frank O‘Bannon;‖

―The Education Coordinating Committee, referred to in this section as the

"committee," is established to promote efficiency, cooperative effort and strategic

planning between the Department of Education, the State Board of Education, the

University of Maine System, the Maine Community College System and the Maine

Maritime Academy.‖

Policy Discourse Analysis of Influence 2003-2010

From 2003-2010, it is clear that the dominant sociological and economic

discourses are generally the same from P-16 advocacy documents to P-16 policy

formation documents. However, it is not as clear when looking at the dominant

organizational discourses that there is a policy advocacy to policy formation connection.

The second level of the analysis in this study is to explore the discourses within the

documents through policy discourse analysis to see if the same themes or discourses

emerge. This analysis has shown that the same themes emerged from P-16 policy

advocacy and P-16 policy formation during the 2003-2010 time period. This analysis

goes beyond the ―counting of codes‖ to determine what underlying themes emerged

during the coding process. For this section, several examples of analysis are provided to

demonstrate the policy discourse analysis process and the outcomes from the process. The

examples do not represent the entire analysis which will be summarized at the end of this

section.

For example, in the economic discourses, accountability is a dominant discourse

in both advocacy and formation documents of this time period. In a closer examination of

the discourses that were coded accountability, two themes emerge. The first is the

connection of standards between K-12 and postsecondary education. These generally

refer to aligning or coordinating the requirements for high school graduation and the

expectations for college level work. This quote from the 2005 policy advocacy report,

The Governance Divide (Venezia et al. 2005) is representative of this type of discourse.

―States need to connect their accountability systems to span K-12 and

postsecondary education. Currently accountability systems are usually designed

for either K-12 or postsecondary education without much attention to the

interface between the two. Accountability systems need to reflect, better, the reality

of students‘ educational paths.‖

States use this theme of connecting accountability systems in the discourse of

policy formation as shown in the two examples provided here. This legislation from

Colorado (SB 08-212 2009) is the first example of the use of this theme within

accountability discourses.

―Since 1993, implementation of standards-based education has resulted in

significant increases in the ability of school districts and the state to measure

what each student knows and is able to demonstrate at various levels in the

student's academic career and in significant increases in learning and academic

achievement among some students enrolled in the public schools of the state;‖

This second example is from Minnesota‘s 2008 P-16 policy, Minnesota‘s

Promise: World Class Schools, World Class State.

Align Expectations: Integrate college and workforce readiness standards into

Minnesota‘s K-12 academic standards to ensure that all students are prepared for

higher education and high-skill employment after high school.

The second accountability theme that emerges from a policy discourse analysis

examination of the policy advocacy and formation documents (2003-2010) is that states

need to develop ways to track accountability measures across the state. This quote from

the 2006 policy advocacy report, Claiming Common Ground, is representative of this

type of discourse. ―There are few accountability systems that track college readiness

from secondary to postsecondary education. And no one is held responsible for the

students who drop between the cracks of the two systems.‖(Callan et al. 2006)

States use this theme of developing accountability measures across the state in

their policy formation documents, as shown here in two examples. Although only two

examples are provided, there are many more from other states which are similar and

continue along this theme. From the Texas 2007 P-16 Council Developmental Education

report:

―Having standards, competencies, and objectives, that are consistent

throughout the state, ensures that all students are achieving and performing at

least at the same basic minimum level; that all schools are measuring the same

basic knowledge and skill areas and expecting similar performance; and

ensures that common state-wide data is available for research, comparing

student performance, preparing reports and requests for the legislature and

more importantly, ensuring more accountability of higher education.‖

And from the 2008 California policy, Closing the Achievement Gap:

Strategies to reform education, as they relate to closing the achievement gap in

particular, have centered on such things as incorporating a quality

prekindergarten program, implementing a robust data collection system,

developing rigorous curriculum, implementing quality professional development,

investing in an effective accountability system, and strengthening articulation

throughout the P-16 system.

Themes also emerged in the sociological discourses found in the documents in this

study. As previously stated, the dominant sociological discourses were initially able to be

traced from advocacy to policy formation through the notation of what discourses

appeared most often. However, some discourses appeared to be critical in the P-16

advocacy documents, but the counts were not as high in the policy formation documents.

In this situation, policy discourse analysis provides a closer examination of the themes.

For example, citizenship emerged as a key discourse of the P-16 advocacy

documents in 2003-2010. However, it did not appear in the top discourses of P-16 policy

formation documents of this time. In an exploration of the discourses of these documents,

it becomes clear that within the citizenship coded sections, a theme emerged. This is that

one of the reasons for schooling is to create and produce students who will become active

citizens. Schools will produce citizens will participate in society, particularly through

being ―good citizens‖. This representative quote is from the 2003 policy report , P-16:

Building a cohesive education system from preschool through postsecondary (Krueger

and Rainwater 2003).

―It (the education system) must also produce students who are prepared to take

their place in society as active citizens. While volunteerism among young people

currently is increasing, voting rates are down. Here too, the role of postsecondary

education is vital.‖

Then in subsequent P-16 policy formation documents, the same discourses are

found which promote the use of education to create good citizens or prepare students for

citizenship. Two examples are provided here. The first is from North Dakota‘s 2006 P16

Education Task Force policy report:

―Proficiency standards for high school graduation in North Dakota are as

applicable to students who go on to post-secondary education as they are to

students who choose to enter the workforce after high school graduation, and they

are essential to developing good citizens.‖

And from Ohio‘s 2010 policy Developing a P-16 System:

―Public education is the cornerstone that binds the forces of good government,

economic prosperity and civic engagement together to advance the state.‖

In the organizational discourses, as previously noted, there were few obvious

connections between the discourses if it is solely based on the dominant discourses.

However, a closer examination of the discourses through policy discourse analysis finds

that the same types of discourses are occurring in the 2003-2010 P-16 policy advocacy

and policy formation. In an organizational discourse example, it was found that

communication was a critical coding category. The discourses stress interagency

communication between educational levels as well as between subsystems of state

government.

As an example of this type of discourse, this quote from the 2006 policy report,

Claiming Common Ground, is provided: ―As a result, there are few widespread practices

or traditions for these two systems of education to communicate with each other, much

less to collaborate to improve student achievement across institutions.‖ (Callan et al.

2006)

States utilize this discourse in their 2003-2010 P-16 policy formation. Two

examples of the organizational communication discourse follow. The first is from Kansas

P-20 Education Council policy report (2008)

―Policymakers in at least 30 states have looked for ways to enhance an

integrated system of education in which all levels of education as well as business

partners and legislators, coordinate, communicate, and educate as one system.‖

A second example from New Mexico (Executive Order 2009) also uses this

communication discourse to stress the importance of communication across agencies.

―WHEREAS, such an effective PreK-20 education data system requires the close

coordination and cross-departmental communication among state agencies, public

schools, higher education institutions and entities that address New

Mexico‘s children from birth through their education to their entrance into the

workforce;‖

Summary

Thus, while not all discourses are translated from P-16 policy advocacy into

policy formation, based on the findings from this research the conclusion can be drawn

that P-16 policy advocacy discourses are influencing the discourses of P-16 policy

formation during the time period 2003-2010. As previously stated, the discourses that are

dominant in the advocacy documents are often in more of the documents than the policy

formation documents, but this is to be expected based upon the literature. The states are

employing discourses from advocacy in order to formulate policy in the 2003-2010 time

period. In addition, due to policy discourse analysis, the discourses of P-16 policy

advocacy are similar in dominant themes to the discourses of P-16 policy formation.

Themes emerged, through policy discourse analysis, which demonstrate the connections

between P-16 advocacy and policy formation during this time period.

Hypothesis 2e

Hypothesis 2e: If a state formulated P-16 policy (through legislation or state level policy)

in Time Era 4 [2003-2010], then the language will also be changed by the language of

state level policy/legislation in time Era 3 [1987-2002].

This hypothesis is based on the idea that states might be subject to peer influence

in their development of policy. In other words, if other states or they themselves have

already developed state level P-16 policies or legislation, the earlier discourses may

potentially influence future formation of state level policies or legislation. In order to

explore this hypothesis, two steps were performed. First, an overall historical analysis of

the discourses from early formation to later formation was performed. This is a national

exploration of the discourses of P-16 – early (prior to 2002) vs. later (after 2002). Then a

closer examination of two states, Texas and Florida, was completed. This more detailed

examination looks at the history of discourses within each state. Overall Analysis of

Discourse

In order to determine if there is evidence of influence from early policy on later

policy, an analysis of the earlier P-16 policy documents (2000-2002) compared to the

later P-16 policy formation documents (2003-2010) was conducted. In other words, the

discourses of early policy formation were compared to the discourses of later policy

formation. Similarities and differences were noted in this analysis. The earlier time frame

was narrowed down to 2000-2002 due to the sparse number of documents (n=15) found

in the previous era (1985-1999). As was found previously, there is evidence of P-16

policy formation discourses influence on later policy formation discourses (see Table 5.5

Dominant Discourses Early P-16 Formation vs. Later P-16 Formation).

Table 5.5

Dominant Discourses Early P-16 Formation vs. Later P-16 Formation

DOMINANT

DISCOURSES

#1 D

#2 D

# 3 D

2000-2002

Accountability Achievement Efficient

2003-2010

Accountability Achievement College Preparation and

Workforce Preparation

2000-2002

Equity Pipeline Access and

High Quality Education

2003-2010

Equity Pipeline Access

2000-2002

Evaluation of

Programs

Alignment Organization

2003-2010

Collaboration Alignment Allocation

In the analyses of the dominant economic discourses of the P-16 policy formation

literature published in 2000-2010, there is evidence of early policy formation documents

influence on later policy formation documents (see Table 5.5). The dominant economic

discourses of the policy formation literature of 2000-2002 are accountability (79%),

student achievement (39%), and efficiency (23%). In 2003-2010, accountability (65%)

and student achievement (55%) are dominant economic discourses. Two thirds of

dominant discourses from earlier time frames are the same as they are in the later time

frame.

In 2000-2002, the three dominant sociological discourses are equity (28%),

pipeline (33%), and access (13%). These discourses remain dominant in 2003-2010 and

in fact seem to be more dominant, appearing in more documents over the time frame-

equity (36%), pipeline (33%), and access (29%). This provides evidence of a connection

between the sociological discourses of early policy development and later policy

formation.

Finally, in the analyses of organizational discourses, there appears to be a limited

influence of early discourses on later discourses. In the years 2000-2002, the three

dominant organizational discourses are evaluation of programs, alignment, and

organization. In 2003-2010, only alignment is a dominant discourse, with collaboration

and allocation rising to be more significant. Thus, the dominant organizational discourses

appear to have shifted over time, with only one discourse remaining the same from the

early time frame to the later time frame.

Texas and Florida

Texas and Florida were chosen for a closer examination because they both have

significant histories of P-16 policy making. Texas has had a P-16 plan for close to twenty-

five years. Florida has had a K-20 system for about ten years. Analysis of their formation

documents finds that within these states there is evidence of prior discourses informing

and influencing later discourses. As these states updated their P-16 laws or policies from

previous iterations, they often use the same language throughout. In fact, as policies or

laws were changed, the discourses would remain the same or were often added to, rather

than subtracted from. Changes in wording often consists of changes in names of

organizational structures (for example, changing the name of the P-16 council) or in

changing the people or organizations that are included in a P-16 system.

Texas

Texas began developing their P-16 system in 1987 by passing a law that called for

coordination within the higher education system. This coordination was gradually

extended over time throughout the entire P-16 system, with the Texas Higher Education

Coordinating Board overseeing this aligned system. Over the past twenty-five years,

Texas has created a P-16 Council, first through an informal network and then through

legislation. They also have developed a series of local P-16 councils which perform

onthe-ground P-16 work. Texas has also worked with other state education agencies to

develop and pass legislation relating to the alignment of college expectations and high

school outcomes, financing of such programs, and further strengthen the authority of the

Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. Twenty-five policy formation documents

were found for this study (see Graph 5.1).

As demonstrated in Graph 5.1, the annual average organizational discourses of

P16 in Texas generally increased slightly over time from the LOW scaled range early to

MOD scaled range later. Both annual average sociological and annual average economic

discourses remained generally stable over time staying consistently in the LOW scaled

range. Early discourses (1987-2002) that emerge as dominant in Texas are achievement

(economic), collaboration (organizational), and pipeline (sociological). Later discourses

(2003-2010) that are significant are accountability and achievment (economic),

collaboration (organizational), and pipeline (sociological). Thus the dominant discourses

are continuing to be dominantly the same from the early time frame to the later time

frame.

In addition, a close examination of two particular education statutes pertaining to

P-16 in Texas demonstrate that over time only minor changes are made in these laws. In

the Texas Education Statutes Sec. 7.005 (Cooperation between State Agencies of Higher

Education), the law was first passed in 1995 and then altered in 2003. The single change

in the entire law in 2003 was to change the title of the P-16 advisory committee from

―Joint Advisory Committee‖ (1995 title) to ―P-16 Council‖ (2003 title). A look at an

additional part of the education statutes in Texas (Sec 61.076) finds that changes to this

statute over time include changes to the name of the P-16 advisory board, changes in

description of power and organizational components of the board, and information about

grants or other funding sources for enacting these laws.

Graph 5.1

Texas P-16 Policy Formation Documents

Average Annual Discourses 1987-2010

Florida

1987 {n=2}

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993 {n=1}

1994

1995 {n=2}

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001 {n=1}

2002

2003 {n=2}

2004

2005 {n=4}

2006 {

2007 {

2008

2009

2010

Economic Organizational Sociological

Florida began developing a K-20 system in the early 2000‘s with the consolidation

of the entire education system under the Florida Board of Education. In the past ten years,

Florida‘s K-20 system has developed an accountability system, a K-20 budget, and a K-

20 data warehouse system in order to support the alignment of educational efforts across

the statewide education system. Forty-seven policy formation documents were found

from Florida for this study (See Graph 5.2).

As demonstrated in Graph 5.2, the annual average organizational discourses of

P16 in Florida flucutated over the ten years. The early high annual average is based on

one document in each of the first two years. However, post 2001, the scaled

organizational discourse level remains in the MOD to LOW range. The annual average

sociological and annual average economic discourses mirror the national discourse

trends. Although both tend to be in the LOW range, the sociological scale started stronger

in early documents and then decreased over time. The economic discourses started lower

than the sociological discourses, but around 2003 the average annual economic discourses

began outpacing the average annual sociological discourses.

The top two early discourses (2000-2004) that emerge as dominant in Florida are

accountability and efficiency (economic), alignment and allocation (organizational), and

pipeline and equity (sociological). Later discourses (2005-2010) that are significant are

accountability and efficiency (economic), alignment and allocation (organizational), and

equity and access (sociological). The dominant discourses are continuing to be

dominantly the same from the early time frame to the later time frame.

In a closer examination of the formation documents from Florida, from Florida‘s

Education Statutes, the discourses from the early phases of law 1008.31 (2002) reflect a

HIGH level of economic discourses, with a MOD level of organizational discourses and a

LOW level of sociological discourses. This law underwent legislative changes five times

in 2003, 2005, 2006, 2008, and 2010. Over this time, the economic discourses remained

HIGH, increasing slightly within the HIGH scale from a 7 to an 8. The organizational

discourses remained at a MOD level throughout, increasing slightly within the MOD

scale from a 4 to a 5. The sociological discourses started in the LOW scaled range and

during the first years of the legislative change remained at either LOW or NONE on the

sociological scale. In 2006, 2008, and 2010 the sociological discourses increased slightly

and moved to the low end of the MOD range, scoring a 4 in each of those years.

Graph 5.2

Florida P-16 Policy Formation Documents

Average Annual Discourses 2000-2010

2000 {n=1}

2001 {n=1}

2002 {n=12}

2003 {n=3}

2004 {n=3}

2005 {n=1}

2006 {

2007 {

2008 {n=6}

2009 {n=3}

2010 {n=4}

Economic Organizational Sociological

Thus, while not all discourses are translated from one time period to another in

P16 policy formation documents, the conclusion can be drawn that there is both (1)

evidence of a intra-state connection of discourses from early policy formation to later

policy formation; and (2) national evidence that the discourses of the P-16 policy

formation documents from 2000-2002 have influence on the discourses of the P-16 policy

formation documents of 2003-2010.

Summary

The findings of this study reveal that the national discourses of the education

reform policy have shifted over time. While a sociological focus was dominant in the

earlier phases of P-16 development, economic rationales took precedence as time went

on. During the lifetime of P-16 policy advocacy and formation, this study revealed that

discourses generally remain consistent. In addition, as expected, advocacy was most

prevalent at the beginning phases of policy development, and formation most prevalent at

the later phases of P-16 policy development. This study also demonstrated that the

discourses of P-16 policy advocacy appear to influence the discourses of P-16 policy

formation throughout the studied time-period of P-16. Results also suggest that early P16

policy formation influences the discourses of later P-16 policy formation.

CHAPTER SIX

SUMMARY DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY

The purpose of this study was to explore the shifting of discourses in P-16 policy

advocacy and formation. P-16 national advocacy literature and official state level P-16

policy and legislative documents were analyzed for evidence of dominant discourses. The

discourses were mapped using policy discourse analysis as the methodology and a

multitheoretical framework as the analytical lens. This historical model included a

longitudinal exploration of educational reform policy discourses of policy processes. A

comparative policy discourse analysis was also undertaken between policy advocacy

documents and state level policy formation documents, as well as between early policy

formation discourses compared to later policy formation discourses. These analyses

provided information about the mechanisms of policy creation and the role of discourse

in policy making.

This final chapter provides an overall summary and discussion of the major

findings of this research, articulates the significance of this study, and offers some

implications for policy and practice, as well as some preliminary recommendations for

the sustainability of P-16 as an educational reform movement.

Significance of Research

The significance of this research lies in the connection between policy advocacy

and policy formation. This study found evidence that the discourses in the advocacy

documents for P-16, a nationally promoted educational reform movement, were

influencing the discourses of P-16 state level policy formation. Additionally, it found

evidence that this influence continued over time. This impact of this finding overall, as

well as the import over time, is significant because the discourses of advocacy appear

critical enough to be manifested in the formulation of policy, which then is likely used in

policy implementation. Thus, the discourses of P-16 policy advocacy are vital to the P-16

policy process; in essence creating both the meaning of the policy and the materialization

in policy formation. Put in terms of everyday impact, reform ―talk‖ becomes educational

mandates which, in turn, impact the everyday lives of all those involved in schooling.

This research study also addresses a void in the research on P-16. Previously, this

research primarily focused on proposing and advocating for P-16 initiatives and their

formation at the state level (Chamberlin and Plucker 2008; Consortium for Policy

Research in Education 2000; Education Commission of the States 2002; Hodgkinson

1985; Hodgkinson 1999; Krueger and Rainwater 2003; The Hechinger Institute on

Education and Media, The Institute for Educational Leadership, and The National Center

for Public Policy and Higher Education 2002; Van de Water and Rainwater 2001; Venezia

et al. 2005). However, there have been limited empirical studies on P-16 programs or

their subsequent implementation. Those that were studied generally focused on specific

aspects of P-16 initiatives (Georgia P-16 Department 2006; Integrated Data

Transfer Project 2006; L'Orange and Ewell 2007; Mohker 2010; Oregon Roundtable and

Oregon Business Council 2005; Rasch 2004; Texas Education Agency 2008) or they took

broader historical perspective on one aspect of a P-16 program (Streams 2007). This

current study goes beyond these previous advocacy reports and empirical research studies

to explore a historical perspective on a nationally advocated educational reform initiative

that subsequently formulated at various state levels. This policy analysis utilizes policy

discourse analysis as the methodology for exploring the policy process, through its

evidentiary policy documents or discourse.

Additionally, this study is significant in its historical mapping of the progression

of P-16 discourses from their original inception in national advocacy through their

manifestation in state level policy formation. In doing so, it uses the theoretical lenses of

sociological, economic, and organizational rationales to understand how and when the

discourses of P-16 change along these specific theoretical perspectives. The study

emphasizes how changing rationales for policy development- economic, sociological, and

organizational- can potentially influence the implementation and subsequently the

sustainability of an education policy. This knowledge can potentially lead to more

effective policy levers in future educational reform policy making.

Finally, this study provides an example of how policy discourse analysis is a

relevant methodology for gaining a deeper understanding of how general education

reform movements, such as P-16, can be studied both as a current phenomenon and as a

mechanism of state/national systems of change. Through policy discourse analysis, this

research was able to find evidence of an historical connection between policy advocacy

and policy formation for a large scale national reform initiative. The use of policy

discourse analysis as a method for analyzing education policy adds a deeper level of

analysis than content analysis alone, providing the researcher with the ability to utilize

contexts and concepts to determine meaning and substance behind policy processes.

Major Findings

Driven by two primary research questions, this study examined both P-16 policy

advocacy and policy formation documents at the state level in order to explore the

shifting of discourses over time. It also explored the relationship between the discourses

of policy advocacy at the national level and policy formation at the state level. These

discourses were mapped to concepts from sociology, economics, and organizational

theory. Four major findings are highlighted:

1. Over time, the sociological discourses of both P-16 policy advocacy and

policy formation decreased in the examined documents.

2. The economic discourses of both P-16 advocacy documents and P-16 policy

formation documents became more prevalent over time.

3. The organizational discourses of both P-16 advocacy documents and P-16

policy documents remained stable over time.

4. The discourses of P-16 advocacy appear to influence the discourses of P-16

policy formation.

Interpretation of Findings

Changes in Discourses

Statewide P-16 initiatives have persisted over more than two decades in the

United States (Hodgkinson 1985; Hodgkinson 1999; Mohker 2010; Van de Water and

Rainwater 2001; VandeWater and Krueger 2002). Over that time, this study found that the

discourses of P-16 policy processes, both conceptual and developmental, have shifted and

transformed; focusing on different P-16 policy formation rationales for sustaining P16 as

an educational reform movement. States have adopted these shifting discourses over time,

from sociological to economic rationales, while continuing to maintain organizational and

systems change as a fundamental basis for sustaining this reform. These results suggest

that educational reform can withstand changes in some discourses as long as there is a

foundational discourse that remains constant.

Based on the P-16 advocacy literature (Chamberlin and Plucker 2008; Consortium

for Policy Research in Education 2000; Education Commission of the States 2002;

Hodgkinson 1985; Hodgkinson 1999; Krueger and Rainwater 2003; The Hechinger

Institute on Education and Media, The Institute for Educational Leadership, and The

National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education 2002; Van de Water and

Rainwater 2001; Venezia et al. 2005), sociological rationales for the development of P-16

initiatives were expected to decline over time. As expected, the study found sociological

discourses did decrease over time in the advocacy literature (1985-2010). These

rationales formed the basis of early arguments for the creation of P-16 in the advocacy

literature. This is likely because these sociological rationales had formed the basis for

many prior policy reform movements including the access and equity movements in the

1960s and 1970s (Brubacher and Rudy 2008; Coleman 1966; Rose 2010; Spring 2001).

Prior advocacy from large educational think tanks, such as the Rand Corporation,

Education Commission of the States, and the Stanford Research Institute, also utilized

these educational equity and access ideals in their reports (Education Commission of the

States 2011; RAND Corporation 2011; Stanford Research Institute 2011). Prior to 2002,

P-16 advocates promoted a system which would provide additional access to educational

opportunities for more students, specifically calling for increasing the democratic ideals

of education, equitable opportunities, and providing access to both preschool and higher

education through alternative means (Hodgkinson 1985; Hodgkinson 1999; Levine 1999;

Consortium for Policy Research in Education 2000; Ziebarth and Rainwater 2000; Van de

Water and Rainwater 2001). This then was, as hypothesized, consistent with prior

discourses which this study assumed were influential in the initial phases of the P-16

advocacy movement.

It was further hypothesized that a similar trend of declining sociological rationales

over time would be evident in the discourses of P-16 policy formation documents. This

conjecture was based on the idea that competing discourses (economic) would provided

competing rationales for a large scale education reform movement. This hypothesis was

accurate for the policy documents from 1999-2010. Sociological rationales of access and

equity are present in many documents of this time frame. However, they occupy only

small portions of the discourse, which suggests that they are both competing with other

discourses and may be present merely to make concession to long-standing American

educational ideals. For example, policy formation documents have discourses which

make references to providing access to ―all students.‖ However, the resulting laws

generally focus on access for a specific group or do not address access issues at all.

Future analysis of the connection between sociological and economic rationales could

provide information on the ways that these rationales are utilized. If sociological

rationales have become merely a concession and are generally mentioned in tandem with

economic rationales, these sociological rationales could be lost in the discourse. Analysis

could explain if sociological discourses are primarily rationales for development or they

are destined to become mechanized through policy implementation at state or local levels.

Based on the P-16 advocacy literature, the economic rationales of P-16 advocacy

literature were expected to increase over time (1985-2010). As projected, this study found

evidence that this was accurate. National economic policies and events may have

influenced national P-16 policy advocacy; turning discourses toward a greater focus on

economic rationales to justify formation of this education reform. For example, in the

1990s, the economy boomed during the dot-com era and declined after the dot-com bust

(Rhode and Toniolo 2006). In 2003, the U.S. economy was beginning to recover briefly

from the recession following the September 11th terrorist attacks. The housing market was

strong, the stock market was rising, and the unemployment rate was low. In 2008, the

housing market collapsed based on sub-prime mortgage failures, stock market prices fell

precipitously, and the unemployment rate increased (Lewis 2010). With all the volatility

in the economic picture over this time, it is no surprise that the economic discourses

continued to rise in P-16 policy formation. It seems during a growing economy, further

growth and competitiveness would naturally continue to be a national goal and the

increased economic discourses speak to this. In times of economic downturns, the need

for improvements in education and ways to grow the economy and employment ranks

would be even more critical to the economic discourses.

Economic policies in the United States, generally designed to assist with national

economic situations at the time, also likely influenced the rationales behind P-16

Students also viewed