Policy Sciences

, Volume 42, Issue 1, pp 33–55 | Cite as

Policy dynamics and the evolution of state charter school laws

  • Thomas T. HolyokeEmail author
  • Jeffrey R. Henig
  • Heath Brown
  • Natalie Lacireno-Paquet


Baumgartner and Jones (1993) showed how radically new policies emerge on government agendas as a consequence of exogenous shocks to policy subsystems displacing privileged interests. But how do these policies evolve post-punctuation? In this paper, we present three different models of policy change. Policies may revert to the old status quo if displaced interests re-assert themselves, or they may be “locked-in” by new interests now reaping the benefits. Alternatively, they may incrementally change as lawmakers “learn” how to better meet target population needs, particularly by witnessing how other jurisdictions address similar problems. We test these models with data on change in state charter schools laws over time. We find that whether old status quos are overthrow, and the fate of charter policies when they are enacted, is influenced more by competing political interests, especially interest groups, than elite and public perceptions of broad systemic crises. Yet, we also find that changing demands on the state and learning from the successes and failures of neighboring states also play significant roles.


Public policy Punctuated equilibrium Pluralism Charter schools Education 



The authors would like to thank The Spencer Foundation and the Russell Sage Foundation for their generous support of this research.


  1. Amemiya, T. (1973). Regression analysis when the dependent variable is truncated normal. Econometrica, 41(November), 997–1016. doi: 10.2307/1914031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Balla, S. J. (2001). Interstate professional associations and the diffusion of policy innovations. American Politics Research, 29(May), 221–245. doi: 10.1177/1532673X01293001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barzelay, M. (2001). The new public management: Improving research and policy dialogue. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  4. Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. D. (1993). Agendas and instability in American politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  5. Berry, F. S., & Berry, W. D. (1990). State lottery adoptions as policy innovations: An event history analysis. American Political Science Review, 84(June), 395–415. doi: 10.2307/1963526.Google Scholar
  6. Berry, W. D., & Lowery, D. (1984). The measurement of government size: Implications for the study of growth. The Journal of Politics, 46(November), 1193–1206. doi: 10.2307/2131249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boehmke, F. J., & Witmer, R. (2004). Disentangling diffusion: The effects of social learning and economic competition on state policy innovation and expansion. Political Research Quarterly, 57(March), 39–51.Google Scholar
  8. Box-Steffensmeier, J. M., & Jones, B. S. (1997). Time is of the essence: Event history models in political science. American Journal of Political Science, 41(October), 1414–1461. doi: 10.2307/2960496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bulkley, K. E. (2005). Understanding the charter school concept in legislation: The cases of Arizona, Michigan, and Georgia. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 18(July–August), 527–554. doi: 10.1080/09518390500137683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bulman, R. C., & Kirp, D. L. (1999). The shifting politics of school choice. In S. D. Sugarman & F. R. Kemerer (Eds.), School choice and social controversy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  11. Buss, W. G. (1999). Teachers, teachers’ unions, and school choice. In S. D. Sugarman & F. R. Kemerer (Eds.), School choice and social controversy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  12. Case, A. C., Hines, J. R., & Rosen, H. S. (1993). Budget spillovers and fiscal policy interdependence. Journal of Public Economics, 52(3), 285–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Coleman, J. J. (1999). Unified government, divided government, and party responsiveness. American Political Science Review, 93(December), 821–835.Google Scholar
  14. Cummins, J. (2006). The president’s domestic agenda, divided government, and the relationship to the public agenda. American Review of Politics, 27(Winter), 269–294.Google Scholar
  15. Eshbaugh-Soha, M. (2005). The politics of presidential agendas. Political Research Quarterly, 58(June), 257–268.Google Scholar
  16. Finn, C. E., Manno, B., & Vanourek, G. (2000). Charter schools in action. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Glick, H. R., & Hays, S. P. (1991). Innovation and reinvention in state policymaking: Theory and evolution of living will laws. Journal of Politics, 3(August), 835–850.Google Scholar
  18. Gray, V. (1973). Innovation in the states: A diffusion study. American Political Science Review, 67(December), 1174–1185.Google Scholar
  19. Gray, V., & Lowery, D. (1996). The population ecology of interest representation. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  20. Hassel, B. C. (1999). The charter school challenge. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  21. Henig, J. R. (1994). Rethinking school choice: Limits of the market metaphor. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Henig, J. R., Brown, H., Holyoke, T. T., & Lacireno-Paquet, N. (2005). The influence of founder type on charter school structure and operations. American Journal of Education, 111(August), 487–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Henig, J. R., Hula, R. C., Orr, M., & Pedescleaux, D. S. (1999a). The color of school reform: Race, politics, and the challenge of urban education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Henig, J. R., Moser, M., Holyoke, T. T., & Lacireno-Paquet, N. (1999b). Making a choice, making a difference? Evaluating charter schools in the District of Columbia. Washington, DC: Center for Washington Area Studies, The George Washington University.Google Scholar
  25. Hojnacki, M., & Kimball, D. C. (1998). Organized interests and the decision of whom to lobby in congress. American Political Science Review, 92(December), 775–790.Google Scholar
  26. Kettl, D., & DiIulio, J. J. (Eds.). (1995). Inside the reinvention machine: Appraising governmental reform. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  27. Kingdon, J. W. (1995). Agendas, alternatives, and pubic policies (3rd ed.). Boston: Little Brown.Google Scholar
  28. Kirst, M. W. (2006). Politics of charter schools: Competing national advocacy coalitions meet local politics. Occasional Paper 119, National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education, Teachers College, Columbia University.Google Scholar
  29. Lacireno-Paquet, N. (2006). Charter school enrollments in context: An exploration of organization and policy influences. Peabody Journal of Education, 81(1), 79–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lacireno-Paquet, N., & Holyoke, T. T. (2007). Moving forward or sliding backward? The evolution of charter school policies in Michigan and the District of Columbia. Educational Policy, 21(January–March), 185–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lowi, T. J. (1969). The end of liberalism. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
  32. Maranto, R., & Gresham, A. (1999). The wild west of education reform: Arizona’s charter schools. In R. Maranto, S. Milliman, F. Hess, & A. Gresham (Eds.), School choice in the real world. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  33. McCool, D. (1990). Subgovernments as determinants of political viability. Political Science Quarterly, 105(Summer), 269–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McFarland, A. S. (2004). Neopluralism: The evolution of political process theory. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press.Google Scholar
  35. Mintrom, M. (2000). Policy entrepreneurs and school choice. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Mintrom, M., & Vergari, S. (1998). Policy networks and innovation diffusion: The case of state education reforms. Journal of Politics, 60(February), 126–148.Google Scholar
  37. Miron, G., & Nelson, C. (2002). What’s public about charter schools: Lessons learned about choice and accountability. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  38. Molnar, A., Garcia, D. R., Bartlett, M., & O’Neill, A. (2006). Profiles of for-profit education management organizations, 2006. Tempe, AZ: Education Policy Studies Laboratory, College of Education, Arizona State University.Google Scholar
  39. Nathan, J. (1996). Charter schools: Creating hope and opportunity for American education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Google Scholar
  40. Peterson, P. E., Wong, K. K., & Rabe, B. G. (1986). When federalism works. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  41. Pressman, J. L., & Wildavsky, A. B. (1979). Implementation. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  42. Renzulli, L. A., & Roscigno, V. J. (2005). Charter school policy, implementation, and diffusion across the United States. Sociology of Education, 78(October), 344–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sabatier, P. A. (1988). An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein. Policy Sciences, 21(June), 129–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Scott, J., & Margaret B. (2002). Charter schools in California, Michigan and Arizona: An alternative framework for policy analysis. Occasional Paper 40, National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education. Teachers College, Columbia University.Google Scholar
  45. Shober, A. F., Manna, P., & Witte, J. F. (2006). Flexibility meets accountability: State charter school laws and their influence on the formation of charter schools in the United States. Policy Studies Journal, 34(December), 563–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Stoddard, C., & Corcoran, S. P. (2007). The political economy of school choice. Journal of Urban Economics, 62(July), 27–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Vergari, S. (Ed.). (2002). The charter school landscape. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  48. Vogel, D. (1989). Fluctuating fortunes: The political power of business in America. Washington, DC: Beard Books.Google Scholar
  49. Volden, C. (2006). States as policy laboratories: Emulating success in the Children’s Health Insurance Program. American Journal of Political Science, 50(April), 294–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Walker, J. L., Jr. (1969). The diffusion of innovations among the American States. American Political Science Review, 63(September), 880–899.Google Scholar
  51. Weingast, B. R., & Moran, M. J. (1983). Bureaucratic discretion or congressional control? Regulatory policymaking by the Federal Trade Commission. Journal of Political Economy, 91(October), 765–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Witte, J. F., Shober, A. F., & Manna, P. (2003). Analyzing state charter school laws and their influence on the formation of charter schools. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
  53. Wohlstetter, P., Wenning, R., & Briggs, K. L. (1995). Charter schools in the United States: The question of autonomy. Educational Policy, 9(December), 331–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wong, K. K., & Shen, F. X. (2002). Politics of state-led reform in education: Market competition and electoral dynamics. Educational Policy, 16(January), 161–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wong, K. K., & Shen, F. X. (2006). Charter law and charter outcomes: Re-examining the charter school marketplace. Presented at the National Conference on Charter School Research, Vanderbilt University.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas T. Holyoke
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jeffrey R. Henig
    • 2
  • Heath Brown
    • 3
  • Natalie Lacireno-Paquet
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceCalifornia State University, FresnoFresnoUSA
  2. 2.Teachers College, Columbia UniversityNew YorkUSA
  3. 3.Department of Public AffairsRoanoke CollegeSalemUSA
  4. 4.Learning Innovations, WestEdWoburnUSA

Personalised recommendations