637902

research-article2016
TESXXX10.1177/0888406416637902Teacher Education and Special EducationMcLaughlin et al.

Article
Teacher Education and Special Education
2016, Vol. 39(2) 134­–149
Engaging Effectively in the Policy- © 2016 Teacher Education Division of the
Council for Exceptional Children
Making Process Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0888406416637902
tese.sagepub.com

Virginia L. McLaughlin1, Jane E. West2,

and Jeffrey A. Anderson3

Abstract
Current political polarization and competing priorities complicate development of sound
education policy. Particularly troubling is the disconnect between research and policy, as
decision makers rely more on the work of think tanks and advocacy groups than the knowledge
base of the profession. The mismatch between higher education and policy cultures is examined
in terms of pace, career cycles, communication styles, information sources, and other factors.
Implications for the scholarly community are discussed within a policy process framework with
specific examples of effective advocacy. Recommendations include partnerships with strategic
allies to gain resources and credibility, use of new communication styles and media, and
preparation of leadership personnel for policy engagement.

Keywords
educational policy, teacher preparation policy/service delivery, research methods, legislation
and litigation

A disconnect between educational research
and policy making has been a serious concern
for decades. Policy scholars have noted how
the absence of an adequate research base for
much of the national education reform agenda
has undermined coherent and effective imple-
mentation of reform initiatives, as well as
achievement of their intended outcomes
(Darling-Hammond, 2010; Honig, 2006;
Honig & Hatch, 2004; Manna, 2011; McDon-
nell & Elmore, 1987). Other scholars have
focused on the misuse of existing research in
policy formulation and evaluation (Baker &
Welner, 2012; Berliner & Glass, 2014; Henig,
2008b; Ravitch, 2013; Welner, Hinchey, Mol-
nar, & Weitzman, 2010). The current political
landscape, characterized by intense political
polarization, expanding influence of founda-
tions and think tanks, and rapid emergence of
new advocacy groups, further threatens to
marginalize the role of education experts in
policy debates. To help bridge the gap between
policy and research, the scholarly community
must refocus its efforts and adopt new strate-
gies for engagement. Specifically addressing
special education researchers, teacher educa-
tors, and advocates, this article provides an
overview of the current policy context, the
disconnect between policy and higher educa-
tion cultures, and typical stages in the policy
process. The article concludes by targeting
critical opportunities for influence through
partnerships with strategic allies, use of new
communication styles and media, and prepa-
ration of leadership personnel for policy work.
1
College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA, USA
2
Education Policy Consultant, Washington, DC, USA
3
Indiana University Bloomington, USA
Corresponding Author:
Virginia L. McLaughlin, School of Education, College
of William and Mary, 301 Monticello Avenue,
Williamsburg, VA 23187-8795, USA.
Email: vamcla@wm.edu
McLaughlin et al. 135
Table 1.  Reauthorization Delays of Major
Federal Education Legislation Beyond ESEA.
Reauthorization due
Statute date
Education Sciences 2008
Reform Act
Individuals With Part B: Permanently
Disabilities authorized
Education Act Parts C and D—2010
Perkins Career and 2012
Technical Education
Act
Head Start Act 2012
Higher Education Act 2014 (Title II expired
in 2011)
Workforce 2005—Reauthorized
Investment Act as Workforce
Investment and
Opportunity Act in
2014
Source. Adapted from West, Thoma, Gamel-McCormick
(2015).
Note. ESEA = Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
With the enactment of the Education for All
Handicapped Children Act in 1975 (renamed
the Individuals With Disabilities Education
Act, or IDEA, in 1990), special education pol-
icy gained a strong footing in federal educa-
tion law. The impact of IDEA has been far
reaching, resulting in improved educational
opportunities for students, federal support for
personnel preparation of practitioners and
leaders, and increased funding for field-based
research. As Congress has increasingly
become gridlocked over partisan wrangling in
the last decade, one of its core policy-making
processes—reauthorization or revision and
renewal of laws—has become a monumental
event. Through a rare bipartisan effort, the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act
(ESEA), due for reauthorization in 2007, was
finally signed into law as the Every Student
Succeeds Act (ESSA) in December 2015.
Most major federal education laws remain
many years overdue for reauthorization (see
Table 1). As the backup persists, the reauthori-
zation of IDEA moves further down the list.
One result is that special education policy has
increasingly been addressed through executive
branch action, particularly related to No Child
Left Behind (NCLB) and the extended delib-
erations over the reauthorization of ESEA.
The policy-making apparatus of the U.S.
Department of Education (USDOE) through
regulations, guidance, waivers, and new fed-
eral grants has been expansive under the
Obama Administration. Thus, policy that
affects students with disabilities and special
education has increasingly been incorporated
into ESEA implementation and interpretation,
as well as other general education statutes,
such as the Higher Education Act (HEA; for
example, the proposed teacher preparation
regulations under Title II and Title IV of
HEA). The Obama Administration’s develop-
ment of flexibility waivers under NCLB has
been pivotal in influencing special education
policy in areas such as student assessment,
accountability, and teacher evaluation. These
shifts hold significance for special educators
for a number of reasons. For example, those
concerned with the education of students with
disabilities can no longer focus primarily on
IDEA, the legislative process, or even the
rulemaking process. Increasingly, they must
understand the larger context of education
policy and engage with the broader education
policy issues and policy making apparatus.
The Context of Education
Reform
By definition, public policy making in a
democracy is messy. Multiple voices and sec-
tors compete for attention in a fast-paced
environment that is driven by political agen-
das, special interests, disconnected timetables,
and fiscal constraints. The sector of education
itself competes for policy attention in an envi-
ronment that has become hyper partisan and
increasingly oriented toward short-term polit-
ical gain, often at the expense of pragmatic
problem solving. In this section, we examined
some unique features of education policy that
make it especially challenging.
Education policy making has a number of
unique characteristics that influence its con-
sideration in the political environment. First,
unlike most other policy arenas, every policy
136 Teacher Education and Special Education 39(2)
maker has been a student and had direct expe-
rience in schools. These personal experiences
shape their opinions and inform their approach
to education policy. Second, education is a
very large sector with a sizable workforce.
More than three million people are employed
in the education sector, inviting multiple
viewpoints and perspectives, which may be
put forward as “expert” opinions. Moreover,
23% of Americans—75.2 million—are
enrolled in some sort of education institution
(Institute of Education Sciences [IES], 2015a)
and have opinions about schooling based on
personal experience. Third, education is a
public profession supported by public dollars
and therefore, carries substantial accountabil-
ity demands. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2013, about
US$598 billion taxpayer dollars were invested
in elementary and secondary education alone
(U.S. Census Bureau, 2013). Accountability
for this investment is critical for public policy;
however, there is little consensus across stake-
holder groups about the approaches and met-
rics for accountability.
Indeed, no other profession is so large and
so public, directly engaging virtually everyone
in the society. Most people have opinions
about education that are informed at a mini-
mum by personal experience. For these rea-
sons, the notion of expertise may not have the
same meaning as it does in other professions
that are less directly accessible to the public,
such as medicine, architecture, or engineering.
The Education Reform Agenda
The expansion of the education reform move-
ment, often dubbed corporate reform, with its
signature privatization initiatives, has been
well documented (Berliner & Glass, 2014;
Ravitch, 2013). The politics of education have
been markedly transformed by the promi-
nence of the reform agenda and the vocal
organizations supporting it (Lubienski, Scott,
& DeBray, 2014; Scott, Lubienski, & Debray-
Pelot, 2009). Key policy prescriptions of the
school reform movement include expanding
school choice (in particular, charter schools),
increasing test-based accountability, improv-
ing teacher quality, and intervening intensively
in low-performing schools. In general, the
reforms are market-based and involve a com-
bination of public- and private-sector funds.
Data system development, collection, and
reporting are key elements, offering multiple
ongoing opportunities to measure the impact
of the reforms.
Multiple new players in education policy
making have surfaced to promote their reform
agendas. Infused with philanthropic and cor-
porate dollars and the savvy use of new media,
education policy making is barely reminiscent
of what it was even 20 years ago. A new breed
of “Education Reform Advocacy Organiza-
tions” even has its own acronym (ERAOs)
and nickname, “The Fight Club” (McGuinn,
2012). In an analysis of 62 new education
advocacy organizations in the states, Manna
and Moffit (2014) found that these groups
generally do not have large memberships or
include many who work in the education sec-
tor, and foundation funding often supports
them. The study also found that the new edu-
cation advocacy organizations tend to share
reform preferences and priorities rather than
generating new ideas of their own.
The success of these initiatives often relies
on reformers’ making the case that the current
system is broken. This line of argument gener-
ally leads to allegations about the failure of
teachers, teacher education, and public school
in general. Thus, the organizations that repre-
sent professionals are often backed into a cor-
ner, wanting to defend themselves without
being defensive and wanting to acknowledge
the need for change without abandoning what
they know through research and experience.
Higher education scholars, teacher educators,
and the organizations that represent them
must work through the challenge of being
labeled “defenders of the status quo” and find
new allies and methods of communication.
The urgency of calls for reform has often
trumped deliberation about the specific aims of
the reforms agendas. The call to “get it done
now” has been far stronger than the call to “get
it done right.” In her book Shock Doctrine: The
Rise of Disaster Capitalism, Naomi Kline
(2007) argued that there is an “intersection
between super profits and mega disasters”
McLaughlin et al. 137
(p. 10). The remaking of public education in
New Orleans after Katrina is a prime example.
As the American Enterprise Institute stated,
“Katrina accomplished in a day . . . what Loui-
siana school reformers couldn’t do after years
of trying” (as cited in Kline, p. 4). The belief
that public schools are deeply broken and must
urgently be fixed seems to have paved the way
for profit-driven reforms to emerge as solutions.
Foundations and Venture
Philanthropy
Foundations play a key role in funding organi-
zations to urge policy makers to adopt these
reforms, promote implementation of the
reforms in states and localities, and document
the success of the reforms. Key players
include the Bill and Melinda Gates Founda-
tion, the Walton Family Foundation, and the
Broad Foundation. These foundations and
other private funders, sometimes referred to
as venture philanthropists (Scott et al., 2009),
are generally oriented toward disrupting what
is considered to be a broken system and chal-
lenging educators and the organizations to
which they belong—characterized in some
circles as “the blob” (McGuinn, 2012).
The Gates Foundation alone has contrib-
uted about US$4 billion to K-12 education
since 1999, including US$90 million for edu-
cational standards and US$980 million for
teacher effectiveness and supports. Former
secretary of education Arne Duncan received
more than US$26 million in Gates Foundation
support for the Chicago School District he led
prior to his time in office. He brought several
Gates alumni to serve in key roles in his
administration under President Obama (Klein,
2015). Under this administration, the USDOE
has been closely aligned with many of the
reform organizations and policy positions,
supporting increased charter school funding,
alternate routes for teacher preparation, and
use of student achievement data for teacher
evaluations.
The increased role of privatization and the
venture capital mind-set in education reform
also has implications for research and scholar-
ship, as funders can have a significant influence
on research priorities, the specific projects
that receive support, and even the designs and
measures used in funded studies. For exam-
ple, it may be quite difficult to secure funding
for research that seeks to measure student out-
comes by methods that are not embraced by
reformers or based on standardized test scores.
Funders want to see impact—a return on their
investment—and they often want a say in how
that impact is measured.
One new application of venture capitalism
in education is the Pay for Success initiative,
or Social Impact Bonds (SIB; U.S. Govern-
ment Accountability Office [GAO], 2015a).
Under this system, private capital can be used
to fund an initiative that targets specific out-
comes. If the outcomes are achieved, the gov-
ernment entity repays the funders with a rate
of return based on an agreed on formula. Out-
come measures and the level of outcomes to
be achieved are specified in the contract.
There are multiple examples of this approach
at the local, state, and federal levels. In fact, in
both the House and the Senate bills to reau-
thorize the ESEA of 1965 (Every Child
Achieves Act of 2015 and the Student Success
Act of 2015), multiple Pay for Success autho-
rizations would have allowed multiple ESEA
funds to be distributed in this manner. In the
new law, the ESSA, Pay for Success strategies
are only authorized for Title IV, 21st Century
Schools, which includes programs such as
community learning centers and charter
schools.
One instance of Pay for Success focused
directly on special education. In Utah, the
Granite School District utilized funds from
Goldman Sachs and J.B. Pritzker to decrease
the enrollment of low-income students in spe-
cial education. State and local governments in
Utah pledged to refund to the investors 95%
of their cost savings for each designated child
who is not enrolled in special education each
year from kindergarten through sixth grade
(GAO, 2015a). The potential for unintended
consequences with arrangements such as this
warrants close scrutiny (Popper, 2015).
Although this Pay for Success approach
has not yet been used to fund research, it is
imaginable that such an arrangement would
138 Teacher Education and Special Education 39(2)
further increase the influence of the funder
to determine the nature of the research and
metrics used, and could easily introduce a
profit motive for delivering particular out-
comes. Researchers and scholars need to be
aware of such new funding mechanisms and
engage in reflection and dialogue as they are
implemented.
Advocacy, Public Relations, and
Social Media
Organizations in Washington engaged in spe-
cial education advocacy have expanded sig-
nificantly as the policy arena has expanded.
Although the Education Task Force of the
Consortium for Citizens With Disabilities
(n.d.) remains the core coalition for special
education organizations, multiple others have
emerged. Many special education–related
organizations belong to several coalitions,
such as the Leadership Conference on Civil
and Human Rights (the Leadership Confer-
ence, 2015) and the Coalition for Teaching
Quality (2015). Virtually, all general education
organizations weigh in on matters related to
students with disabilities, and broader reform
and business organizations include special
education as part of their policy and advocacy
agendas. Indeed, some new organizations are
crossovers between reformers and special edu-
cators, such as the National Center for Special
Education in Charter Schools (n.d.).
What most of the highly visible education
reform organizations have in common is
savvy with new media. With Internet and
social media tools such as twitter, blogs, Face-
book, Instagram, and Pinterest, new dissemi-
nation tools can broadcast information and
opinions to multiple broad audiences almost
instantaneously. This technological capacity
has democratized access to information and
offered new competition for the role of
experts. Although expert opinion at times
enjoys privilege because of conferred exper-
tise and knowledge, it can conflict with the
values of democracy that prioritize free speech
and equal access for ideas. In this context,
education scholars have seen their influence
diminished (Scott et al., 2009).
One education reform organization that has
invested heavily, effectively, and uniquely in
influencing policy through advocacy, media,
public relations, and more is Teach for Amer-
ica (TFA). With a vast network of corps mem-
bers and coffers filled with government,
philanthropic, and corporate dollars, TFA has
mounted an extensive effort to influence pol-
icy through preparation of its members to
become policy makers, staffers on Capitol
Hill, and state or local leaders. For several
years, TFA has run a Capitol Hill Fellows pro-
gram that offers a US$60,0000 stipend for 12
months for about 10 corps members to serve
as legislative staff in congressional offices on
Capitol Hill (TFA, n.d.). These fellows draft
legislation, advise Senators and Members of
the House of Representatives, and meet with
stakeholder organizations. In 2012, TFA’s
Leadership for Educational Equity spent
almost US$3.2 million grooming its corps
members to become policy makers and lead-
ers and education reform lobbyists. Between
2010 and 2013, TFA spent nearly US$2.4 mil-
lion in lobbying at the state level to promote
its program and secure federal funds (Joseph,
2014). In light of recent criticisms and declin-
ing TFA applications, an independent non-
profit group closely related to TFA has
launched a US$1.5 million communications
campaign to counteract unfavorable coverage
of TFA (Layton, 2015). The campaign titled
Corp Knowledge has employed a public rela-
tions firm and will use extensive social media
to promote TFA. This level of spending on
public relations, advocacy, and lobbying is of
a magnitude hardly imaginable by most gen-
eral and special education organizations.
Policy makers, like the public, increasingly
look to social media for information and often
access it through “intermediary organizations”
that function in between policy makers and
research production (Scott & Jabbar, 2014). In
an informative study, Malin and Lubienski
(2015) examined the degree to which organiza-
tions that promote education ideas, informa-
tion, research, and policy positions have the
actual expertise to evaluate the different stud
ies they promote. Their study found a weak
relationship between media penetration and
McLaughlin et al. 139
expertise, as well as elevated media impact for
some reform organizations despite their lower
levels of expertise. The Think Tank Review
Project (TTRP), a collaboration of the Educa-
tion and the Public Interest Center at the Uni-
versity of Colorado at Boulder and the
Education Policy Research Unit at Arizona
State University, has conducted independent,
expert, third-party evaluations of think tank
research publications. TTRP has found that
many of the think tank reports receiving exten-
sive media and policy attention failed to meet
even minimal standards of research quality
(Welner et al., 2010). The results of these stud-
ies raise serious questions about the nature of
information that is informing education policy.
The Disconnect Between
Higher Education and Policy
Cultures
The lament from professionals in education
that research has little influence on policy is
neither new nor confined to professionals in
the education sector. Likewise, there is a long
history of complaints from policy makers that
education research is not useful. For example,
a 1971 National Research Council report
noted, “Research producers are sometimes
viewed as being more interested in furthering
their academic disciplines than providing
operational help . . . ” (Lynn, 1978, p. 3).
Rippner (2016) offered a succinct overview of
scholarly thinking related to research utiliza-
tion in education policy making from authors
including Birnbaum (2000), Henig (2008a,
2009), Ness (2010), and Weiss (1979). The
relationship between research and policy is
complex, and many characteristics of the
research community offer challenges for appli-
cation to policy making. Like many of the
authors noted above, we believe that the dis-
connect between research and policy is fueled
by the different worlds and cultures inhabited
by those in higher education and those in pol-
icy making bodies, and by the different pur-
poses and goals of researchers and policy
makers. Uniquely designed structures are
needed to bridge the gaps between the two cul-
tures. For purposes of this analysis, we focused
on the U.S. Congress as the policy making
body because it holds federal legislative
authority; however, the cultural contrasts we
outline apply to other policy-making bodies as
well. Like all cultures, the scholarly and policy
cultures each have their own mores, language,
traditions, incentives, and disincentives. Table
2 identifies some key variables that character-
ize and distinguish these two organizational
environments. The list is intended to be illus-
trative, rather than comprehensive.
From the researchers’ point of view, policy
making is often unrelated to their work. The
problems policy makers seek to address are
large and complex (e.g., poverty) and may not
be well informed by targeted research studies.
Research funds are limited, and funders are
unlikely to offer the amounts of money needed
for the kinds of large-scale research that could
address the problems policy makers seek to
resolve. Researchers have few incentives to
attempt to influence policy and almost no
institutional reinforcement for making such
efforts. In fact, activism could become a liabil-
ity if researchers become politically branded.
Policy makers live in a political world
where jockeying for partisan advantage is part
of their culture. Research might be a tool to
use in such an environment and may become
relevant to support a position already held or
to refute a position already opposed. Research
findings not supporting the preferred position
are often ignored. Because the portfolio of
policy makers, such as members of Congress,
expands to every matter of concern to citi-
zens, policy makers never have time to
become experts on all the topics they must
address. Policy makers—and their staff
assigned to specific policy areas—expect
communications to be brief and to the point
with clear implications for actions they might
take. This style of communication is quite dif-
ferent from scholarly communication, which
is generally lengthy, detailed, and nuanced
using specialized terms that may be impene-
trable to non-experts. Moreover, researchers
find it unethical to present findings without
careful description of threats to validity and
limitations of the study’s design. Although
good research is painstakingly detail-oriented,
140 Teacher Education and Special Education 39(2)

Table 2.  The Disconnect Between Research and avoid fighting over policy; it is a method of
Policy. fighting” (p. 19). Although research can be
Research used to solve problems, it does not, in and of
(higher itself, solve problems; and therein lies a chal-
education) Policy (Congress) lenge for researchers.
Currency Knowledge Power
Tenure of
practitioners
Long term Short term; Election
cycles—2-6 years
Opportunities for Influence
Timing Long term Immediate in the Policy Process
Communication Elaborate/ Brief/talking points
detailed
Knowledge of the new policy context and rec-
Information Scholarship/ Media/intermediaries/ ognition of the cultural divide between higher
sources professional political education and policy worlds set the stage for
Institutional Contributions Service to constituents scholars to become actively involved in advo-
incentives to scholarship for re-election cacy. A basic understanding of educational
for tenure
Key audiences Professional Constituents
policy development and implementation is
peers; also important for knowing when and how
funders of experts and the public at large might effec-
research tively engage. We used the “classic stage
Key activities Publish, teach Vote, craft laws
model of the policy process” as described by
Fowler (2013) to consider opportunities for
policy engagement. The model delineates six
the policy making process may be “big phases: (a) issues definition, (b) agenda set-
picture”–oriented and fast-paced. It does not ting, (c) policy formulation, (d) policy adop-
wait for research to accumulate and provide tion, (e) implementation, and (f) evaluation
evidence; evidence is generally needed “yes- (p. 16). Although this model provides a helpful
terday” as when a bill begins to move through framework, it may suggest a more orderly and
the policy process and a challenge comes for- sequential process than is often the case in the
ward, which policy makers want to refute. policy arena. As Fowler notes, policy issues
For some of the same reasons, education may advance for a time and then cycle back to
research has a reputation of being suspect. It an earlier phase. The process also progresses at
has long been the target of criticisms for its its own pace, often taking years for issues to be
focus on seemingly obscure issues, its lack of recognized as public policy priorities that
relevance to policy and practice, its question- require legislative or executive action. In the
able scientific rigor, and its equivocal find- current Congressional climate, policy formu-
ings. Policy makers generally search for lation and adoption have been especially con-
certainty, whereas researchers are often tenta- tentious. As noted above, long delays witnessed
tive in their conclusions and cautious about currently in the reauthorization of major edu-
generalizing from their findings. Policy mak- cation legislation, including the ESEA and the
ers are rarely interested in hearing cautions if IDEA, provide vivid examples of stalled pol-
they have firm beliefs about a policy direc- icy processes. The major stages of the policy
tion, and they may not be interested in hearing process and examples of higher education
negative findings when they are looking for engagement are discussed below.
positive ones (Sundquist, 1978). Because pol-
icy makers need to take action, they may shop
Issue Definition and Agenda Setting
for the research that supports the action they
want to take and ignore research that cautions Not all educational problems warrant a policy
against it. The fact that research studies them- solution. Among those that do deserve policy
selves may provide conflicting evidence fur- action, only a small percentage will actually
ther complicates the process. As Carol Weiss be addressed at any point in time. The earliest
(1978) astutely reflected, “Research does not stages of the policy process involve bringing
McLaughlin et al. 141
issues to the attention of the public and the
policy makers and convincing them that those
issues are sufficiently critical to be placed on
the policy agenda. Given all of the constituent
needs competing for attention, this is no small
feat. Often, it takes years of effort to build
awareness and the momentum for action.
Context and timing matter a great deal.
Recently, educators have lost control of the
narrative and been sidelined, whereas reform-
ers with corporate and ideological agendas
have framed both the problems and the solu-
tions for policy action (Berliner & Glass,
2014; Ravitch, 2013). The examples that fol-
low illustrate efforts of educators to tell their
own story effectively and to partner with other
groups to gain credibility, resources, and
influence. Sometimes, a single individual
serves as the primary champion, tirelessly
building support for a specific issue. More
often, issue identification and agenda setting
require the collective efforts of numerous
individuals and organizations over many
years to gain the traction that propels policy
action.
In recent history, the well-orchestrated
efforts of the higher education special educa-
tion community to address the critical short-
age of special education faculty provide a
powerful example of issue definition and
agenda setting. The research to document the
shortage, its implications, and long-term
trends (Smith, Montrosse, Robb, Tyler, &
Young, 2011; Smith, Pion, Tyler, Sindelar, &
Rosenberg, 2001) had a significant and direct
impact on national policy. The authors of the
shortage studies, led by Professor Deb Smith,
engaged in direct and explicit dissemination
efforts to policy makers and related national
stakeholders. By directly connecting the spe-
cial education faculty shortage to the teacher
shortage and to the impact on P-12 students,
the group was able to generate broad-based
support for an issue initially owned by the
small higher education special education
community. Meetings with a wide range of
national education associations were held to
share the research. Brief, clear, and concise
materials specifically directed to policy mak-
ers were disseminated, and congressional
briefings were held. West and Stringer (2005)
cited six examples of congressional commit-
tee reports, as well as two statutory provi-
sions, that referred directly to the special
education faculty shortage. The FY 2003
appropriations bill included a US$2.5 mil-
lion increase in funding for personnel prepa-
ration, noting in the accompanying report
that it was intended as an increase for leader-
ship grants that prepare new special educa-
tion faculty. This collective and sustained
effort to disseminate research findings
directly to policy makers and make the
explicit link to policy action provides an
instructive example of research being used
successfully to inform policy.
A second, contemporary example of issue
definition and agenda setting comes from
early childhood education. Over recent years,
advocates have substantially raised awareness
of early childhood development and the
importance of high-quality preschool pro-
grams. Research findings from multiple disci-
plines—cognitive, developmental, and
neuro-psychology; pediatrics and neurology;
mental health; and early childhood educa-
tion—have been used to support the case.
Advocacy organizations such as the state-
level Virginia Early Childhood Foundation
(VECF) have succeeded in reframing early
childhood education as a workforce develop-
ment issue to attract important support from
the business sector. In this public–private
partnership, leaders from major corporations
as well as the Business Roundtable have
joined forces with more traditional partners
from K-12 education; the child care commu-
nity; health, social service, and family support
agencies; social services; and faith leaders
(VECF, 2011). A recent VECF Executive
Briefing, for example, was hosted by the Vir-
ginia Chamber of Commerce and featured the
president of the Richmond Federal Reserve as
the keynote speaker (VECF, 2015). Although
the current economy has made it difficult to
secure appropriations for expanded early
childhood programs, the agenda is being
developed effectively with strong support
from a coalition that includes researchers,
practitioners, and non-traditional partners.
142 Teacher Education and Special Education 39(2)
Policy Formulation and Adoption
During these phases of the policy process,
bills are written, taken up by appropriate com-
mittees, and voted on in Congress or state leg-
islatures. Once education bills become law,
the USDOE or State Department of Education
develops rules and regulations. Many profes-
sional associations, including the Council for
Exceptional Children (CEC), National Educa-
tion Association (NEA), and American Fed-
eration of Teachers (AFT), develop model
legislation to promote their priorities (see, for
example, CEC’s efforts to strengthen require-
ments for students with disabilities in Charter
School legislation; CEC, 2014).
Another recent example from American
Association of Colleges for Teacher Educa-
tion (AACTE) further illustrates active
engagement in policy formulation. Concerned
about ongoing attacks on teacher preparation
and a national policy environment that put the
field on the defensive, AACTE set out to
develop constructive proposals that would
move the field forward and provide a positive
vision that teacher educators and policy mak-
ers could both support. AACTE worked with
the office of Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI) to develop
what became the Educator Preparation
Reform Act of 2012 and 2013. Rep. Mike
Honda (D-CA) joined as the House lead spon-
sor. The bill reauthorized Title II of the HEA
and expanded the Teacher Quality Partnership
Program that promotes extensive clinical
preparation. At this writing, a new version of
the bill is under development with a goal of
influencing current efforts to reauthorize the
HEA. Multiple national education organiza-
tions, both K-12 and higher education, have
supported the bill. Rep. Judy Chu (D-CA)
introduced a second bill also developed in
conjunction with AACTE, the Equal Access
to Quality Education Act (2011, 2013), in the
House in the 112th, 113th, and 114th Con-
gresses. Intended to recruit diverse students
into the teaching provision, the bill garnered
multiple co-sponsors.
Developing legislation in conjunction with
congressional offices is a powerful way to
infuse professional expertise into policy making
and build momentum for change. Of course,
educational associations compete for influ-
ence with think tanks, advocacy groups, and
lobbyists from all political and ideological
persuasions. The American Legislative and
Exchange Council (ALEC) has emerged as a
particularly powerful force, as it provides cor-
porations and think tanks with direct access to
state legislators, offering equal voting rights
to develop “model bills” to advance their con-
servative agenda. ALEC claims that “The
Exchange Council provides a unique opportu-
nity for state legislators, business leaders and
citizen organizations from around the country
to develop model policies based on academic
research, existing state policy and proven
business practices” (ALEC, 2015, p. 1).
SourceWatch (2015) of the Center for Media
and Democracy has described ALEC as a
“corporate bill mill.” Nearly all of ALEC’s
model education bills have some implications
for special education, and certain bills address
service provision directly, such as the Special
Needs Scholarship Program that would pro-
vide funding for students with special needs to
attend the public or private school of the par-
ents’ choice. Examination of these and other
model education bills reveals that ALEC pro-
posals often favor free market positions that
are contrary to the established research base.
Higher education faculty may be most
familiar with advocacy efforts at these Policy
Formulation and Adoption stages of the pol-
icy process, because professional associations
and other networks mobilize quickly to
engage the community when important bills
are under consideration. Position statements,
briefings, calls to representatives and write-in
campaigns are frequently used tactics to sup-
port favored positions. Representatives from
educational professional organizations and
experts from higher education often testify
before the relevant legislative committees.
Similar advocacy efforts continue once laws
are passed, as the U.S. or state education
departments are charged with developing
related rules and regulations to support policy
implementation.
The extensive recent engagement of the
education community in responding to the
McLaughlin et al. 143
USDOE’s (2014) proposed regulations for
teacher preparation programs offers a power-
ful example. During the comment period in
late 2014 and early 2015, the higher education
community, led by AACTE, mobilized to edu-
cate university presidents, deans, and faculty
about the requirements of the regulations and
implications for programs and practice. The
higher education community objected to the
perceived federal over-reach, estimated costs
for data systems, and use of P-12 student test
scores to evaluate teacher education pro-
grams. The response was significant, with
more than 4,500 comments submitted to the
Department in a 2-month window (AACTE,
2015). Only about 5% of the responses could
be characterized as supportive; the rest raised
concerns and objections. The vast majority
was from higher education. As of this writing,
the regulations are still under consideration.
In addition, legislation has been introduced in
both the House and the Senate to block the
further roll out of the regulations.
Policy Implementation and
Evaluation
The policy process continues beyond the
enactment of laws and regulations. Fowler
(2013) noted how policy implementation and
evaluation cannot be taken for granted: “Many
official policies are never implemented at all,
and many others are implemented only par-
tially or incorrectly” (p. 241). Policy evalua-
tion may be even more challenging, because
“Many policies are never evaluated at all;
some are evaluated poorly; and, although
some others are evaluated carefully, no one
ever acts on the findings” (p. 278). Recalling
the political culture previously described, par-
ticularly a focus on short-term time frames
and near constant election cycles, Fowler’s
observations are not surprising. Congress
does have the GAO, an independent, non-
partisan agency that, among other responsibili-
ties, performs policy analyses and reports on
the extent to which government policies and
programs are meeting their objectives (GAO,
n.d.). Recent examples of GAO Reports of rel-
evance to special education include a 2009
Report on Seclusion and Restraints (GAO,
2009) and a 2015 Report on Teacher Prepara-
tion Programs (GAO, 2015b). Since passage
of the Government Performance and Results
Act of 1993, all federal agencies, including the
USDOE, are required to collect and report per-
formance data on their programs.
The USDOE has established an extensive
network of funded centers to support and
evaluate implementation of ESEA, IDEA, and
other major programs. USDOE (n.d.) created
22 comprehensive centers to help increase
state capacity to assist districts and schools
improve student achievement. The 15 regional
centers primarily support state education
agencies with implementation of ESEA and
other programs. The seven Content Centers
focus on research and technical assistance in
such areas as College and Career Readiness,
Great Teachers and Leaders, and Standards
and Assessment Implementation. In addition,
the Office of Special Education Programs
(OSEP) has established its own extensive
Technical Assistance and Dissemination
(TA&D) Network. OSEP has even created a
Technical Assistance Coordination Center
(TCC) to assist in supporting ongoing com-
munication and collaboration among the cen-
ters in the OSEP-funded TA&D Network, and
between these centers and other relevant fed-
erally funded TA&D (n.d.) centers, national
professional organizations, and a broad spec-
trum of stakeholders.
This elaborate, funded network of research
and technical assistance centers provides a
new impetus for higher education to partner
with intermediaries in the policy process.
Although many of these centers are housed at
universities and/or involve inter-institutional
collaborations, increasingly the largest and
potentially most influential centers and proj-
ects are collaborative efforts of higher educa-
tion, professional associations, and private
entities, such as WestEd and American Insti-
tutes for Research (AIR).
In today’s political context, grassroots
efforts can still affect the policy process. The
current backlash against standardized testing
is a case in point. Resistance to the over-use of
standardized tests and over-reliance on test
144 Teacher Education and Special Education 39(2)
scores to make high-stakes decisions about
students, teachers, schools, districts, and edu-
cator preparation programs has been building
since implementation of NCLB. Although
strong objections from experts, including the
American Educational Research Association
(2015) and American Statistical Association
(2014), had seemingly little effect on the use
of value-added methods, the rapid rise of the
opt-out movement, a grassroots effort led by
parents and fueled by social media, appears to
be prompting reconsideration of the role of
standardized tests. In October 2015, the
USDOE (2015) released a new Testing Action
Plan, outlining principles for fewer and
smarter assessments, along with administra-
tive actions to reduce over-testing. Although it
is yet to be seen how grassroots feedback on
implementation will influence ESSA regula-
tions and the reauthorization of IDEA and
other key legislation, there is little doubt that
parent groups and other coalitions will be
advocating forcefully using social media.
Finally, we cannot over-state the influence
that individual faculty and collaborative
groups continue to have in supporting policy
implementation and evaluation through their
teaching, research, and service, particularly
their engagement with P-12 schools. The col-
lective contributions of research faculty create
the body of work that undergirds our profes-
sional practice. University faculty brings
deeper knowledge of educational theory and
research literature than any other group of
stakeholders involved in the policy process. It
is critical, therefore, that we find ways to
bridge the higher education–policy making
gap so that more decisions are informed by
the evidence base.
Recommendations
Based on our analysis of the current political
climate and understanding of the policy pro-
cess, we offer the higher education special
education community the following recom-
mendations for action.
Recommendation 1: Work through our
professional associations, particularly CEC
and Higher Education Consortium for Spe-
cial Education (HECSE), to develop new
strategies for more intentional work with
intermediaries and partners to amplify our
voices and impact.
Such efforts might focus on three levels. The
first involves broader and more active engage-
ment with the research and technical assis-
tance centers within our own profession.
Competition for institutional visibility and
resources can create obstacles to the unified
effort needed for increased impact on the pol-
icy process. Individuals and collaborative
teams of faculty make important contributions
to the knowledge base and to advocacy efforts,
but the centers have the capacity to conduct
larger scale studies, and to synthesize and dis-
seminate the collective body of evidence. We
have a compelling case and a wealth of
resources that could be leveraged in more
effective ways.
A second level of engagement requires a
strong recommitment to our long-standing
allies—parents and professional associations.
Meaningful relationships are reciprocal; we
count on our partners’ support for our priority
issues, and in turn, provide support for their
issues. Again, our understanding of the exist-
ing literature base is central to our relation-
ships with non-research partners. It is our
responsibility to assist with the analyses and
syntheses of available research and to provide
information in usable formats. Coalitions of
associations, such as the Leadership Confer-
ence on Civil and Human Rights and the
Coalition for Teaching Quality mentioned
above, can strengthen our influence and gen-
erate support from new constituencies. A third
level of engagement requires moving out of
our comfort zones to forge new relationships
with the corporate sector, advocacy groups,
foundations, think tanks, and others who
influence services for students with disabili-
ties and others at risk. Continued parallel con-
versations with likeminded groups are
unlikely to produce meaningful change.
Despite the temptation to shun the groups
whose positions run contrary to our values
and/or professional knowledge base, we need
McLaughlin et al. 145
to find ways to share our research in accessi-
ble ways and participate in reasoned discus-
sions of the issues to move ahead.
Recommendation 2: Embrace new com-
munications styles and media to make our
scholarship accessible to policy makers
and the public at large. Expand dissemina-
tion networks beyond traditional scholarly
journals and conferences.
Given the disconnects between the policy
making and scholarly communities described
earlier, the challenge for faculty is to under-
stand the culture of policy makers and adapt
to their needs without compromising profes-
sional integrity. Any hope to control our own
narrative requires that we bridge the gap to
communicate in ways that policy makers and
the public find useful. A research publication
for a scholarly journal might be translated into
another version for lay audiences and dissem-
inated through other media outlets. Faculty
can also learn to write effective op-ed pieces,
blogs, policy briefs, and memos. It also means
mastering the art of the “elevator speech,” to
explain our positions orally in very brief,
clear, and jargon-free language. In addition,
we must learn to use electronic media more
effectively, taking lessons from the new advo-
cacy groups that are able to mobilize their fol-
lowers rapidly and effectively through social
media. Finally, within our own universities,
we need to promote faculty evaluation sys-
tems that recognize applied scholarship and
non-traditional outlets for dissemination
(what policy makers actually read).
Recommendation 3: Prepare the new gen-
eration of leaders in special education for
effective engagement in the policy process.
Collaboratively define the educational pol-
icy competencies needed for leadership in
special education and develop modules
that might be incorporated into preparation
programs, particularly at the doctoral level.
The CEC (2015) Standards for Advanced
Preparation offer a start for defining essential
knowledge and skills by emphasizing that
leaders should be able to “advocate for educa-
tional policy within the context of evidence-
based practices.” Like most national standards,
the CEC Specialty Sets need to be elaborated
in more detail to be useful in actual program
and course design. For preparation of future
leaders, the competencies and modules should
focus not only on theoretical knowledge and
policy research skills, but also on practical
skills for engaging in the policy-making pro-
cess. Toward this end, under the direction of
HECSE, West (2014) developed a “Short
Course on Education Policy and Politics” for
doctoral students in member institutions.
Listed below is a modification of the objec-
tives for that course that illustrates the compe-
tencies that should be emphasized in policy
preparation:
•• Demonstrate knowledge about key
education policy issues, stakeholders,
and processes, including legislative
and regulatory processes;
•• Identify and analyze a range of vari-
ables and strategies that affect policy
making, including specific authorities
of stakeholders and political dynamics;
•• Analyze how policy and political pro-
cesses, organizational structures and
authorities, and key stakeholders inter-
act to influence policy outcomes; and
•• Demonstrate the skills and knowledge
needed to become effective advocates
on behalf of the education profession
and the students it serves, utilizing
research and analysis.
Delivered in Washington, D.C., before the
annual 2015 and 2016 HECSE Summits, the
HECSE short course offered doctoral students
the opportunity to meet directly with policy
makers and study the policy making process as
it was unfolding. Those students described the
course as significant in shaping their views
about policy and the opportunities to engage in
its creation. This HECSE short course might
serve as a model for development of a module
that could be replicated at other institutions or
offered online in the tradition of the IRIS Cen-
ter Modules (IRIS, 2015) or the Collaboration
146 Teacher Education and Special Education 39(2)
for Effective Educator Development, Account-
ability and Reform (CEEDAR) Center Course
Enhancement Modules (CEEDAR, 2015).
Conclusion
The special education profession has a well-
developed knowledge base and a strong net-
work of funded centers devoted to research
and technical assistance. As special education
scholars and teacher educators, we have a
powerful story to tell but will have to amplify
our voices to garner influence in today’s polit-
ically charged environment. Lessons learned
from our own history of effective advocacy, as
well as from the recent education reform
movement, can help energize our focus on
collective research and dissemination activi-
ties and propel us to develop new relation-
ships that will better enable professional
knowledge and expertise to inform policy.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of
interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the
research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
References
American Association of Colleges for Teacher
Education. (2015). Proposed federal regulations
for teacher preparation programs. Retrieved
from http://aacte.org/resources/regulations
American Educational Research Association.
(2015). Statement on use of value-added models
(VAM) for the evaluation of educators and edu-
cator preparation programs. Retrieved from
http://edr.sagepub.com/content/early/2015/11/
10/0013189X15618385.full.pdf+html
American Legislative and Exchange Council.
(2015). Model policy. Retrieved from http://
www.alec.org/model-legislation/
American Statistical Association. (2014). ASA
statement on using value-added models for
educational assessment. Retrieved from http://
www.amstat.org/policy/pdfs/asa_vam_state-
ment.pdf
Baker, B., & Welner, K. G. (2012). Evidence and
rigor: Scrutinizing the rhetorical embrace of
evidence-based decision making. Educational
Researcher, 41, 98-101.
Berliner, D. C., & Glass, G. V. (Eds.). (2014).
Myths and lies that threaten America’s pub-
lic schools. New York, NY: Teachers College
Press.
Birnbaum, R. (2000). Policy scholars are from
Venus; policy makers are from Mars. The
Review of Higher Education, 23, 119-132.
Coalition for Teaching Quality. (2015). The CTQ
mission. Retrieved from http://www.coalition-
forteachingquality.org/main/index.cfm?ID=1
Collaboration for Effective Educator Development,
Accountability and Reform. (2015). CEEDAR
course enhancement modules. Retrieved from
https://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/cems/how-to-
use-cems/
Consortium for Citizens With Disabilities. (n.d.).
Member organisations. Retrieved from
http://www.c-c-d.org/rubriques.php?rub=
organization.php
Council for Exceptional Children. (2014). CEC
recommendations included in house passed
charter school legislation. Retrieved from
http://www.policyinsider.org/2014/05/cec-
recommendations-included-in-house-passed-
charter-school-legislation.html
Council for Exceptional Children. (2015). CEC
initial and advanced specialty sets. Retrieved
from http://www.cec.sped.org/Standards/
Special-Educator-Professional-Preparation/
CEC-Initial-and-Advanced-Specialty-Sets
Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The flat world and
education: How America’s commitment to
equity will determine our future. New York,
NY: Teachers College Press.
Educator Preparation Reform Act of 2012, H. R.
6447 S. 3582, 112th Cong. (2012).
Educator Preparation Reform Act of 2013, H. R.
2172 S. 1062, 113th Cong. (2013).
Equal Access to Quality Education Act of 2011, H.
R. 2902, 112th Cong. (2011).
Equal Access to Quality Education Act of 2013, H.
R. 1334, 113th Cong. (2013).
Equal Access to Quality Education Act of 2013, H.
R. 2149, 114th Cong. (2013).
Every Child Achieves Act of 2015, S. 1177, 114th
Cong. (2015).
Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, S. 1177,
114th Cong. (2015).
Fowler, F. C. (2013). Policy studies for educa-
tional leaders (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
McLaughlin et al. 147
Henig, J. (2008a). The evolving relationship
between researchers and public policy. In F. M.
Hess (Ed.), When research matters: How schol-
arship influences education policy (pp. 41-62).
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Henig, J. (2008b). Spin cycle: How research gets
used in policy debates—The case of charter
schools. New York, NY: Russell Sage.
Henig, J. (2009). Politicization of evidence: Lessons
for an informed democracy. Educational Policy,
23, 137-160.
Honig, M. I. (2006). New directions in education
policy implementation. Albany: State University
of New York Press.
Honig, M. I., & Hatch, T. C. (2004). Crafting
coherence: How schools strategically man-
age multiple, external demands. Educational
Researcher, 33, 16-30.
Institute of Education Sciences. (2015a). Fast facts:
Back to school statistics. Retrieved from http://
nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=372
IRIS. (2015). Welcome to the IRIS center. Retrieved
from http://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/
Joseph, G. (2014, October 29). This is what hap-
pens when you criticize Teach for America.
The Nation. Retrieved from http://www.the-
nation.com/article/what-happens-when-you-
criticize-teach-america/
Klein, A. (2015, October 8). Gates reaffirms K-12
priorities amid shifting political landscape.
Education Week. Retrieved from http://www.
edweek.org/ew/articles/2015/10/08/gates-
reaffirms-k-12-priorities-amid-shifting-politi-
cal.html?cmp=eml-enl-cco-news2-RM
Kline, N. (2007). Shock doctrine: The rise of disas-
ter capitalism. New York, NY: Henry Holt.
Layton, L. (2015, December 12). Rapid response
unit aims to counter criticisms of Teach for
America. The Washington Post. Retrieved from
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/educa-
tion/rapid-response-unit-aims-to-counter-criti-
cisms-of-teach-for-america/2015/12/12/9c16d
24a-a049-11e5-8728-1af6af208198_story.html
The Leadership Conference. (2015). Coalition
members of the leadership conference on civil
and human rights. Retrieved from http://www.
civilrights.org/about/the-leadership-confer-
ence/coalition_members/
Lubienski, C., Scott, J., & DeBray, E. (2014). The
politics of research production, promotion, and
utilization in educational policy. Educational
Policy, 28, 131-144.
Lynn, L. E. (Ed.). (1978). Knowledge and policy:
The uncertain connection. Washington, DC:
National Academy of Sciences.
Malin, J., & Lubienski, C. (2015). Educational
expertise, advocacy, and media influence.
Education Policy Analysis Archives, 23, 6.
Manna, P. (2011). Collision course: Federal edu-
cation policy meets state and local realities.
Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Manna, P., & Moffit, S. (2014). New education
advocacy organizations in the U.S. states. The
Wallace Foundation. Retrieved from http://
www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-cen-
ter/school-leadership/state-policy/Documents/
New-Education-Advocacy-Organiziations-
in-the-United-States-Paul-Manna-Executive-
Summary.pdf
McDonnell, L. M., & Elmore, R. F. (1987). Getting
the job done: Alternative policy instruments.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
9, 133-152.
McGuinn, P. (2012). Fight club: Are advocacy
organizations changing the politics of educa-
tion? Education Next, 12(3). Retrieved from
http://educationnext.org/fight-club/
National Center for Special Education in Charter
Schools. (n.d.). Home. Available from http://
www.ncsecs.org/
Ness, E. (2010). The role of information in the
policy process: Implications for the examina-
tion of research utilization in higher education
policy. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education:
Handbook of theory and research (pp. 1-49).
New York, NY: Springer.
Popper, N. (2015, November 3). Success met-
rics questioned in school program funded by
Goldman. The New York Times. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/04/business/
dealbook/did-goldman-make-the-grade.html?_
r=0
Ravitch, D. (2013). Reign of error: The hoax of
the privatization movement and the danger
to America’s public schools. New York, NY:
Vintage Books.
Rippner, J. A. (2016). The American education
policy landscape. New York, NY: Routledge.
Scott, J., & Jabbar, H. (2014). The hub and spokes:
Foundations, intermediary organizations,
incentive reforms, and the politics of research
evidence. Educational Policy, 28, 233-257.
Scott, J., Lubienski, C., & Debray-Pelot, E. (2009).
Politics of advocacy in education. Educational
Policy, 23, 3-14.
Smith, D. D., Montrosse, B., Robb, S., Tyler,
N., & Young, C. (2011). Assessing trends
in leadership: Special education’s capac-
ity to produce a highly qualified workforce
(Project No. 325U070001). Claremont, CA:
148 Teacher Education and Special Education 39(2)
Special Education Faculty Needs Assessment,
Claremont Graduate University.
Smith, D. D., Pion, G., Tyler, N. C., Sindelar, P.
T., & Rosenberg, M. (2001). Final report: The
study of special education leadership person-
nel with particular attention to the professori-
ate (OSEP Project No. H920T970006-00A).
Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University.
SourceWatch. (2015). American legislative
exchange council. Retrieved from http://
www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/American_
Legislative_Exchange_Council
Student Success Act of 2015, H. R. 5, 114th
Congress (2015).
Sundquist, J. L. (1978). Research brokerage: The
weak link. In L. E. Lynn (Ed.), Knowledge and
policy: The uncertain connection (pp. 126-
144). Washington, DC: National Academy of
Sciences.
Teach for America. (n.d.). Capitol hill fellows
program. Retrieved from https://www.teach-
foramerica.org/alumni/awards-fellowships-
programs/capitol-hill-fellows-program
Technical Assistance and Dissemination Network.
(n.d.). Find a center. Retrieved from http://
www.tadnet.org/pages/526-find-a-center
U.S. Census Bureau. (2013). Public education
finances. Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office. Retrieved from http://www2.
census.gov/govs/school/13f33pub.pdf
U.S. Department of Education. (2014). U.S. depart-
ment of education proposes plan to strengthen
teacher preparation. Retrieved from http://
www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/us-depart-
ment-education-proposes-plan-strengthen-
teacher-preparation
U.S. Department of Education. (2015). Fact sheet:
Testing action plan. Retrieved from http://
www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/fact-sheet-
testing-action-plan
U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). Programs:
Comprehensive centers program. Retrieved
from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/newccp/
index.html
U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2009).
Seclusions and restraints: Selected cases of
death and abuse at public and private schools
and treatment centers. Retrieved from http://
www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-719T
U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2015a).
Pay for success: Collaboration among fed-
eral agencies would be helpful as govern-
ments explore new financing mechanisms.
Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www.
gao.gov/assets/680/672363.pdf
U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2015b).
Teacher preparation programs: Education
should ensure states identify low-performing
programs and improve information-sharing.
Retrieved from http://www.gao.gov/products/
GAO-15-598
U.S. Government Accountability Office. (n.d.).
About GAO. Retrieved from http://www.gao.
gov/about/
Virginia Early Childhood Foundation. (2011). About
the VECF. Retrieved from http://www.smartbe-
ginnings.org/home/about/about-the-vecf.aspx
Virginia Early Childhood Foundation. (2015).
Business executives discuss economics of early
childhood. Retrieved from http://www.smart-
beginnings.org/Portals/5/PDFs/VECF_VA_
Chamber_Event_Press_Release_R.pdf
Weiss, C. H. (1978). Improving the linkage
between social research and public policy. In
L. E. Lynn (Ed.), Knowledge and policy: The
uncertain connection (pp. 23-81). Washington,
DC: National Academy of Sciences.
Weiss, C. H. (1979). The many meanings of
research utilization. Public Administration
Review, 39, 426-431.
Welner, K. G., Hinchey, P. H., Molnar, A., &
Weitzman, D. (2010). Think tank research
quality: Lessons for policy makers, the media,
and the public. Charlotte, NC: Information
Age Publishing.
West, J. (2014). HECSE pre-summit short course
on education policy and politics. Retrieved
from http://www.hecse.net/training/
West, J., & Stringer, A. (2005). Internal memo on
“Congressional citations of the shortage of
special education faculty.” Washington, DC:
Washington Partners.
West, J., Thoma, C., & Gamel-McCormick, M.
(2015). Education policy and politics: What’s at
stake for students with disabilities. Richmond:
School of Education, Virginia Commonwealth
University. Retrieved from https://aucd.ado-
beconnect.com/_a1005431686/p64w60fendm
/?launcher=false&fcsContent=true&pbMode
=normal
Wilson, J. Q. (1978). Social science and public
policy: A personal note. In L. E. Lynn (Ed.),
Knowledge and policy: The uncertain connec-
tion (pp. 82-92). Washington, DC: National
Academy of Sciences.
Author Biographies
Virginia L. McLaughlin is the former dean and cur-
rent Chancellor Professor in the School of Education
McLaughlin et al. 149
at the College of William and Mary. She served on the
Virginia Board of Education, as well as AACTE,
NCATE, and Council of Academic Deans at Research
Education Institutions (CADREI) boards. Her
research and teaching focuses on educational policy,
teacher quality, and school-university partnerships.
Jane E. West, PhD in special education, is an edu-
cation policy consultant for HECSE, Teacher Edu-
cation Division of CEC, American Association of
Colleges for Teacher Education, National Network
of State Teachers of the Year and other education
organizations. A former education staff member in
the U.S. Senate, she is Visiting Professor at the
University of Maryland where she teaches courses
in education policy and politics.
Jeffrey A. Anderson is professor of special educa-
tion in the School of Education at Indiana Univer-
sity-Bloomington, U.S. He is the Principal Investi-
gator of Families, Communities, and Schools
(FoCuS) supporting partnerships through collabo-
ration, engagement, and research. His research
examines the role of interagency collaboration and
family engagement in improving educational and
social outcomes for students.