The Politics of Non-Incremental School Finance Reform: a Case Study Analysis of Vermont’S Act 60 As a Test of Mazzoni’S Arena Model
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ABSTRACT Title of Dissertation: THE POLITICS OF NON-INCREMENTAL SCHOOL FINANCE REFORM: A CASE STUDY ANALYSIS OF VERMONT’S ACT 60 AS A TEST OF MAZZONI’S ARENA MODEL Kimberly Anne Curtis, Doctor of Philosophy, 2011 Dissertation Directed by: Professor Betty Malen Department of Education Policy Studies This research, grounded in political theory, had two major purposes: 1) to explain a case of non-incremental policy change within the realm of school finance reform; and 2) to test the utility of Mazzoni’s (1991) arena model for explaining state-level school finance policymaking. These goals were accomplished through an examination of the Vermont state legislature’s policymaking process in response to the Vermont Supreme Court Brigham v. State (1997) ruling declaring the state’s system of school finance unconstitutional. This analysis sought to explain how key political actors, taking advantage of favorable reform conditions, utilized power derived from positional authority as well as personal influence to impact the passage of Act 60, an innovative and forcefully redistributive piece of school finance legislation. The research employed a qualitative case method as a means to answer the research questions. Data collection drew from an informant interview process supported by extensive primary and secondary source document review. Data were systematically analyzed against the conceptual framework, presented in a case narrative and discussed in light of related literature to generate analytic conclusions with regard to the process of state education policymaking for school finance. Study findings highlight the general utility of Mazzoni’s arena model in explaining non-incremental policy change in the realm of school finance reform; the importance of politically savvy and well-situated policy entrepreneurs who can take advantage of propitious events such as a court ruling to advance non-incremental policy reform; and the role of political elites in advancing the cause of school finance reform. Suggestions for future research include the potential refinement of the arena model to include a judicial arena and the use of other policy frameworks to analyze non- incremental policy innovation for school finance. THE POLITICS OF NON-INCREMENTAL SCHOOL FINANCE REFORM: A CASE STUDY ANALYSIS OF VERMONT’S ACT 60 AS A TEST OF MAZZONI’S ARENA MODEL by Kimberly Anne Curtis Dissertation submitted to the faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Maryland, College Park in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 2011 Advisory Committee: Professor Betty Malen, Chair Professor J. Edward Andrews Professor Jennifer King Rice Professor Robert Croninger Professor Margaret McLaughlin © Copyright by Kimberly Anne Curtis 2011 Acknowledgement First and foremost, I would like to extend my deep appreciation to study participants who so kindly shared their time and experiences with me. They exemplify Vermont’s spirit of generosity and tolerance. I offer my gratitude to the members of my dissertation committee, Dr. Edward Andrews, Dr. Jennifer Rice, Dr. Robert Croninger and Dr. Margaret McLaughlin, for their expert review, insightful comments and helpful suggestions. I owe a special debt of gratitude to my advisor and dissertation chair, Dr. Betty Malen, whose intellect inspired me and whose encouragement sustained me throughout my career as a graduate student. Finally, I extend my love and appreciation to my family for their support. Special appreciation goes to my husband, Matt Katzive, for his unwavering love and commitment throughout this entire process. He was there to tell me that I could do it even when I thought I couldn’t. A final acknowledgement goes to my daughters, Caroline and Anna, whose lives have filled my heart with joy and added special meaning to my work in education. ii Table of Contents Acknowledgement ii Table of Contents iii Chapter 1: Introduction 1 Topic and Purpose 6 Potential Significance 7 Conceptual Framework and Central Research Questions 9 Organization of the Study 11 Chapter 2: Discussion of Related Literature and Description of the Conceptual Framework 12 Issue Area: The Politics of School Finance Reform 12 Values Underpinning the Politics of School Finance Reform 13 The Politics of State Education Policymaking 17 The Politics of School Finance Reform 26 Theoretical Framework: The Process of State Education Policymaking 39 Classic Conceptions of Policymaking Frameworks: Criteria for Selecting a Framework 39 State Education Policymaking Frameworks 42 Mazzoni’s Arena Model 46 Conceptual Framework for this Study 55 Research Questions Derived from the Conceptual Framework 61 Study Limitations 62 Definition of Key Components of the Conceptual Framework 64 Chapter Summary 66 Chapter 3: Research Design and Methods 67 Site Selection Rationale 67 Importance of the Issue Area 68 Analytic Value of the Vermont Setting 69 Compatibility with the Analytic Framework 72 Case Study Rationale 73 Data Sources, Data Gathering Methods and Data Analysis 76 Data Sources 76 Procedures for Data Gathering 80 Procedures for Data Analysis 89 Validity: Checks for Bias and Error 92 Credibility 92 Transferability 95 Dependability 97 Ethical Considerations 99 Chapter Summary 100 iii Chapter 4: Policymaking Context and Issue Background 101 Cultural, Economic and Political Features of the Vermont Policy Environment 101 Cultural Norms, Values and Traditions 102 Economic Forces 106 Political Culture 109 Institutional Features of the Vermont Legislative System 113 The Legislature: Composition 114 The Legislature: Structure 117 The Governor 121 The Lieutenant Governor 125 The State Board of Education 126 The State Department of Education 127 The Judiciary 127 Local Government 129 School Finance Interest Groups in Vermont 131 The Education Lobby 134 Municipal Government Lobby 138 Business Organizations 138 Gold Towns/Ski Resort Lobby 139 Pro-School Finance Reform Advocacy Groups 141 School Finance Issue Background 143 School Finance on the National Scene 143 School Finance in Vermont 151 Chapter Summary 161 Chapter 5: Case Findings and Interpretations 163 Synopsis of Judicial Action 163 Synopsis of Legislative Response 164 Enacting Act 60 167 Subsystem Arena 168 Commission Arena 186 Macro Arena 203 Leadership Arena 300 Gauging a Win: Interpretation of the Policymaking Process 361 Decision Outcome Method 362 Reputational Assessment Method 368 Resource Assessment Method 372 Analysis of Non-Decision Method 379 Summary 380 Chapter 6: Assessment of the Arena Model 382 Topic and Case Selection Rationale 382 Policy Problem 383 Study Purpose 384 iv Conceptual Framework 384 Assessment of the Individual Components of the Arena Model 385 Subsystem Arena 386 Commission Arena 392 Macro Arena 398 Leadership Arena 403 Assessment of the Arena Model as a Whole 409 Suggestions for Future Research: Refining Mazzoni’s Arena Model 413 Scope of Participation 414 Decisionmaking Process 415 Visibility 416 Policy Outcomes 416 Suggestions for Future Research: Beyond Mazzoni’s Arena Model 417 Chapter Summary 418 Appendices: Appendix A: Diagram of Mazzoni’s Arena Model 419 Appendix B: Informed Consent Form 420 Appendix C: Description of the Case Study 423 Appendix D: Vermont School Finance Reform Chronology 424 Appendix E: Informal Interview Guide 427 Appendix F: In-Depth Interview Guide 431 Appendix G: Interview Evaluation 441 Appendix H: Diagram of Revised Arena Model 442 References 443 v CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION Although states are constitutionally obligated to provide public education, most have delegated a major portion of this responsibility to local school districts. For example, states have long tasked local districts with the primary responsibility for funding public education. These districts have traditionally relied on revenue collected from local property taxes to fund their schools (Ward, 1998; DeMoss, 2003; Schmidt & Scott, 2004; Shelly, 2011). However, disparities in taxable local district wealth have frequently led to sizable differences in school funding levels across school districts within any given state (Rebell, 2009). While state financial intervention has ameliorated school funding discrepancies in most states, locally generated revenue still accounts for approximately 45 percent of school budgets and sizable funding discrepancies persist (Baker, Green & Richards, 2008). As McUsic (1999) notes: “The distribution of educational resources is remarkably unequal in the United States, skewed across lines of race and class” (p. 88). Yet, a quality education is viewed as an essential component of a successful and productive adult life. Structural impediments such as funding disparities frequently prevent equitable access to education for America’s poor and minority students. School finance reform1 is often viewed as one front in the push for eliminating those structural impediments and is predicated on the belief that improved access to education funding 1 In her study of the politics of school finance reform in four Midwestern states, Siegel (1976) defines the term school finance reform as “…attempts by state governments to restructure their school aid formula in order to provide greater equity in the distribution of educational revenues and in their tax structures” (p. 218). can improve educational outcomes for students (Card & Payne, 2002; Jimerson, 2001; Jimerson, 2002). Since the late 1960s, the courts have served as the primary vehicle for those groups seeking to address discrepancies in school finance. In the ensuing decades,