Policy Venues and Policy Change: The Case of Education Finance Reform

Abstract

Objective. In the U.S. states, policy development can occur in multiple venues. In fact, the likelihood of policy success may be directly related to the policy arena chosen by advocates. In this article, we examine those conditions under which policy reform results in success within education finance reform. Method. We model the likelihood that successful reform may take place via courts, legislatures, or referenda, and whether it occurs over multiple policy events. We simultaneously estimate the relative probability of the occurrence of different possible policy events (judicial action, legislative action, and referendum) in a given state and year. Our data comprise an exhaustive analysis of all litigation and policy events in education finance over time , for all states. Results. Our findings indicate court-ordered policy reform will most likely take place when judicial ideology supports it, while legislativeordered reform is meaningfully influenced by the passage of time. We also find that policy reform via direct democracy has a resounding and constraining effect on the other branches of government. Conclusion. In our conclusions, we evaluate those scenarios in which reform will most likely occur within a specific policy venue, and the possible implications this may have for policy change in the states.An essential component for policy change is not only the definition of a policy problem and mobilization of actors, but also a receptive policy arena in which alteration of the status quo has a potential likelihood of success. Although there is yet no consensus on the extent to which multiple policy venues may help or hinder policy development, many scholars have agreed that venue shopping itself is integral to the policy process (Baumgartner, 1989;

Venue Effects: How State Policy Source Influences Policy Support

“…The relative unpopularity of the court‐produced version is especially significant in light of advocate tendencies to turn to the courts to resolve inequities in education finance (Cann and Wilhelm ; Roch and Howard ). More broadly, this finding highlights the fact that a venue's policy‐making strength or capacity may depend on the lens through which it is being evaluated.…”

“…We focus on education finance reform because it is a well‐suited and well‐established domain for state‐level comparative institutional analysis (see e.g., Cann and Wilhelm ; Roch and Howard ). Specifically, although they are frequently litigation‐focused, education finance campaigns have been waged in each of the three state‐level policy venues of interest: courts, legislatures, and ballot initiative processes (Cann and Wilhelm ). One could imagine a host of other policy prescriptions that would be unlikely to be implemented by, for example, a court—like a change in the state's sales tax rate.…”

“…On one hand, the public may privilege accountability over impartiality or transparency over secluded deliberation when evaluating institutions and their policy outputs. If so, they may favor “preference‐based” (Cann and Wilhelm , 1080) policy mechanisms—those that actively engage voters or reach decisions with voter desires in mind. Some studies suggest, for instance, that individuals express high levels of satisfaction for institutions that solicit the opinions of voters when making policy decisions (Baldassare ; Donovan and Karp ; Matsusaka ) .…”

“…First, a venue may have a well‐established history of tackling certain causes or producing specific policy outcomes. In the United States, for instance, courts are a frequent venue of choice for policy advocates (Burke ; Kagan ), and may be perceived as better positioned (relative to majoritarian institutions) to consider the interests of disenfranchised groups or take up contentious policy rifts (Cann and Wilhelm ; Epp ; Graber 1993; Pierceson ). Second, advocates may find that some policy venues offer more applicable past precedents to leverage in service of their policy positions.…”

The Rise of Homeschooling Regulation in the Era of School Choice: Legislative and Judicial Trends, 1972–2009

“…In fact, few scholars have examined both courts and legislation of any issue simultaneously, or how the timing of one affects outcomes related to the other. Thus, our work contributes to the growing body of research that seeks to explain state-level and temporal variations in laws (Cann and Wilhelm 2011;Fleischmann and Moyer 2009;Grattet, Jenness, and Curry 1998;Kane 2003Kane , 2007McCammon et al 2001;Pedriana and Stryker 2004;Werum and Winders 2001) and research examining the conditions shaping litigation (Arum 2003;Provasnik 2006;Reagan 1997).…”