This study examines the role of governors in the P–16 education reform movement through their influence in the adoption of policies creating statewide P–16 councils. Network theory is used to distill three sets of hypotheses to predict how leadership influences of governors, the structure of state educational governance organizations, and environmental characteristics of states may help to explain the spread of voluntary and mandatory P–16 councils from 1992 to 2008. These hypotheses are tested empirically through the use of event history analysis. The results indicate that the presence of an education governor, as well as certain environmental conditions, may affect a state’s decision of both whether to form a P–16 council and the type of P–16 council that is formed.
AgranoffR.McGuireM. (1998). Multinetwork management: Collaboration and the hollow state in local economic policy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 8, 67–91.
2.
BarrilleauxC.BerkmanM. (2003). Do governors matter? Budgetary rules and the politics of state policymaking. Political Research Quarterly, 56, 409–417.
BernickE. L.WigginsC. W. (1991). Executive–legislator relations: The governor’s role as chief legislator. In HerzikE. B.BrownB. W. (Eds.), Gubernatorial leadership and state policy (pp. 73–91). New York, NY: Greenwood.
5.
BerryF. S.BerryW. D. (1990). State lottery adoptions as policy innovations: An event history analysis. American Political Science Review, 84, 395–415.
6.
BerryF. S.BerryW. D. (1992). Tax innovation in the states: Capitalizing on political opportunity. American Journal of Political Science, 34, 715–742.
7.
BerryF. S.BerryW. D. (2007). Innovation and diffusion models in policy research. In SabatierP. (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 223–260). Boulder, CO: Westview.
8.
BeyleT. (2004). The governors. In GrayV.HansonR. R. (Eds.), Politics in the American states: A comparative analysis (8th ed., pp. 194–231). Washington, DC: CQ Press.
9.
BoswellK. (2000). Building bridges or barriers? Public policies that facilitate or impede linkages between community colleges and local school districts. New Directions for Community Colleges, 111, 3–15.
10.
BowlerM. (2001). Maryland’s K–16 partnership. In MaeroffG. I.CallanP. M.UsdanM. D. (Eds.), The learning connection: New partnerships between schools and colleges (pp. 63–70). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
11.
Box-SteffensmeierJ. M.JonesB. S. (1997). Time is of the essence: Event history models in political science. American Journal of Political Science, 41, 1414–1461.
12.
Box-SteffensmeierJ. M.JonesB. S. (2004). Event history modeling: A guide for social scientists. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
13.
BuckleyJ.WesterlandC. (2004). Duration dependence, functional forms, and corrected standard errors: Improving EHA models of state policy diffusion. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 4, 94–113.
14.
CallanP. M.FinneyJ. E.KirstM. W.UsdanM. D.VeneziaA. (2006). Claiming common ground: State policymaking for improving college readiness and success (National Center Report 06-1). San Jose, CA: National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education.
15.
CheekS. K. (1990). Recent state initiatives: The governor as policy leader; the governor as chief administrator. International Journal of Public Administration, 13, 621–644.
16.
CoffeyD. (2005). Measuring gubernatorial ideology: A content analysis of state of the state speeches. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 5, 88–103.
17.
CoffeyD. (2006, May). Altering perspectives: State economic performance and gubernatorial agendas. Paper presented at the State Politics and Policy Conference, Lubbock, TX.
18.
DiLeoD. (1997). Dynamic representation in the American states. State and Local Government Review, 29(2), 52–59.
19.
DiLeoD. (2001). To develop or to redistribute? An analysis of the content of governors’ agendas. State and Local Government Review, 33(1), 52–59.
20.
DiLeoD.LechJ. C. (1998). Governors’ issues: A typology revisited. Comparative State Politics, 19(6), 9–20.
21.
DoyleW. R. (2006). Adoption of merit-based student grant programs: An event history analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28, 259–285.
22.
Education Commission of the States. (2006). StateNotes: P–16 collaboration in the states. Denver, CO: Author.
23.
Education Commission of the States. (2007a). Recent state policies/activities: P–16. Denver, CO: Author.
24.
Education Commission of the States. (2007b). StateNotes: P–16 (K–16) structures. Denver, CO: Author.
25.
FergusonM. R. (2003). Chief executive success in the legislative arena. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 3, 158–182.
26.
FordingR. C.WoodsN. D.PrinceD. (2002, May). Explaining gubernatorial success in state legislatures. Paper presented at the second annual Conference on State Politics and Policy, Milwaukee, WI.
27.
FusarelliL. D. (2002). The political economy of gubernatorial elections: Implications for education policy. Educational Policy, 16, 139–160.
28.
GittellM.McKennaL. (1999). Redefining education regimes and reforms: The political role of governors. Urban Education, 34, 268–291.
29.
GoldsmithS.EggersW. D. (2004). Governing by network: The new shape of the public sector. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
30.
GravesW. (2001). PASS: Oregon’s new path to college. In MaeroffG. I.CallanP. M.UsdanM. D. (Eds.), The learning connection: New partnerships between schools and colleges (pp. 71–77). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
31.
GreenbergA. R. (1991). High school-college partnerships: Conceptual models, programs, and issues (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report 5). Washington, DC: George Washington University, School of Education and Human Development.
32.
HearnJ. C.GriswoldC. P. (1994). State-level centralization and policy innovation in U.S. postsecondary education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 16, 161–190.
33.
HearnJ. C.McLendonM. K.MokherC. G. (2008). Accounting for student success: An empirical analysis of the origins and spread of state student unit-record systems. Research in Higher Education, 49(8), 665–683.
34.
HerringtonC.FowlerF. (2003). Rethinking the role of states and educational governance. In BoydW. L.MiretzkyD. (Eds.), American educational governance on trial: Changes and challenges (pp. 271–290). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
35.
HerzikE. B. (1983). Governors and issues: A typology of concerns. State Government, 56(2), 58–64.
36.
HerzikE. B. (1991). Policy agendas and gubernatorial leadership. In HerzikE. B.BrownB. W. (Eds.), Gubernatorial leadership and state policy (pp. 25–38). New York, NY: Greenwood.
37.
HosmerD. W.LemeshowS. (1999). Applied survival analysis: Regression modeling of time to event data. New York, NY: John Wiley.
38.
JonesB. S.BrantonR. P. (2006). Beyond logit and probit: Cox duration models of single, repeating, and competing events for state policy adoption. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 5, 420–443.
39.
KettlewellJ. S.KasteJ. A.JonesS. A. (2000). The Georgia story of P–16 partnerships. Educational Policy, 14, 77–92.
40.
KingdonJ. W. (1984). Agendas, alternative, and public policies. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
41.
KirstM. W. (2005). Separation of K–12 and postsecondary education governance and policymaking: Evolution and impact (Report 17). Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Bridge Project.
42.
KirstM. W.BraccoK. R. (2004). Bridging the great divide: How the K–12 and postsecondary split hurts students, and what can be done about it. In KirstM. W.VeneziaA. (Eds.), From high school to college: Improving opportunities for success in postsecondary education (pp. 1–30). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
43.
KirstM. W.MeisterG.RowleyS. R. (1984). Policy issue networks: Their influence on state policymaking. Policy Studies Journal, 13, 247–263.
44.
KnottJ.PayneA. (2003). The impact of state governance structures on management and performance of public organizations: A study of higher education institutions. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 23, 13–30.
45.
LowryR. C. (2001). Governmental structure, trustee selection and public university prices and spending: Multiple means to similar ends. American Journal of Political Science, 45, 845–861.
46.
MaeroffG. I.CallanP. M.UsdanM. D. (2001). A relationship waiting to happen. In MaeroffG. I.CallanP. M.UsdanM. D. (Eds.), The learning connection: New partnerships between schools and colleges (pp. 1–10). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
47.
MannaP. (2006, September). How governance of K–12 education influences policy outputs and student outcomes in the United States. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia, PA.
48.
McDermottK. A. (2003). What causes variation in states’ accountability policies?Peabody Journal of Education, 78(4), 153–176.
49.
McKnightP. E.McKnightK. M.SourayaS.FigueredoA. J. (2007). Missing data: A gentle introduction. New York, NY: Guilford.
50.
McLendonM. K. (2003). Setting the governmental agenda for state decentralization of higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 74, 479–515.
51.
McLendonM. K.HearnJ. C.DeatonR. (2006). Called to account: Analyzing the origins and spread of state performance-accountability policies for higher education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28, 1–24.
52.
McLendonM. K.HellerD. E.YoungS. P. (2005). State postsecondary policy innovation: Politics, competition, and the interstate migration of policy ideas. Journal of Higher Education, 76, 363–400.
53.
McLendonM. K.MokherC. G. (2009). The origins and growth of state policies that privatize public higher education. In MorphewC.EckelP. (Eds.), Privatizing the Public Research University: Perspectives from Across the Academy (pp. 7–32). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
54.
McLendonM. K.NessE. C. (2003). The politics of state higher education governance reform. Peabody Journal of Education, 78(4), 66–88.
55.
McNealR. S.TolbertC. J.MossbergerK.DotterweichL. J. (2003). Innovating in digital government in the American states. Social Science Quarterly, 84, 52–70.
56.
MeierK. J.O’TooleL. J.Jr. (2000). Managerial strategies and behavior in networks: A model with evidence from U.S. public education. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 11, 271–293.
57.
MeyerJ.ScottW. R.StrangD. (1987). Centralization, fragmentation, and school district complexity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32, 186–201.
58.
MilwardH. B.ProvanK. G. (1998). Principles for controlling agents: The political economy of network structure. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 8, 203–221.
59.
MilwardH. B.ProvanK. G. (2000). How networks are governed. In HeinrichC. J.LynnL. E.Jr. (Eds.), Governance and performance: New perspectives (pp. 238–262). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
60.
MintromM. (1997). Policy entrepreneurs and the diffusion of innovation. American Journal of Political Science, 41, 738–770.
61.
MintromM.VergariS. (1998). Policy networks and innovation diffusion: The case of state education reforms. Journal of Politics, 60, 126–148.
62.
MoeT. M. (2003). The politics of the status quo. In PetersonP. E.ChubbJ. E. (Eds.), Our schools and our future: Are we still at risk? (pp. 177–210). Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press.
63.
MokherC. G.McLendonM. K. (2009). Uniting secondary and postsecondary education: An event history analysis of state adoption of dual enrollment policies. American Journal of Education, 115(2), 249–277.
64.
Nicholson-CrottyJ.MeierK. (2003). Politics, structure, and public policy: The case of higher education. Educational Policy, 17, 80–97.
65.
O’TooleL. J.Jr.MeierK. J. (2000). Networks, hierarchies, and public management: Modeling the nonlinearities. In HeinrichC. J.LynnL. E.Jr. (Eds.), Governance and performance: New perspectives (pp. 263–291). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
66.
PowellW. W. (1990). Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organization. Research in Organizational Behavior, 12, 295–336.
67.
ProvanK. G.MilwardH. B. (1991). Institutional-level norms and organizational involvement in a service-implementation network. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 1, 391–417.
68.
RochfordJ. A. (2007). P–16: The last education reform. Emerging local, regional, and state efforts. Canton, OH: Stark Education Partnership.
SabatierP. A. (1999). The need for better theories. In SabatierP. A. (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 3–19). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
71.
SalamonL. M. (2002). The new governance and the tools of public action: An introduction. In SalamonL. M. (Ed.), The tools of government: A guide to the new governance (pp. 1–47). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
72.
Stark Education Partnerships. (2005a). An annotated bibliography of web-based P–16 references and Internet sites. Retrieved from http://www.edpartner.org/publications.html
SuggsE. (2001). Georgia’s P–16 initiative. In MaeroffG. I.CallanP. M.UsdanM. D. (Eds.), The learning connection: New partnerships between schools and colleges (pp. 78–86). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
75.
TomaE. F. (1986). State university boards of trustees: A principal-agent perspective. Public Choice, 49, 155–163.
76.
TurnerC. S. V.JonesL. M.HearnJ. C. (2004). Georgia’s P–16 reforms and the promise of a seamless system. In KirstM. W.VeneziaA. (Eds.), From high school to college: Improving opportunities for success in postsecondary education (pp. 183–219). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
77.
Van AssendelftL. A. (1997). Governors, agenda setting, and divided government. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
78.
VeneziaA.KirstM. W. (2005). Inequitable opportunities: How current education systems and policies undermine the chances for student persistence and success in college. Educational Policy, 19(2), 283–307.
79.
VeneziaA.CallanP. M.FinneyJ. E.KirstM. W.UsdanM. D. (2005). The governance divide: A report on a four-state study on improving college readiness and success (National Center Report 05-3). San Jose, CA: National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education.
80.
VeneziaA.CallanP. M.KirstM. W.UsdanM. D. (2006). The governance divide: The case study for Georgia. San Jose, CA: National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education.
81.
WarrenJ. R.KulickR. (2007). Modeling states’ enactment of high school exit examination policies. Social Forces, 86, 215–230.
82.
WongK. K.LangevinW. E. (2005). The diffusion of governance reform in American public education: An event history analysis of state takeover and charter school laws (Vol. 2005). Nashville, TN: National Center on School Choice.
83.
WongK. K.ShenF. X. (2002). Politics of state-led reform in education: Market competition and electoral dynamics. Educational Policy, 16, 161–192.
