Understanding Advocacy Coalitions in Individuals With Disabilities Education Act Reauthorization

• In Event: 35.077 - MTCC Roundtable Session 13
  In Roundtable Session: 35.077-5 - Understanding Education Politics and Policy Networks With Social Network Analysis

Abstract

Purpose

During the most recent reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), there were several substantial changes closely aligned with the accountability-focused language and concepts of the 2001 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA, commonly referred to as No Child Left Behind, NCLB). While several researchers have explored the legislative environment surrounding the reauthorizations of IDEA and NCLB (e.g., DeBray-Pelot & McGuinn, 2009; Itkonen, 2009), limited work has closely studied how the concepts in NCLB made their way into the 2004 reauthorization of IDEA. To attend to this gap in the literature, we use the advocacy coalition framework (ACF) to examine how beliefs pertaining to the reform of special education were debated during congressional hearings leading up to the reauthorization of IDEA.

Theoretical Framework

To investigate the political dynamics of how ideas were publicly debated and evolved during the reauthorization of IDEA, we drew from ACF, which views the formation of policy as occurring in a complex, multi-layered, and interdependent political environment (Weible, Sabatier, & McQueen, 2009). ACF assumes that policies and programs are translations of beliefs (Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1999) and that stakeholders can form “advocacy coalitions” of actors who share beliefs and engage in coordinated activity over time (Weible et al., 2009). Thus, ACF provides an ideal lens for examining how beliefs were communicated and debated within and between coalitions during the IDEA reauthorization.

Methods

We examined 66 congressional hearings from 2001 to 2004 that focused on PreK–12 education reform. We began our analysis by creating summary memos and tables with descriptive information (e.g., stakeholders present and topics discussed) for each hearing. We then focused on 17 hearings that dealt directly with special education. We examined these focal hearings using Discourse Network Analyzer (DNA), which is a mixed-methods program that combines qualitative content analysis with quantitative social network analysis (Leifeld, 2016). Using DNA, we coded the beliefs of different stakeholders and organizations. From this analysis, we developed social network maps using RStudio that illuminated different coalitions’ beliefs. Next, we used Dedoose (a qualitative data analysis program) to examine the role of language in advancing arguments throughout the debates. From this analysis, we created maps of the different coalitions, their theories of change, and the language they employed using a data visualization program, Kumu.

Findings and Significance

In our findings section, we present social network maps that illustrate how across coalitions there was a shared belief regarding the need to improve outcomes for students with disabilities. However, our findings also expose different beliefs regarding how to do this (or the theory of change) between coalitions. We identify key stakeholders who framed the beliefs and language of the debate. Furthermore, we illuminate the role that language played in creating an illusion of consensus between coalitions. We conclude by discussing how this analytical strategy provides an innovative approach to examine the nuanced role of beliefs and language in policy formation and coalition building.

Authors

• Laura E. Bray, The Pennsylvania State University

• Joshua Childs, The University of Texas at Austin

• Thomas Norris

• Carlos Alvis-Ruiz