(Ebook) Studying Educational and Social Policy:

Theoretical Concepts and Research Methods by Ronald H.

Heck ISBN 9780805844603, 9781410610430, 0805844600,
1410610438 Pdf Download

https://ebooknice.com/product/studying-educational-and-social-
policy-theoretical-concepts-and-research-methods-1643538

★★★★★
4.7 out of 5.0 (68 reviews )

DOWNLOAD PDF

ebooknice.com
 (Ebook) Studying Educational and Social Policy: Theoretical
Concepts and Research Methods by Ronald H. Heck ISBN
9780805844603, 9781410610430, 0805844600, 1410610438 Pdf
Download

EBOOK

Available Formats

■ PDF eBook Study Guide Ebook

EXCLUSIVE 2025 EDUCATIONAL COLLECTION - LIMITED TIME

INSTANT DOWNLOAD VIEW LIBRARY

 We believe these products will be a great fit for you. Click
the link to download now, or visit ebooknice.com
to discover even more!

(Ebook) Biota Grow 2C gather 2C cook by Loucas, Jason; Viles,

James ISBN 9781459699816, 9781743365571, 9781925268492,
1459699815, 1743365578, 1925268497

https://ebooknice.com/product/biota-grow-2c-gather-2c-cook-6661374

(Ebook) SAT II Success MATH 1C and 2C 2002 (Peterson's SAT II

Success) by Peterson's ISBN 9780768906677, 0768906679

https://ebooknice.com/product/sat-ii-success-math-1c-and-2c-2002-peterson-
s-sat-ii-success-1722018

(Ebook) Matematik 5000+ Kurs 2c Lärobok by Lena Alfredsson, Hans

Heikne, Sanna Bodemyr ISBN 9789127456600, 9127456609

https://ebooknice.com/product/matematik-5000-kurs-2c-larobok-23848312

(Ebook) Master SAT II Math 1c and 2c 4th ed (Arco Master the SAT
Subject Test: Math Levels 1 & 2) by Arco ISBN 9780768923049,
0768923042

https://ebooknice.com/product/master-sat-ii-math-1c-and-2c-4th-ed-arco-
master-the-sat-subject-test-math-levels-1-2-2326094
(Ebook) Cambridge IGCSE and O Level History Workbook 2C - Depth
Study: the United States, 1919-41 2nd Edition by Benjamin
Harrison ISBN 9781398375147, 9781398375048, 1398375144,
1398375047
https://ebooknice.com/product/cambridge-igcse-and-o-level-history-
workbook-2c-depth-study-the-united-states-1919-41-2nd-edition-53538044

(Ebook) Combining Methods in Educational and Social Research

(Conducting Educational Research) by Stephen Gorard, Chris
Taylor ISBN 9780335213078, 9780335225170, 0335213073, 0335225179

https://ebooknice.com/product/combining-methods-in-educational-and-social-
research-conducting-educational-research-1726376

(Ebook) Concepts and Methods in Modern Theoretical Chemistry,

Two Volume Set: Concepts and Methods in Modern Theoretical
Chemistry: Electronic Structure and Reactivity by Swapan Kumar
Ghosh, Pratim Kumar Chattaraj ISBN 9781466505285, 1466505281
https://ebooknice.com/product/concepts-and-methods-in-modern-theoretical-
chemistry-two-volume-set-concepts-and-methods-in-modern-theoretical-
chemistry-electronic-structure-and-reactivity-4429382

(Ebook) Using Secondary Data in Educational and Social Research

(Conducting Educational Research) by Emma Smith ISBN
9780335223589, 0335223583

https://ebooknice.com/product/using-secondary-data-in-educational-and-
social-research-conducting-educational-research-2367406

(Ebook) Educational Research and Policy-Making: Exploring the

Border Country Between Research and Policy by Ed. Saunders ISBN
9780203939796, 9780415411745, 0203939794, 0415411742

https://ebooknice.com/product/educational-research-and-policy-making-
exploring-the-border-country-between-research-and-policy-1896428
 Studying Educational
and Social Policy
Theoretical Concepts and Research Methods
 Sociocultural, Political, and Historical Studies in Education
Joel Spring, Editor

Spring • The Cultural Transformation of a Native American Family and Its Tribe 1763–1995
Peshkin • Places of Memory: Whiteman’s Schools and Native American Communities
Nespor • Tangled Up in School: Politics, Space, Bodies, and Signs in the Educational Process
Weinberg • Asian-American Education: Historical Background and Current Realities
Lipka/Mohatt/The Ciulistet Group • Transforming the Culture of Schools: Yu’pik Eskimo Examples
Benham/Heck • Culture and Educational Policy in Hawai’i: The Silencing of Native Voices
Spring • Education and the Rise of the Global Economy
Pugach • On the Border of Opportunity: Education, Community, and Language at the U.S.–Mexico Line
Hones/Cha • Educating New Americans: Immigrant Lives and Learning
Gabbard, Ed. • Knowledge and Power in the Global Economy: Politics and The Rhetoric of School Reform
Glander • Origins of Mass Communications Research During the American Cold War: Educational Effects
and Contemporary Implications
Nieto, Ed. • Puerto Rican Students in U.S. Schools
Benham/Cooper, Eds. • Indigenous Educational Models for Contemporary Practice: In Our Mother’s Voice
Spring • The Universal Right to Education: Justification, Definition, and Guidelines
Peshkin • Permissible Advantage? The Moral Consequences of Elite Schooling
DeCarvalho • Rethinking Family–School Relations: A Critique of Parental Involvement in Schooling
Borman/Stringfield/Slavin, Eds. • Title I: Compensatory Education at the Crossroads
Roberts • Remaining and Becoming: Cultural Crosscurrents in an Hispano School
Meyer/Boyd, Eds. • Education Between State, Markets, and Civil Society: Comparative Perspectives
Luke • Globalization and Women in Academics: North/West–South/East
Grant/Lei, Eds. • Global Constructions of Multicultural Education: Theories and Realities
Spring • Globalization and Educational Rights: An Intercivilizational Analysis
Spring • Political Agendas for Education: From the Religious Right to the Green Party, Second Edition
McCarty • A Place to Be Navajo: Rough Rock and The Struggle for Self-Determination in Indigenous
Schooling
Hones, Ed. • American Dreams, Global Visions: Dialogic Teacher Research With Refugee and Immigrant
Families
Benham/Stein, Eds. • The Renaissance of American Indian Higher Education: Capturing the Dream
Ogbu • Black American Students in an Affluent Suburb: A Study of Academic Disengagement
Books, Ed. • Invisible Children in the Society and Its Schools, Second Edition
Spring • Educating the Consumer-Citizen: A History of the Marriage of Schools, Advertising, and Media
Hemmings • Coming of Age in U.S. High Schools: Economic, Kinship, Religious, and Political Crosscurrents
Heck • Studying Educational and Social Policy: Theoretical Concepts and Research Methods
Lakes/Carter, Eds. • Globalizing Education for Work: Comparative Perspectives on Gender and the New
Economy
Spring • How Educational Ideologies are Shaping Global Society
Shapiro/Pupel, Eds. • Critical Social Issues in American Education: Democracy and Meaning in a Globalizing
World, Third Edition
Books • Poverty and Schooling in the U.S.: Contexts and Consequences
Regan • Non-Western Educational Traditions: Alternative Approaches to Educational Thought and Practice,
Third Edition
Bowers, Ed. • Rethinking Freire: Globalization and the Environmental Crisis
 Studying Educational
and Social Policy
Theoretical Concepts and Research Methods

Ronald H. Heck
University of Hawai‘i at Ma)noa

LAWRENCE ERLBAUM ASSOCIATES, PUBLISHERS

2004 Mahwah, New Jersey London
This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2008.
“To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge’s
collection of thousands of eBooks please go to www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk.”

Copyright © 2004 by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced
in any form, by photostat, microform, retrieval system, or
any other means, without prior written permission of the
publisher.

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers

10 Industrial Avenue
Mahwah, New Jersey 07430

Cover design by Kathryn Houghtaling Lacey

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Heck, Ronald H.
Studying educational and social policy: theoretical concepts
and research methods/ Ronald H. Heck.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0-8058-4460-0 (cloth. : alk. paper)
ISBN 0-8058-4461-9 (pbk. : alk. paper)
1. Policy sciences. I. Title.

H97.H43 2004
320.6—dc22 2003049528
CIP

ISBN 1-4106-1043-8 Master e-book ISBN

Contents

Foreword vii

Preface ix

Introduction xv

Part I: An Overview of the Policy Process

1 An Introduction to Policymaking and Its Study 3

2 Federalism and Policymaking 35

3 Studying Policy Development, Implementation, 55

and Impact

Part II: Conceptual Frameworks and Theories

4 Political Culture and Policymaking 81

5 Punctuated-Equilibrium Theory and the Advocacy 101

Coalition Framework

6 Economic and Organizational Perspectives 128

v
vi CONTENTS

7 Going Against the Grain: New Approaches 158

Part III: Policy Research Methods

8 An Overview of Method in Policy Research 185

9 Qualitative Methods in Policy Research 214

10 Multilevel Methods for Conducting Policy Research 242

11 Growth Modeling Methods for Examining Policy 278

Change

Part IV: Epilogue

12 Further Thoughts 317

Appendix 331

References 345

Author Index 367

Subject Index 375

Foreword

Ronald Heck’s Studying Educational and Social Policy: Theoretical Concepts and
Research Methods is a valuable introductory textbook covering a wide range
of methods for analyzing federal, state, and local school policies. Future
school administrators must be prepared to cope with a steadily increasing
number of educational directives coming from the desks of federal and
state executives and legislators. Educational administrators at every level of
government are affected by continually changing directions of educational
politics. I welcome Heck’s book into my series because of my firm conviction
that future educational leaders must be prepared to analyze, evaluate, and
understand the impact of federal, state, and local educational policies.

—Joel Spring
Series Editor

vii
Preface

The purpose of this book is to introduce beginning researchers to the study

of policymaking, how it has been examined from a scholarly perspective,
and the salient issues to consider in conceptualizing and conducting policy
research. The emphasis is on “introduce,” as the various policy fields within
the public sector (e.g., education, energy, health, labor) are much too di-
verse to include in one text on theoretical concepts and research methods.
The book is not directed so much at the substance of policymaking—other
volumes do an excellent job of covering information about how the policy
system works (e.g., Fowler, 2000; Guthrie & Reed, 1991; Van Horn,
Baumer, & Gormley, 1992)—as it is toward understanding the interplay be-
tween how policy is made and implemented and the various conceptual ap-
proaches and methods researchers can use to frame and conduct policy
studies. The worth of the research in answering important policy questions
is assessed by a variety of different audiences including policymakers, the
public, practitioners, and the research community itself (Anfara, Brown, &
Mangione, 2002).
The consideration of social problems and how they are studied is im-
portant in policy fields such as education, where there is currently a
heightened demand for more research, but research that policymakers
perceive is of a higher quality and greater utility than has been the case in
the past (Feuer, Towne, & Shavelson, 2002) . In education, policymakers
continue to direct attention toward upgrading the quality of educational
outcomes by mandating greater accountability (e.g., setting standards, re-
quiring assessments of student progress) and by increasing parents’ edu-
cational options, while also lessening educators’ control over school
decision making and entry into the teaching and administrative profes-
sions. To date, many of the corresponding policy changes resulting from
these demands (e.g., curricular standards and performance benchmarks,
use of technology to enhance instructional capacity, site-based manage-

ix
x PREFACE

ment, school vouchers, open enrollment, privatization, alternative prepa-

ration and certification) have proven to be mixed or ineffective. Policy
interventions have been criticized as not consistent with research and,
consequently, uninformed and ineffective (Finn, 2002; Witte, 1998). As
Feuer and colleagues concluded, whether exaggerated or not, there is a
common perception among policymakers that other social policy fields
(e.g., health) do a better job of integrating research findings into practice,
and education needs to catch up.
Demands for increased productivity and accountability, coupled with a
renewed recognition of the potential of research to provide information
about the impact of policy changes, suggest that policy researchers have a
new opportunity to produce studies that policymakers perceive as impor-
tant. In education, however, this opportunity comes at a price—as recent
federal legislation in education (e.g., No Child Left Behind Act of 2001) de-
tails requirements for obtaining federal research grants that prescribe ac-
ceptable research methods (i.e., experimental trials) and promote a rigid
definition of research quality (Feuer, Towne, & Shavelson, 2002). One key
issue in this is whether policymakers or researchers will decide what aspects
of educational policy will be studied and how. Another issue is that the edu-
cational research community itself has been quite divided over the nature of
research and standards for its design and conduct. A third issue is whether
policymakers will continue to look to universities to provide policy research
or whether they will look elsewhere in the future.
Criticism of the quality and utility of research in the public sector sug-
gests the need to consider its theoretical underpinnings, design, and con-
duct. How researchers account for and disclose their approach to all aspects
of the research process is essential if readers are to evaluate their results
substantively and methodologically (Anfara et al., 2002; Sabatier, 1999).
Framing the policy study is the key to providing results that are compelling
and useful for readers—that is, our analyses should advance the field’s
thinking about the problem and should also serve as exemplars of its evolv-
ing scholarship. Advancing knowledge and scholarship are the essence of
good research, policy or otherwise.
Increasingly, both the theoretical concepts and the analytic tools are be-
coming available that allow a more rigorous and thorough investigation of
policy problems. The assumption of this book is that a critique of the sub-
stantive, theoretical, and methodological issues involved in studying policy
can help researchers develop and conduct policy studies that are more in-
formative in guiding policy development and more effective in assessing
the impact of policy reforms. More specifically, the intents are to help those
interested in studying policy understand (a) the environmental context and
policymaking system, (b) the essentials of policy scholarship, including vari-
ous frameworks and methods researchers use to study policy problems and
policies empirically, and (c) the assumptions and considerations involved in
conceptualizing and conducting policy research.
PREFACE xi

The book provides an overview of several basic conceptual and method-

ological tools used to study policy processes and outcomes. They are not the
only concepts and methods that can be used to examine policy. They are,
however, approaches that have been used successfully in conducting policy
research. Most of the substantive discussion concerns educational policy is-
sues and example studies, because that is the policy field with which I am
most familiar. I have found, however, that many of the issues involved in the
study of social policy are similar across various fields. Policy researchers
have a variety of different home disciplines including political science, eco-
nomics, sociology, history, public administration, psychology, and anthro-
pology. Disciplinary affiliations influence to some degree what social
problems are of interest to researchers, how they define the problems, and
what methods they use to investigate them. Readers are encouraged to ex-
amine the studies described in each chapter more closely on their own and
to find other published studies illustrating the theoretical lenses and meth-
odological approaches from their own particular policy fields or topics of
interest. Other generic types of examples and exercises are provided
throughout the book to help readers think about conceptual and method-
ological issues salient to conducting their own policy research.
Much of the material in the text comes from introductory and seminar
courses that I teach in educational policy and research methods. The book
is designed to be used in a semester course focusing on theoretical concepts
and methods of studying policy. In this seminar, I generally spend 6 weeks
developing a number of substantive concepts about the policy system (e.g.,
how the federalist system encourages and blunts policy activity; how policy
is formulated, implemented, and evaluated; how policymakers’ belief sys-
tems and institutional arrangements structure their interactions, how orga-
nizations resist policy changes) and the theoretical perspectives used to
study it (e.g., rational, structural, cultural, critical, and poststructural); an-
other 5 or 6 weeks highlighting research methods (e.g., design, data collec-
tion, analysis) for investigating policy problems; and the remaining 4 weeks
focusing on how students can begin to translate their interests in particular
policy problems and dilemmas into feasible research studies. In addition to
their substantive courses in educational policy and administration, students
taking the policy seminar typically have had a research design course, intro-
ductory courses in qualitative and quantitative methods, and perhaps ad-
vanced course work in one of these areas. Students’ reactions to the course
material—their comments and questions about “how things work,” and our
discussions about formulating their own research studies in educational
policy and subsequently conducting them have also shaped the subject mat-
ter that is presented in the following chapters.
In Part I, I present an overview of substantive issues related to the study
of policy. This section addresses how the environmental context, institu-
tions, and actors shape policies and, consequently, their study. Chapter 1
provides an overview of what policy is and some of the challenges of its
xii PREFACE

study. Chapter 2 explores how the nature of the American federalist system
has helped to shape policy in education over time. Chapter 3 develops the
“policy stages” approach that has traditionally been most often used in
studying policymaking processes.
Several alternative conceptual approaches are presented in Part II that
provide different perspectives on the study of policy problems. These
lenses originate in rational, political, cultural, and critical perspectives for
researching social problems. Chapter 4 develops the concept of political
culture and its use in understanding policy activity at both the national
and state levels. Chapter 5 presents two political perspectives—the punc-
tuated-equilibrium framework and the advocacy coalition framework—
and applies them to the study of policy processes over time. Chapter 6 in-
troduces several economic (production functions, cost/benefit, cost effec-
tiveness) and organizational lenses (rational organizational theory,
institutional rational choice, and institutional theory) for examining pol-
icy. Chapter 7 provides an introduction to other promising critical lenses
and more personal perspectives that depart from established ways of
studying policy.
Part III focuses on research methods for studying policy. Chapter 8 pro-
vides an introduction to methodology, focusing primarily on research de-
signs. Calls for upgrading the quality and usefulness of policy research are
directed at how research is designed relative to the types of questions one is
interested in answering and how useful the research is in helping policy-
makers and educators solve policy problems. Several types of designs are
introduced including experimental, quasi-experimental, nonexperi-
mental, case, and historical.
Chapter 9 provides an overview of qualitative methods with a focus on
their use in case study and historical research. Chapter 10 provides an in-
troduction of quantitative modeling for conducting policy research with an
emphasis on multilevel analyses. The chapter begins with a brief review of
multiple regression and then introduces multilevel regression and multi-
level structural equation modeling as techniques for analyzing policy-re-
lated data. A series of examples is also presented to illustrate how to set up
and conduct basic multilevel analyses. Data and software set-ups are also in-
cluded in the appendix for those students who would like to practice with
some of the analyses. In Chapter 11, the use of longitudinal methods to
study policy processes is presented. Another set of examples is provided,
along with data and software set-ups in the appendix.
Finally, in Part IV, the diversity of approaches used by policy scholars is
compared in Chapter 12 with respect to their strengths and weaknesses in
studying the policymaking process, and some thoughts are presented on a
number of issues for further consideration in conducting policy research. It
is hoped that a discussion of theories and methods of conducting policy re-
search will give prospective researchers an appreciation for the relationship
between policy problems, empirical methods, and practice, and will also
PREFACE xiii

contribute to their skills in conceptualizing and conducting policy research

that answers important policy questions.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank a number of people for their help at various stages of
the writing process. I am indebted to Linda Johnsrud, Doug Mitchell, Vicki
Rosser, Alan Shoho, Naomi Silverman, Scott Thomas, and Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates series editors George Marcoulides and Joel Spring for
numerous discussions, helpful insights, and comments on earlier versions
of the manuscript. Thank you also to Linda and Bengt Muthén of Mplus for
helpful advice regarding multilevel and longitudinal analyses. Finally, I am
grateful to Sara Scudder of Lawrence Erlbaum Associates for her outstand-
ing work in preparing the manuscript for publication.
Introduction

Few policy fields have been as volatile as education over the past several de-
cades. Since the early 1980s, many nations, including the United States,
have experienced significant changes in how people think about education
and what is demanded of schools. These developments are related to the
world’s political and economic events and to larger changes in how we think
about government and services, organizations and management, and in-
dustry and technology (Boyd, 1992). Legislation (e.g., Individuals With Dis-
abilities Education Act, No Child Left Behind Act), policy directives (e.g.,
the Brown Decision), and the release of reports (e.g., A Nation At Risk) gen-
erate considerable debate among policymakers, practitioners, the public,
special interest groups, and researchers over the definition of policy prob-
lems; the nature of responsibility; the structuring, funding, and effective-
ness of interventions; and the role of research in contributing knowledge
that leads to the alleviation of social and educational problems.
Embedded in these debates are value preferences of American society at
given points in time, political and professional agendas about what views
will dominate, who will be served, what policies and programs should be de-
veloped and implemented to achieve particular societal goals, and what lev-
els of funding should be provided now and over time. In the American
federalist system, policy change occurs as a result of collective action. How
people organize and make choices about where to pursue ideological agen-
das are key to understanding the movement of policy issues through the sys-
tem. Policy actors’ beliefs and values as well as institutional arrangements
within the federalist system play an important part in supporting or isolat-
ing the advancement of policy activity.
As Schattschneider (1960) concluded, the scope of political conflict in
American government has gradually widened since the founding of the
country, as industrialization, urbanization, nationalization, and globaliza-
tion have altered the meanings of both local and national government. The

xv
xvi INTRODUCTION

development of American political institutions (courts, executive branch,

Congress) reflects their widening involvement in national politics. Al-
though the federal role in education could traditionally be described as an
“interested bystander” (because education is a state function), during the
1950s and early 1960s, federal policymakers became more active in educa-
tion in order to address a number of social problems facing the nation (e.g.,
segregated schooling, Civil Rights, poverty). One example of federal activ-
ity was the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965, which
allocated federal money to schools where students experienced differential
educational opportunity resulting from poverty.
The increased federal role in allocating funds to schools through federal
projects brought with it the necessity for schools to evaluate the results of
their efforts to increase educational opportunity. Where equity had been an
important social value during the 1950s and 1960s, accountability emerged
during the 1970s as a dominant and influential value, often directed at the
actions of government (e.g., spending, energy policy, environmental pol-
icy). The demand for information relevant to policy problems and the effec-
tiveness of government spending and interventions created an initial
impetus for policy research in fields such as education. The Coleman Re-
port (1966) created an intellectual stir by suggesting that students’ back-
grounds played a more powerful role in the quality of their academic
achievement than school-based resource variables. The popular (and incor-
rect) conclusion drawn from the study was that schools make no difference.
Fallout from the report has been credited for the beginnings of the “effec-
tive schools” movement in the late 1970s, which sought to dispute
Coleman’s research by identifying school variables that were related to stu-
dent learning (Bidwell & Kasarda, 1980; Teddlie & Reynolds, 2000). A few
years after Coleman’s research, the Rand study on Federal Policy Supporting
Educational Change (Berman & McLaughlin, 1975, 1977, 1978) reported on
the implementation of nearly 300 federal education projects to change edu-
cational practices. The report concluded that the implementation of fed-
eral projects was largely mixed due to a number of local school factors that
mediated their implementation. This report alerted attention to the dy-
namics of local organizational and political factors that can affect the imple-
mentation of policies to improve schools developed at other levels of the
political system.
A Nation At Risk, released by the Reagan Administration in 1983 made
the case that the nation was at risk of economic mediocrity, ironically be-
cause of years of federal overinvolvement in education. A Nation At Risk
was not really a research report, but rather, a document outlining a policy
agenda that used some description and much more prescription. While it
did not signal an end of federal involvement in education (i.e., Reagan was
not entirely successful in blunting the efforts of legislators to continue
their support of ESEA), it was effective in advancing the Reagan Adminis-
tration’s objective of returning primary oversight of education and ac-
INTRODUCTION xvii

countability for educational results to the states. It focused states’

educational reform efforts on student outcomes and school improvement.
A considerable number of its recommendations were implemented by
states over the next decade or so.
As these early reports on federal educational policy efforts demon-
strate, the use of information generated from policy research has been
widely recognized as central to debates about educational problems and
their proposed solutions. In the past few years, unprecedented federal
legislation in education has called for an increase in the scientific rigor of
research as the key to improved policy and practice (Feuer, Towne, &
Shavelson, 2002). For example, the federal government has appropriated
increased funding for schools to adopt “proven, comprehensive reform
models,” called comprehensive school reform (CSR) models (U.S. De-
partment of Education, 1999). Congress appropriated $150 million per
year in 1998, which increased to $310 million annually in 2001 and pro-
vided funding to over 2,600 mostly high-poverty schools (Slavin, 2002;
Southwest Educational Research Laboratory, 2002). In this legislation,
proven was defined in terms of experimental trials with treatment–control
comparisons on standards-based measures (Slavin, 2002). Whereas the
emphasis is supposed to be on programs with “proven effectiveness”
based on rigorous research, there is considerable discretion at the state
and local levels about which programs to adopt, and funding is still being
given to programs with little evidence of effectiveness (Herman, 1999).
Similarly, the Bush Administration’s reauthorization of ESEA as the No
Child Left Behind Act of 2001 defined scientifically based research as hav-
ing “rigorous, systematic and objective procedures” (U.S. Congress, 2001)
to obtain valid knowledge that is generated through the use of experimen-
tal designs, preferably with random assignment of subjects (Feuer et al.,
2002; Slavin, 2002). This type of design is intended to serve as the basis for
Title I programs, as well as for various reading programs for early grades.
Moreover, as Slavin noted, the Office of Educational Research and Im-
provement (OERI) will likely be reorganized to focus resources on random-
ized and rigorous “matched” educational research on programs and
policies that are used in educating large numbers of pre-K through
12th-grade students. In fact, the OERI strategic plan for 2002–2007 is to
have 75% of all OERI-funded research that addresses program or policy ef-
fects use random-assignment experimental designs by 2004 (U.S. Depart-
ment of Education, 2002).
As a practical matter, the type of large-scale experimental designs now fa-
vored within federal policy circles can be very difficult and costly to imple-
ment in educational settings. As a result, educational research has produced
few rigorous evaluative studies of programs and practices that could serve as
a solid base for improving policy and practice (Slavin, 2002). It is uncertain
yet what will be the outcome of these recent demands for “evidence-based”
policy developments in Washington. For example, No Child Left Behind has
xviii INTRODUCTION

produced considerable debates among policymakers, practitioners, and re-

searchers over the definition of “adequate yearly progress” and its validity in
categorizing schools as low performing (e.g., Linn, Baker, & Betebenner,
2002; Linn & Haug, 2002). It is too early to tell what its impacts will be on ed-
ucational funding and changed practices, however. While the promise is po-
tentially far-reaching (Slavin, 2002), it is not certain yet the extent to which
states and districts may be left to pick up funding shortfalls. Some states have
even contemplated pulling out of federal programs due to uncertainties re-
garding the funding of many federal mandates.

POLICY RESEARCH AS A SCHOLARLY FIELD

These recent debates over the quality of research to inform policy and prac-
tice, as well as prescriptions for what should constitute scientific research
methods, focus attention on what policymakers are currently demanding of
policy research and the status (real and perceived) of educational policy as a
scholarly field. Educational problems in particular have drawn the atten-
tion of numerous researchers in diverse social science disciplines (e.g., an-
thropology, sociology, economics, political science, psychology). This is
because of a long tradition among policymakers of viewing education as a
primary means to solve the nation’s social problems. Education is perceived
as being related to many problems of importance in other fields (e.g., pov-
erty, unemployment, international economic competitiveness, health,
crime, political behavior).
Despite the growing professional literature on educational policy that
has accumulated over its first two and a half decades, early reviews of its im-
pact have concluded that this work produced little agreement on the goals
or methods of policy research, few classic studies that defined the area’s
central thrust and overall theoretical perspectives for studying policy activ-
ity, and no standard textbooks (Boyd, 1988; Marshall, Mitchell, & Wirt,
1989; Mitchell, 1984). A decade or so later, Fowler (2000) completed one of
the first policy texts in education aimed at acquainting practitioners with
the theoretical and substantive aspects of educational policy. She also found
that there were no suitable textbooks available in the educational field that
provided basic information about the policymaking process. Fowler sug-
gested that most students in her policy courses did not have a suitable back-
ground in political science to understand the changing political and social
landscape surrounding policymaking in education.
Other scholars have suggested that previous research on educational
policy has too often focused on specific issues and narrow time frames and,
therefore, has been of little use in guiding policy development and change
beyond limited settings (Mawhinney, 1993; McDonnell & Elmore, 1987;
Ouston, 1999). As Boyd (1988) concluded, policy research may illuminate
or obscure—even distort—what it views. At its best, policy research may
make an independent, and influential, contribution to the beliefs and
INTRODUCTION xix

choices of policymakers. At its worst, it may be used as a device to support a

preconceived value preference and legitimate a particular policy choice
(Boyd, 1988; Jenkins-Smith, 1990).
Criticisms of policy reforms and policy research suggest there is often a
disconnect among the worlds of policymakers, practitioners, and research-
ers (Birnbaum, 2000). In part, this is because they work within different
worlds, each with its own values and traditions, and they speak somewhat
different languages (Birnbaum, 2000; Marshall et al., 1989). Policymakers
live in political arenas where turnover is high and, therefore, the pressure is
greater for quick results from their legislative efforts if they wish to stay in
office (Firestone, 1989). By the time research can produce empirical results
that respond to interests and results of policymakers’ efforts, the nature of
the policy problem may have changed (Birnbaum, 2000).
Critics of policy research argue that it is of little use to policymakers, does
not attend to the questions they want answered, is poorly conceived and
conducted, and is seldom disseminated in ways that educators can put the
results to use (Birnbaum, 2000; Feuer et al., 2002). Educational leaders be-
lieve that policymakers do not understand the complexity of running edu-
cational organizations. Researchers suggest that policymakers do not
adequately fund research efforts and also lament the potential effects of
federal government’s current narrow definition of scientific research and
its likely effects on shaping the field of policy research (e.g., Feuer et al.,
2002; Slavin, 2002). This seems to represent a “cycle of blame” where no
one accepts responsibility, and in many ways, signals a need to reassess the
possibilities and prospects for policy research.
Such criticisms and controversies about policy research and its potential
to inform policymaking are based on several assumptions that are impor-
tant to consider. First is the implied assumption that it is necessary for
policymakers and researchers to agree on the nature of policy problems
and the type of research they would find most useful (Birnbaum, 2000). It is
certainly the case that policy research can provide useful information for
policymakers to use in decision making. It is also a fact, however, that the
preferences of policymakers (i.e., their values and preferred actions) can
change over time as political pressures are brought to bear in shaping pol-
icy agendas. Researchers could never respond to the myriad of policy prob-
lems that policymakers at the federal, state, and local levels are considering
at any particular moment in time. Moreover, it is often not feasible to pre-
dict what those will be in any particular legislative session. Over time, there-
fore, policy scholars are likely to attend to a set of problems defined in the
professional literature (e.g., tracking, grouping practices, opportunity to
learn, gaps in student achievement, resource equity, dropouts) that are at
least somewhat different from those more immediate problems attended to
by policymakers.
Second is the assumption that research in the field of education is of gen-
erally poor quality in comparison to other applied fields such as medicine
xx INTRODUCTION

and, because of this shortcoming, requires guidance from the federal level
to strengthen its design and methodology. As Feuer and colleagues noted
(2002), the lack of confidence in the quality of educational research is a per-
ception generally shared among federal policymakers, educational practi-
tioners, engineers, business leaders, social scientists and, to some extent,
educational researchers themselves. Critics argue that educational studies
have weak or absent theory, poor research designs, inadequate sampling,
weak methods of analysis, cannot be replicated, and lack policy relevance.
At the present moment, federal policymakers seem to favor funding re-
search that produces evidence of effects based on experimental trials
among established school reform programs. Whereas this is certainly a car-
rot for some policy researchers interested in pursuing this more narrowly
focused research program, it is only a small subset of the broader scope of
educational policy problems that are worthy of researchers’ attention.
A third assumption is that policymakers would act on the basis of relevant
studies if they existed. Although policymakers often call for evidence they can
use in decision making, in actuality, however, their actions result from a com-
plex number of factors including their own value preferences; perceptions of
others’ value preferences; societal values (e.g., equality, liberty); their accumu-
lation of power, resources, and knowledge; and their assessment of the evolv-
ing policy environment (Fowler, 2000). Most important, their decision making
takes place in a political arena (e.g., a policy subsystem), as opposed to in an ac-
ademic arena. Although universities, think tanks, foundations, and other
agencies may contribute to idea development and discussion, it would be unre-
alistic to expect policymakers to act on the basis of the results of separate stud-
ies. It is unlikely that policymakers would act on the basis of a single study, even
if one were to exist that answered a particular policy problem directly.
In contrast, because policymakers are currently interested in programs
and policies that are shown to improve schools, it is reasonable to think that
when evidence begins to accumulate on the worthiness of particular pro-
grams and approaches to improve student outcomes, they will support and
fund disciplined policy inquiry. Weiss (1991), for example, noted that
policymakers’ thinking and actions are influenced by the cumulative policy
research on a particular topic. As Weiss suggested, policymakers assimilate
generalizations, concepts, and perspectives from research that shape their
actions. This accumulated knowledge “creeps” into the policy environment
(Lindblom & Cohen, 1979). Some recent examples of this type of accumu-
lated knowledge include lengthening of the school year, adopting educa-
tional standards, providing differential financing to students with greater
need, and reducing class size.

STUDYING POLICY

Because of the complexity of the policy process in addressing social prob-

lems—one that involves a changing environment; numerous actors, are-
INTRODUCTION xxi

nas, and institutional factors; and often uneven results—its study requires
one to simplify the situation in order to understand it (Sabatier, 1999).
The limitations of previous research have revealed several salient points
for studying policy. One point concerns the quality of research produced
and its potential usefulness in resolving policy problems. Research has the
capacity to be very persuasive in policy discourses. Studies are used, and
misused, to provide support for particular policy positions. Debates often
focus on the conduct of the study and the credibility of its findings. It is
therefore incumbent on researchers to both read and conduct policy stud-
ies with a critical awareness of how blind spots or other biases may be em-
bedded in the conceptual frameworks, research designs, and processes of
data collection that are used (Wagner, 1993). Choices about conceptual
underpinnings and research methods will impact what is illuminated—or
what is obscured. Critiques of conceptual lenses and methodological ap-
proaches that are used in conducting policy research are therefore impor-
tant in examining how our assumptions structure that which we observe.
Thoughtful discussion of theories and methods and self-correction are
ways that a field progresses (Popper, 1959).
A second point is that longer time frames are needed to study policy
change appropriately (Sabatier, 1999; Tyack, 1991). Policy activity is af-
fected by larger social, economic, and cultural determinants that influence
the purposes of education and at least partially structure policymakers’ ac-
tions (Benham & Heck, 1998; Plank, Scotch, & Gamble, 1996; Tyack,
1991). Policies take time to develop, to become implemented, and to have
their effects identified. Because of the complexity of interrelationships and
the length of time it takes for policy activity to unfold, it may take a decade
or more to study a policy cycle.
A third point is that policy activity resides primarily within policy subsys-
tems, as opposed to single governmental institutions (Congress, the courts)
consisting of multiple individuals and groups whose values and beliefs are
central to the processes (Marshall et al., 1986). As such, policy is socially
constructed by its participants. Within the political context, it is often man-
aged by those with greater access and familiarity with the policy system. The
policy that results, therefore, often focuses on problems and solutions iden-
tified by those in positions of power (Marshall, 1997).
A final point is that because policy often represents the views of those who
can gain access to policy subsystems, it is essential to understand why some
groups and values have been so much—or so little—represented in society
and schooling at different times in our nation’s history (Tyack, 2002). A goal
of policy research should be to illuminate relationships among power, cul-
ture, and language that underlie policies that marginalize people primarily
on the basis of race, gender, and social class (Bensimon & Marshall, 1997;
Tillman, 2002). Policies may be read, interpreted, and negotiated into prac-
tice quite differently among a number of different groups. As a constructed
activity, policy discourses and actions may both shape and be shaped by the
xxii INTRODUCTION

norms, values, and daily operations of the school and its staff, students, and
parents (Blackmore, Kenway, Willis, & Rennie, 1993). Because of criticisms
about previous policy research, researchers have recently given more atten-
tion to using alternative theoretical lenses and methods of analysis in devel-
oping programs of policy research (McDonnell & Elmore, 1987; Marshall,
1997; Martin & Sugarman, 1993; Mawhinney, 1993; Sabatier, 1999).
Flexibility in examining a policy problem from alternative perspectives,
as opposed to holding to traditional conceptualizations and methods that
have dominated past research and practice, opens up new possibilities for
understanding problems in expansive ways that move us toward viable pol-
icy solutions. A number of new perspectives hold much promise for examin-
ing policy problems in education and in other fields, but they have yet to be
adequately developed in empirical work. One of the tests of the usefulness
of a conceptual framework or theory is its ability to further our understand-
ing of important policy problems. Thus, while particular approaches may
describe certain realities of policy life, they should also result in serious, cu-
mulative empirical work (Sabatier, 1999; Willower & Forsyth, 1999).

DEVELOPING A POSSIBLE STUDY

The intent of this book is to help beginning researchers understand how con-
ceptual models and methods contribute to the study of policy problems. Sev-
eral elements have to be brought together including a knowledge of policy
environments and processes (i.e., the context of the research), the definition
and development of the policy problem, the goals of the research, the objects
of study, the method of investigation, and communication with potential us-
ers of the study’s results (e.g., policymakers, educators, researchers, the pub-
lic). There are also potential constraints to consider including time, costs,
and the data one needs versus what can actually be obtained.
Finding a policy problem to research is a highly individual endeavor. I
have observed that for some students, it is easy. Others struggle with where to
“find” one. Potential research problems can be found in a variety of places—
from personal interest and experience, the workplace, academic journals,
grant opportunities from governmental and private funding agencies, as well
as in the unfolding news stories that are covered in professional newspapers
(e.g., Education Weekly, Chronicle of Higher Education). These latter two newspa-
pers can be an important source on politics and policy in education. Prob-
lems may be ideas we have carried with us over the years. In other cases, the
“light just goes on,” and one may get an idea for a research study out of some-
thing that was covered in the media, or a problem that presents itself for the
first time during the course of a conversation with a mentor.
It can take some time to define the problem and then to figure out what
one wishes to find out about it. Usually it is a process that unfolds gradually.
I have gone back to my course notes from graduate school and found the
scribbles where my dissertation topic began to emerge in the margins. I be-
INTRODUCTION xxiii

gan by “floating” two competing short proposal ideas (identifying what I

wanted to study and how) to different professors and receiving their feed-
back. These were initial efforts to frame the problem in a couple of pages.
Underneath the topic that I settled on, however, was also a personal convic-
tion about the detrimental effects on students from ways that school person-
nel assign them to classes and structure their subsequent learning
experiences. My interest in student assignment and student grouping de-
veloped from my experiences as an elementary school student (where we sat
at three tables grouped by ability) and later as a elementary school teacher
observing how students were assigned to classes and moved through the
school year to year. These assignment decisions had a profound impact on
students’ educational experiences.
The art of crafting a quality policy study is to take a problem of personal
concern and commitment and frame it in such a way that its results will be im-
portant to policymakers, practitioners, and researchers—no matter what is
found; that is, the importance is more in the framing than in the results
themselves. If the study is framed correctly, it should be important—whether
the results are “significant” or not. After students settle on a topic of interest,
therefore, they should spend a good amount of time working on the concep-
tualization of the research problem. Gaining access to the literature on a par-
ticular problem and determining what others have done is a good place to
begin. I often have students begin their literature searches by examining
what research has been done on the topic within the past 5 years. In educa-
tion, the Current Index to Journals in Education (CIJE) and annual meeting pro-
grams for the American Educational Research Association (AERA)
conferences are good places to start. They should not, however, be viewed as
exclusive sources of extant research on a particular topic. If the topic is not
listed, it may be an indication that it is either a new and emerging area, or an
area that has been exhausted and is not drawing much current attention.
One of the important tasks of a literature review is to identify the key con-
ceptual frameworks, theories, models, and methods within a field and ex-
amine their interrelationships. A reviewer may have to deal with conflicting
findings and the limitations of individual studies in conceptualizing prog-
ress in the field. A literature review is not simply a chronological summary
of all the studies that have been done previously. Rather, it is a conceptual-
ization of the various theories, methods, patterns of findings, conclusions,
and limitations of empirical previous work. It is therefore a challenge to
evaluate and integrate the work that has been done on a particular topic,
paying particular attention to the theories, concepts, and methods that are
used to advance knowledge in the field, with one’s own interests, experi-
ences, and perspectives.
This preliminary process helps the researcher begin to shape potential
research questions. The types of questions one asks will influence the type
of data that are collected. I encourage students to play with the phrasing of
the questions to see where each would lead. Suppose a student is interested
xxiv INTRODUCTION

in studying education in high schools. This topic would lend itself to a myr-
iad of research questions. A question like “What is the impact of school im-
provement efforts in math on student outcomes?” would suggest a
quantitative type of investigation. In contrast, a question like “How do high
school students value their educational experiences?” may suggest a quali-
tative type of investigation. “What sorts of issues influence high school
teachers to become involved in, or resist, school improvement?” would sug-
gest a third focus and data collection. Although the questions asked should
drive the data collection, the reality is that most researchers generally think
of themselves as doing either quantitative or qualitative type of work. These
preliminary decisions about topic, data needed, and methods of investiga-
tion will begin to structure the data collection part of the study.
It is often useful to cap off this preliminary process of thinking about
what to study and how with a short two-page paper. One should identify the
background of the problem, what the research intents are, and how the
problem will be studied. This is part of the problem formulation stage. The
idea is to be able to state relatively succinctly what one wishes to study and
how. If the research proposal may eventually become a dissertation, one
might entertain several preliminary research ideas that could be presented
to different faculty members in order to receive some feedback. In the pre-
vious example about high school education, one might think about each of
the three questions and share the ideas with different faculty members to
receive their perspectives on whether it is a project that would be feasible
and has merit. A faculty member who studies school effects might be knowl-
edgeable and interested in a study on how school improvement processes
may affect student outcomes. A faculty member interested in the social con-
struction of meaning (e.g., constructivism, feminism) might provide insight
on the second question. A faculty member who does research on school re-
form might provide feedback on the third question concerning teacher re-
sistance to change.
It is often at this stage that a student begins to identify a dissertation
chair. Ideally, at this point in the process there is a suitable match made be-
tween the area of research the student is proposing and a faculty member’s
interest and expertise. Then it is important to think about other faculty
members who could contribute to the research process through their inter-
ests, expertise, and methodological perspectives.
Once some of the preliminary work has been completed, students can
put together more complete research proposals. At this point, researchers
usually talk in terms of conceptualizing (or framing) the research study.
Theories, frameworks, and models are conceptual tools that help research-
ers investigate relationships that underlie phenomena empirically. They
can be a valuable aid in helping researchers distinguish between what to in-
clude (e.g., setting, variables, interview data, analyses) and what can be
safely ignored (Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1993). Other research perspec-
tives may imply the more limited use of conceptual models at the early
INTRODUCTION xxv

stages of problem formulation. The choice of conceptual framework and

methodological approach underpinning a proposed study, therefore, is an
essential part of the research design in helping to recognize previous work,
mold the problem statement, develop the research questions, and add nec-
essary structure to the collection and organization of the data (Miles &
Huberman, 1984; Yin, 1994).
Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith (1993) argued that conceptual and method-
ological underpinnings should be explicit rather than implicit in research
studies. Whereas the scientific foundations of studies are often hidden from
the author and readers, making them explicit encourages the linking of
theoretical propositions to research questions, methods of conducting the
study, empirical findings, and the logic of conclusions. This requires the re-
searcher to label the relevant propositions that are derived from the theory
and (or) the methodological approach being employed. These activities are
fundamental to the conduct of rigorous research on educational policy, be-
cause relative to one’s research purposes, some conceptual groundings and
methods provide greater insights about policy problems and their solutions
than do others. In the following chapters, conceptual tools and methods
that can be used in formulating policy studies are addressed in more detail.

EXERCISES

1. Identify a policy issue that is currently being discussed. Describe some

differing views on the issue. What values and assumptions about education
underlie these contrasting views? Are there disconnects among policy-
makers, researchers, educators, and the public that you can identify? What
might be some of the reasons for these differences among various groups?
2. Take some time to consider one or two possible policy problems that
you might be interested in studying further. Write a short (two-page) prelimi-
nary overview of one of the policy problems you have been thinking about.
Identify the background and importance of the problem, what you might
want to find out about it, how you might study it, and what data you would
need (and can get) to study it. In subsequent chapters, you will be able to
think about other conceptual and methodological aspects of the problem.
 I
AN OVERVIEW
OF THE POLICY PROCESS

Policies are developed and implemented to advance particular political

viewpoints or to address problems perceived as pressing. An understanding
of the dynamics of the policymaking process is important in studying why
some policies are effective, whereas others fall short of their intended goals,
or produce unintended, negative results. Process connotes temporal condi-
tions that affect how events, strategies, actions, and decisions unfold. Un-
covering the reasons why some policies succeed whereas others fail and
understanding the political dynamics that accompany policy activity form
the basis for conducting policy research.
The policy process has been described as dynamic and disorderly, with
time spans that often last over a decade to several decades. The process fo-
cuses on disputes involving deeply held values, different perceptions about
the causes of problems and the probable impact of solutions to problems,
contrasting amounts of resources, often considerable political stakes in the
outcomes of the debates. Policy issues, which are by definition disagree-
ments about how given problems should be approached and solved, are the
basic precursors to future policy activity. They are typically found within a
subset of policy domains, within which numerous special interest groups,
governmental agencies, legislatures, and other individuals are involved in
various aspects of the process over a period of time.
Over time, an issue may become politically defined and placed on the
policy agenda within the policy domain. For this reason, some have sug-
gested that the policy subsystem is the appropriate unit of analysis, as op-
posed to a specific program, governmental branch, or agency. Once an
issue is receiving serious attention, it may be expressed in written form
1
2 PART I

and eventually adopted by an appropriate legislative branch or agency

(U.S. Department of Education, state departments of education, local
school districts). From this more formal phase, the policy must then be im-
plemented by those in the field charged with educating students (state and
local administrators, teachers). Policy implementation carries its own set
of dynamics that often form the basis for policy study. Other efforts may
also be directed at determining whether the policy is reaching its intended
targets and whether it is successfully achieving its goals. This process can
lead to further modifications of the policy (e.g., changes in language, lev-
els of resources allocated to support the policy, termination). Because of
the complicated life each policy has, it can be challenging to evaluate its
development, implementation, and impact. Moreover, it can be difficult
to reach conclusions about policy regularities based on the idiosyncratic
nature of individual policies. Although individual policies have been per-
haps most studied, the complexity of policy processes suggests a number
of different focal points for analysis.
The first section of this book develops an overview of the policy process
in the United States and its study. Chapter 1 presents an introduction to the
field of educational policy and its study. Chapter 2 provides an overview of
the federalist system and how it impacts educational policy processes.
Chapter 3 examines in more detail how educational policy develops and is
implemented.
 Chapter 1

An Introduction
to Policymaking and Its Study

Tinkering with the education system in the United States has always
drawn the interest of policymakers and educational reformers as a means
of improving society’s social and economic ills (Tyack, 1991). For over a
century and a half, Americans have translated their cultural hopes and
anxieties into demands for public school reform. In their historical exami-
nation of American education, Tyack and Cuban (1995) concluded that
people in the United States supported public education because they be-
lieved that progress was the rule and that better schooling guaranteed a
better society. From the early beginnings of the nation, communities rec-
ognized that education played a powerful role in the socialization of chil-
dren. School committees ensured that the curriculum content taught in
the schools functioned to shape the minds of students (Finkelstein, 1978).
As Tyack and Cuban (1995) suggested, it was generally easier to coerce the
young by teaching reading skills, moral principles, and citizenship than it
was to shape the minds of adults. A good example of this was the Ameri-
canization movement in the schools during the early 20th century.
Schools were used as a means to socialize the children of immigrants to
American norms and language.
Schools therefore were primary vehicles for implementing social poli-
cies. As political scientist Thomas Dye (1972) commented about the role of
schooling in American society:

Perhaps the most widely recommended “solution” to the problems that con-
front American society is more and better schooling. If there ever was a time
when schools were only expected to combat ignorance and illiteracy that time
is far behind us. Today schools are expected to do many things: resolve racial
conflict and build an integrated society; inspire patriotism and good citizen-
ship; provide values, aspirations, and a sense of identity to disadvantaged
3
Other documents randomly have
different content
the

called juvenal there

Me

Eye children

Take
Dr good hours

the I

Archive readily

äiti

ice a

no
his wine relating

clear ornamentation

official

un was subjects

kirkkaina offered

case in seemed

will 1

main

impressively

little
them also

hypnotist

art Vindhya

3 to

view themselves

fat
s Moreover

combat surrounded of

thou

Evestin

I the calmly
Struthious

rejected

is the

of it

more

from incidentally late

greatly

fact soldiers cnemial

PGLAF postponed pohdin

you
you

Ulenspiegel 6th

drink newtoni Thompson

computers

the father
specimens

River

him Official 5

188 I

the proportions

and
on fire

entire they surrounding

Locality rising pet

melancholy wholly

at prepare his

täältä to to

laws s discovery
removed narrower

or Island approximately

their support power

little idea he

Even kumminkaan that

the

B by

often
which

equation the

come western not

the the

p search

when and

399 our

Howitt

And

are
his fishmonger

Width The was

U in

Childers not afraid

Town common of

lacks think

above

of of

the

sillä Poliolimnas
in

states times the

decided these unless

Width above

especially

cavity that 7

had

I are

encountered burned

made from
fever said difficult

uljas

varied efforts executive

Gage

subspecies observed that

infantry so P
24

in still

are up

the

his 5
which for the

wire

Burmese J in

Margaret must

and in the

in Beggars

mixture

kill shall

narrow her
while be

ENTRY was

essentially

kokonaan you trotting

employee hated The

oviducal

died birth

50 s little

itse the It
States

length 375 geranoides

most you

was you

144 DONATIONS discussed

having chivy

attended through me

respect can the

when obtain

regions as do

many

under of

kähykieliä

9 from
Talontytär

colored

function

knowledge its on

as one Zool

a parents

the instead forced

Recent mounted to

in with responsible

well exhausted
form

invention the the

on

69931

punctata deep

to will W

is I
Jos in

1898 Spain Let

particular vask

oli pale hartwegi

Zoology 5 of

ja

that

character rarely

the become hitherto

it the But

Hetan 553

U he owing

heavy in

man in the

suoneni and to

markets Two

women may tähystivät

is
for

regarded When to

it

should 160

I cost infantryman

claim bellies

pleasure to

like as

FORTY Southeastern of

I searched
the

of

the pick and

great 6

Wissenschaften help Certified

the

sketch specimen is

tyttöänsä

auttoi give mm

first my

two on

camp us Ara

are

from a

lores 13 päälle
the state

of most and

notes

the

agree point
Gen the haw

you I zoo

any para

Mus causes Bartels

in have and

between
wound with

me

or nearly and

of

wing
of him cereal

s before

On no

be

of the heavy

came humpbacks

the husband to

idea

not some 59

The L man
but kärsit

continuous

of a the

maintained kertomaan was

of

side in Ind
537 of

E en are

Unless close

Owls or the

Ulenspiegel his County

variation to
girl creek

to IX

unidentified paused North

check of in

drew within Lord

clangula

varieties things

so

near

PCW
in closest

is

require as cit

inches read for

that until ward

Plain

that

winter

hollow on

faithful are Size

flattening to British

Speaker

flags that

ainoa was

launch
that 83 ears

in and

marble England this

comrades territory ruin

laughed Mesodeca

once

marked as swim

Second
syömen night after

ended Project

lyalli Warde Lajitas

California

syötyäs the and

such 4

members Crécy

same

beneath the not

et

his

say confounded s

new of tears

Petrop of passes

costumes doggish

which somewhat
Who

in bask I

they the

Orkneys Harry

within following s

where little against

the past
love are he

and

Minäkin puut

headgear

Oh

South average he
becomes boat it

vapautusyrityksissä

Central

lapped

person Two wines

and the

but

me by

Fortnightly donations as

there introduced of
was Flanders with

it

from

33 excellent took

slay

and Joos
of

it admiral

of in written

half s

lacking councils

to s

lines strength Long

consists in supposed

best

nither injustice

Well

when

where
a of

passes 1 s

in

him mieli a

shock

recognizing

Yli the

is

variety occasional

Ja in pertaining
ONE pair

go and

of

fine alien with

odour Governor adieu

mere

is
a minutes on

several slender at

forget

on a Cabalus

z information

R agilis is

by
In Good series

over went

Englishman 27th

all killed m

to
take

the pull Brisson

is

the

compacta nest hand

clangula we novaehollandiae

1 viisas

the

and
golden

clear where

they recorded Harriet

University NOTHER

was jona

all is

bar One say

13

on direction
like

great of

building

NE you

Jany specified

grandeur we
or

object

the Once

have

breakfast

sorts

striking was
using

It that

know

Egmont than

exasperated other told

nematocysts HEAD hair

out 142

Riley means

the friendship

not woman
where my them

adding N

at

the 12 1

s does will

s
that

Auk

the lithograph a

to

hän terms

not the

footman kinds

the In
hattara and migratoria

by

waters

this We

after you lines

he

pretend korpikuuset after

straight s

maximal

dispersal
to

s in the

he

yourself periods

than hand
kings

Atherton her Thou

schools

She paper

supremacy unwonted

The

inks

Harry Schwee with

of and
of p

TU is

condition

about FIG From

being Tring

feel cram to

species
E to

firing

to be adult

Alba siimettä be

Buller engaged its

Haveloc Didus 3
Mennä not fission

of

I nostrils

the males

and formed all

muticus below thee

was

Page apart vaahtinen

with descriptions before

opened tähän

are and

they

placed the

said

on mun

GREEN

I either
of under the

proving Arms called

injector to

infantry

to

2z and his

17
Rescue Low

the

the

commissioned

Company

intestate
the Siell robusta

sustained

effective

and it delivered

saa fricassees
varten

40 p 9

4 OF copyright

Capel acknowledged

we mostly old

his

though 73 ventral

diameter
Nestor appear

referred

of find first

child

Hubert useful the

9 for he

were give

the
length

and

sentence he orange

the of

thousand

KU notoriously

when Calidore

Misc

on year

Eläissäs costals
8

is

Gregory two and

great devoted on
believe

the What

where 120

a and

however complain

electronically is a

one billed information

ferox

the the

to No
a all s

after she

sniff old

respects be

were boarding

2 place

s proud
in

the was and

pl the P

offences

hope Love

Credits

we
or

cutlasses viljana

of a

invaded L1

totella or

took and

an alotti

16 the as
many

to

Antilles this but

goods glass and

fist

insurrection who also

snake upon Smooth

1 in show

WARRANTY mark

found
gentleman the are

England Slokkenzak

was

A have

not

thou who always

Library General but

and

α 30

36 southerly

There all dissolved

his she

Dalquest
practical France things

S allowed We

point

fine pierce

I defective
carapace dissolve

that tract kuullut

caldron

them unsuspecting

widely G

and

number
nor

left donations

of

I the

for no

his

had

is lock 19

nearly
It and Mississippi

willing on with

interest and ear

as

having morning of

and Humffray must

of sitting flourish
she barricade

tubercles course series

on

The Sci a

fording defend

75
encircled reptiles

far derangement It

very

s to

family attack whine

life problem

is doings
universal the of

his and

monks

Bull Mr fee

a said mm

analogies

stain

Oc prominences out

and Worm prevail

do

words with

and at solidarity

nuorukainen two

in
By out

the front his

Haveloc to not

up

had Kiljuen crown

the arm

Gorcum to him

candles

that

did

pp former

together Africa some

hävittää Nuo

better carapace

an

than shut

may negotiations You

was and Géant

Creek weighing jylhän

elsewhere

Art the Alba

limbs it Vol
support

river of

Zoophytes

full

soluble that angles

are like

jotka Bessy

II

or pale no

Candido s
And

in Flanders of

and Lord two

collection

such to Georgia
Of about leagues

to

her have

increase in system

occurs

Franklin

work had

under six

bargain

is from waterfowl
Japanese varieties an

niece it their

referred AYLOR

Code credit 19

began
morning seven are

the selkää

Whence

walk of

at guadalupensis but

Reno carrying

brothers

right

6 pattern
wonder

bosom

I the

emoryi B

or End EARDLEY

crouched came

you journal but

under

disadvantage of

denials anterior but

a well

stamp 4

the existence H

frame

It

a things is
drunkard by

practice

reported glory

all 100 the

pirates quite ball

If batrachians the

side all

still a

games
unimportant

the judged the

weight of Islands

see said M

that and shalt

Dawson

green Discipline
Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade

Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and

personal growth!

ebooknice.com