Every year, potential graduate students hunt through websites and promotional materials searching for the perfect program to fit their needs. The search requires time and patience, especially for those future scholars who seek a doctoral program in Education Policy Studies (EPS) with a focus on interacting with the policymaking process. The primary objective of this project was to explore the promotional materials of EPS doctoral programs in order to better understand how these programs promote formalized training for students to engage with education policy and the policymaking process. I selected the top 10 EPS programs in the nation along with my own institution (Arizona State University) as the sample for this study. By reviewing their websites, I found that programs provide a comparable training description for similar careers as well as upholding similar goals in the subfield of EPS. Ultimately, the program materials revealed that while these programs advertise significant formalized training in research methods and scholarly pursuits, opportunities to actively engage with policymaking were missing from the materials. Instead, it is more likely that such opportunities occur in informal settings such as apprenticeships and working at research centers. This study provides a detailed discussion of how programs promote training opportunities to students, the types of careers that programs claim to prepare students for, and the important role that faculty projects and additional resources play in the student experience related to engagement with policy and the policymaking process.

The purpose of this study was to determine Maricopa County high school teachers' perspectives on educational policy rhetoric messages. The current time and setting among Arizona high school educators provide a unique opportunity to gain the perspective of those who will be implementing the reform and held accountable for subsequent student performance before the reform takes effect and while the policy talk that precedes reform efforts is at its peak. The questions that this study sought to answer were the following: 1. What are Maricopa County High School teachers' perceptions of policy talk regarding Common Core Standards Initiative (CCSSI) and high stakes accountability measures with respect to student achievement outcomes and implementation? 2. How do these perspectives vary by teacher context (e.g. experience, content taught, district, and site demographics) within the 9-12 educational system? To determine the answers, a sequential explanatory mixed methods design was selected. The first phase involved the collection and analysis of quantitative data followed by collection and analysis of qualitative data in the second phase. A survey instrument was developed utilizing CCSSI/PARCC policy rhetoric statements and was administered to high school teachers. Initially, survey data identified overall trends among high school teachers' perceptions of educational reform policy (CCSSI) talk messages. Subsequently, qualitative focus group interviews further informed results. Results indicated that portions of policy talk messages have resonated; however, these tended to be the oldest and most oft-repeated statements. Newer messages related to changes in instructional practices and student outcomes were less widely accepted. It would appear from the results that teachers are unsure of what CCSSI really entails due to a lack of clarity in message and presentations for practitioners regarding implementation. A significant complicating factor in this effort is the unique nature of the CCSSI as a nationalized movement. Furthermore in Arizona, the backlash of conservative Republicans against CCSSI has led some teachers to believe that the implementation is up in the air, without discernible direction or support. This has left educators to interpret this latest change through their own lenses, which has defined their level of agreement and acceptance with these policy statements.

There is a documented gap between research-based recommendations produced by university-based scholars in the field of education in the United States and the evidence that U.S. politicians' use when deciding which educational policies to implement or amend. This is a problem because university-based education scholars produce vast quantities of research each year, some of which could, and more importantly should, be useful to politicians in their decision-making processes and yet, politicians continue to make policy decisions about education without the benefit of much of the knowledge that has been gained through scholarly research. I refer to the small fraction of university-based education scholars who are demonstrably successful at getting scholarly research into the hands of politicians to be used for decision-making purposes as "university-based bipartisan scholarship brokers". They are distinct from other university-based education scholars in that they engage with politicians from both political parties around research and, as such, are able to use scholarly research to influence the education policymaking process. The problem that this dissertation addresses is the lack of use, by U.S. politicians, of scholarly research produced by United States university-based education scholars as input in education policy decisions. The way in which this problem is explored is through studying university-based bipartisan scholarship brokers. I focused on three areas for exploration: the methods university-based bipartisan scholarship brokers use to successfully get U.S. politicians to consider scholarly research as an input in their decision-making processes around education policy, how these scholars are different than the majority of university-based education policy scholars, and how they conceive of the education policy-setting agenda. What I uncovered in this dissertation is that university-based bipartisan scholarship brokers are a complete sub-group of university-based education scholars. They work above the rigorous promotion and tenure requirements of their home universities in order to use scholarly research to help serve the research needs of politicians. Their engagement is distinct among university-based education scholars and through this dissertation their perspective is presented in participants' own authentic language.

This dissertation is based on an empirical study that focused on student reenrollment, an essential but largely overlooked element of school choice policies. Based on the school choice literature, I extended the hypothesis of parental charter school choice to the subject of reenrollment. In doing so, I referred jointly to theories from the fields of public choice and business, in order to better understand student reenrollment in a maturing education market. By tracking student enrollment records over multiples years and linking them to school attributes (socio-economic status, racial/ethnic composition of the student body, school quality label), student demographics, and student academic performance, I established a complex student reenrollment database. I applied a rigorous statistical model to this data, allowing me to identify a number of important insights about student reenrollment in a maturing education market. I described the reenrollment patterns at the state level, as well as a predictive model of reenrollment outcome at the individual level. My analyses indicate that student reenrollment was the most common school choice outcome: most students reenrolled in their present schools, regardless of that school's quality label; however, the student reenrollment rates in charter schools were lower than those in traditional public schools. I observed patterns of segregation in student reenrollment within Arizona, as reenrollment appeared to be significantly polarized with respect to school attributes and students' characteristics. There were two distinct patterns that appeared to coexist in Arizona's student reenrollment data: quality-oriented reenrollment and similarity-oriented reenrollment. The findings of this study extend the school choice literature to include student reenrollment. This study challenges the application of market metaphors in the context of school choice, which generally advocate the reform of public schools through encouraging students to switch, promoting school competition and thereby improving public education quality. Instead of using command and control policies to shame schools into improvement, however, policymakers and parents should employ school accountability policies and the practice of school labeling as a trigger to reinvest in struggling schools, rather than encouraging students to find a new one.

ABSTRACT In Roosevelt v. Bishop (1994), Arizona public school districts and parents challenged Arizona's school financing system arguing that it was not "general and uniform" as required by the Arizona Constitution. The purpose of this study was to analyze Arizona's Students Fair and Immediate Resources for Students Today (Students FIRST) legislation, the remedy that resulted from the Roosevelt decision, empirically, and longitudinally. Three types of statistical analyses were conducted on a sample of 165 public school districts. Fiscal neutrality was measured for each of the eleven years of the study, to assess the association between the per-pupil Students FIRST funding level and the per-pupil property wealth. Multiple regression analysis was also conducted to assess if both property wealth and district size were associated with the distribution of Students FIRST funding. Finally, I analyzed the eleven-year average of the total Students FIRST funding distributed to school districts and assessed how the plaintiff districts ranked in the distribution. Overall, the findings revealed that Students FIRST met the fiscal neutrality standard in some, but not in all the categories and years of this study, per-pupil property wealth was only weakly related to, and district size was not associated with, Students FIRST funding. The analysis of average funding suggested that some property rich school districts benefited most from Students FIRST. These results suggest that the traditional measures used to assess the fiscal neutrality of operating funding may not be appropriate for assessing the fiscal neutrality of capital finance reforms. While the results of this study provide some suggestive evidence that Students FIRST did not fulfill the Court's mandate, additional research is needed as to whether or not Arizona's capital finance system has resulted in disparities in funding that fall short of the constitutional standard.

More than 30% of college entrants are placed in remedial mathematics (RM). Given that an explicit relationship exists between students' high school mathematics and college success in science, technology, engineering, and mathematical (STEM) fields, it is important to understand RM students' characteristics in high school. Using the Education Longitudinal Survey 2002/2006 data, this study evaluated more than 130 variables for statistical and practical significance. The variables included standard demographic data, prior achievement and transcript data, family and teacher perceptions, school characteristics, and student attitudinal variables, all of which are identified as influential in mathematical success. These variables were analyzed using logistic regression models to estimate the likelihood that a student would be placed into RM. As might be expected, student test scores, highest mathematics course taken, and high school grade point average were the strongest predictors of success in college mathematics courses. Attitude variables had a marginal effect on the most advantaged students, but their effect cannot be evaluated for disadvantaged students, due to a non-random pattern of missing data. Further research should concentrate on obtaining answers to the attitudinal questions and investigating their influence and interaction with academic indicators.