Suchergebnisse

Explores the role of state politics in shaping the national agenda during the 1980s. By focusing on the federal tax policy from 1978-1986, Berkman argues that a conservative political agenda slowly replaced the liberal agenda dominant since World War II.

STATE LEGISLATORS HAVE BEEN MOVING INTO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WITH INCREASING FREQUENCY OVER THE LAST 30 YEARS, THEY ENTER THE HOUSE WITH MASTERY OVER BOTH INSTITUTIONAL POLITICS AND PARTICULAR AREAS OF PUBLIC POLICY, AND THEY USE THIS MASTERY TO RAPIDLY ATTAIN COMMITTEE POSITIONS FROM WHICH THEY CAN PROMOTE POLICY IDEAS DEVELOPED FROM THEIR STATE EXPERIENCES. THE EXTENT OF THIS MASTERY AND THEIR SPECIFIC POLICY INTERESTS ARE SHAPED BY THE DEGREE TO WHICH THEIR STATE LEGISLATURE IS PROFESSIONALIZED, THE COMMITTEE POSITIONS THEY HELD IN THE STATE, AND THEIR ACTIVENESS IN STATE POLICY MAKING, THROUGH INTERVIEWS AND ANALYSIS OF COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS, FOUR TYPES OF FORMER STATE LEGISLATORS IN THE HOUSE ARE IDENTIFIED: POLICY MASTERS, POLICY PARTICIPANTS, VOLUNTARY SWITCHERS, AND DISAPPOINTED SWITCHERS.

"Who should decide what children are taught in school? This question lies at the heart of the evolution-creation wars that have become a regular feature of the U.S. political landscape. Ever since the 1925 Scopes "monkey trial" many have argued that the people should decide by majority rule and through political institutions; others variously point to the federal courts, educational experts, or scientists as the ideal arbiter. Michael Berkman and Eric Plutzer illuminate who really controls the nation's classrooms. Based on their innovative survey of 926 high school biology teachers they show that the real power lies with individual educators who make critical decisions in their own classrooms. Broad teacher discretion sometimes leads to excellent instruction in evolution. But the authors also find evidence of strong creationist tendencies in America's public high schools. More generally, they find evidence of a systematic undermining of science and the scientific method in many classrooms"--Provided by publisher

Preface : policy responsiveness and American democracy -- Democratic control of American school boards -- Financing public education -- Public opinion and Americans' commitment to educational spending -- Direct democracy, indirect democracy, and policy responsiveness -- Voting rights, electoral systems, and policy responsiveness -- Teacher's unions in state and local politics -- The gray peril reconsidered -- The democratic control of American school boards.

Evolution deniers do not need to establish their own scientific position but merely cast doubt on some aspect of evolution or obtain a small amount of legitimacy for creationism or intelligent design to sow sufficient doubt in the mainstream. This doubt is one of three pillars, along with demands for equal time and the incompatibility of science and religion, that Eugenie Scott has argued define contemporary anti-evolution efforts. High school biology teachers play a crucial role in whether a high school biology course reinforces the scientific consensus or whether it confers legitimacy on creationist perspectives with pedagogical strategies consistent with the three pillars. As we have shown elsewhere, many public school teachers do contribute to public opinion on evolution. But where do these norms come from? This article begins to answer this question, using data from our 2007 National Survey of High School Biology Teachers and new data from a series of focus groups with preservice teachers. We find that, as early as in the preservice college years, teachers develop attitudes and pedagogical coping mechanisms that lead to support for the anti-evolution movement.

The teaching of evolution in public schools has been a central element in the nation's "culture wars" since the 1920s and remains a contentious issue today. Content standards for the teaching of biology have been flashpoints for conflict, with well publicized battles occurring in state governments, in federal courts, and in local school districts. We show that a full understanding of evolution politics at the state level must simultaneously account for three important features. First, cultural politics typically includes an important role for public opinion. Second, scientists and their professional organizations have actively sought a monopoly on defining what is and is not science by marginalizing their uncredentialled opponents and by erecting boundaries that buffer science policy from the influence of politics and public opinion. Third, in the American federal system courts rarely settle cultural issues but merely narrow the space within which politics can operate. In accounting for these features, we explain why court victories for science have had only limited impacts and provide a model for understanding other issues—such as sex education, stem cell research, and global warming—in which moral and ideological arguments may conflict with scientific consensus.