Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
A Tale of Two Roles: Measuring Political Efficacy in Homeschool Parent-Teachers
Introduction
The purpose of this study is to investigate the role of political efficacy in homeschool
parents’ educational choices and advocacy and to examine links between political efficacy
beliefs and homeschooling educational practices. Of particular interest to this study are the
position and power of the public to bring about changes in education policy. Parents, as members
of the public who are also responsible for the upbringing of their children, occupy a unique
position as constituents of public schools and education policy advocates. Public school teachers,
conversely, are “street level bureaucrats” (Lipsky, 1980): de facto policymakers who decide how
and if policy mandates are implemented in their classrooms. When parents opt to homeschool,
they also elect to occupy the two roles of parent and teacher simultaneously. The homeschool
community has been remarkably successful in bringing its policy priorities to fruition –
homeschooling was legalized nationwide in just 30 years when it had previously been illegal in
every state. Sommerville (2005) describes this as “one of the great unpublicized political
campaigns in U.S. civic history” (p. 135). Such agentic political action appears to be rooted not
in withdrawal from schools and school politics – the accusation sometimes levied against
homeschool communities – but in a uniquely efficacious set of political beliefs and actions that
demand further attention from education researchers, practitioners, and policymakers.
Human agency beliefs, including self-efficacy beliefs, are at the center of motivation and
success (Bandura, 1995). Political efficacy comprises an individual’ s belief in his or her
capacity to understand, navigate, and ultimately influence the political system. The objectives of
this study are twofold: to apply a new measure of political efficacy to an educational context for
the first time and to investigate links between the political efficacy of homeschooling teaching
2
parents and autonomy-promoting instructional practices. The outcomes of this study stand to
contribute to a broader conversation about the roles of different constituencies and their exercise
of political will within school systems. Specifically, this study contributes to the rapidly evolving
conversation about the power of parents to influence the education of their children and how
school governance structures invite or inhibit the expression of political will in schools systems.
The results of this study, then, have substantive implications for both public school and
homeschooling communities. Homeschooling advocates have experienced tremendous success
as national education policies have shifted such that homeschooling is widely accepted as a valid
educational choice. If political efficacy proves to be an important predictor of successful
education policy advocacy, than the homeschool community has much to teach the broader
education community about how agency beliefs combine with efficacious political and collective
action in order to bring about positive changes for all students.
Literature Review
We turn now to the extant literature that provides substantive support for the
investigations undertaken in this study, including a brief overview of school governance as a
reform tool and the role of homeschooling within that history. This section also includes research
that addresses the construct of political efficacy, autonomy-promoting instructional practices,
and the influence of parents. We conclude this section with the research questions this study is
designed to address.
Governance as a reform tool
School governance is almost endlessly complex. As school oversight and policy come
under the umbrella of other, often general-purpose officials’ jurisdiction (governors and mayors,
3
for example), nearly every aspect of schooling is somehow integrated into another government
branch, agency, or funding stream. For instance, school food programs are the purview of the
United States Department of Agriculture; Title I, which governs resource allocation to
disadvantaged populations, falls under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act; and Title
IX, which oversees the equitable distribution of resources by gender, falls under the Office of
Civil Rights, just to name a few.
Historically, governance changes served as instruments of reform because changes in
government reroute power away from those who hold power and into the hands of those who
might be able to bring about the desired changes. Mintrom (2001) asserts that this redirection
might take one of two pathways. Centrifugally oriented reforms are those that decentralize power
and redistribute school governance to multiple stakeholders. Centripetal reforms, on the other
hand, are those that centralize power and streamline the number of decision-makers, usually as
an effort to reduce bureaucracy and establish a uniform vision of educational operations.
Centrifugal reforms include charter schools (and, by extension, independent operators and
charter management organizations), home education, and vouchers. Centripetal reforms include
what Mintrom terms the “standard setting” (which refers to traditional public district school
model) and top-down takeovers. Additional examples in the category of centripetal reforms
include mayoral control and appointed boards. Home education, as a centrifugal reform,
relocates decision-making power away from education policy authorities and into the hands of
parents, who may be more likely to know their students’ educational needs more intimately and
also be capable of advocating solely for the needs of their own students amidst a complicated and
diverse education system. This centrifugal reform, then, offers homeschooled students a degree
4
of attention, advocacy, and individualization they may not otherwise experience in the standard
schools etting.
There are numerous arguments for centripetal reforms, or those that centralize power. They
may potentially depoliticize education by placing educational control under the authority of a
single elected official, reduce bureaucratization, or increase funding for education by funneling it
through a single political agency rather than filtering it through a series of federal, state, and
local agencies (Henig, 2009). Other benefits of centralization as reform include electoral
accountability (Kirst & Bulkley, 2003; Kirst, 2007), the ability to marshal political will
(McGlynn, 2010), and clarity of political agenda (Macroff, 2010). However, every argument for
centripetal governance reform inevitably has a centrifugal corollary and, while centralization
may prompt more efficient allocation of political and economic resources, the difficulty arises
when an efficient system restricts the distribution of another good: participatory representation.
Top-down takeovers and regimes centralized around an education executive may be
undemocratic because they “involve a higher authority stepping in to take power away from local
actor who have been legitimately put in place through democratic processes” (Mintrom, 2001, p.
636). Homeschooling, then, is perhaps at the opposite end of the spectrum: it maximizes
democratic participation in that those who elect to participate also assume control of the
operations. Parents, as democratic actors, also assume the responsibility for and control over the
education of their children.
The appeal to democracy is really an appeal to one function of democracy over another –
in this case, representation over efficiency. Stone (2002) addresses the tension between reforms
that mandate centralization and those that rely on decentralization: either “differences among
people…are to be considered the norm” or “equality of distribution of certain crucial resources is
5
considered the norm” (p. 60). Efficiency, says Stone, may be simply expressed as “’ Getting the
most out of a given output’ or ‘achieving an objective for the lowest cost’ ” (p. 61) but the
execution of efficient systems is never as simple. As such, efficiency is not a democratic aim in
and of itself; it is an indicator of how to judge other goals and “it helps us attain more of the
things we value” (p. 61). In the case of school governance, centralization may represent
prioritizing efficiency over representation; while the preservation of locally elected boards may
symbolize the emphasis placed on representation, even at the cost of some efficiency. The myth
at work here is that representation and efficiency operate in a zero-sum game. Stone disagrees
with such a notion and instead suggests that the paths to that shared end must be directed by
political will: “Society can have both equity and efficiency by managing political and policy
choices” (p. 84). Homeschool teaching parents have opted to negotiate that balance for
themselves. For the broader homeschool community, managing political and policy choices has
meant unprecedented advocacy and, ultimately, dramatic shifts in law and perceptions of
legitimacy. Individual homeschool families have chosen to mange political and policy choices by
assuming more direct control over not only the governance of their children’ s’ education but
also the curricular and academic decisions.
Chester Finn and Michael Petrilli (2013) acknowledge that American school governance
has largely failed to carry out its intended purpose: to shepherd and protect student achievement.
They attribute the continued academic failure of American students to “our flawed, archaic, and
inefficient system for organizing and operating public schools” (p. 21). A key problem is that
schools and the needs of students have changed profoundly in the last fifty years, but
arrangements of school governance are almost exactly the same as they were in the 1800’ s.
Nearly any educational decision is negotiated by at least four levels of bureaucracy from the
6
federal government to the statehouse to the district office and finally the individual school. Finn
and Petrilli acknowledge the argument that such checks and balance provide stability but they
contest that stability has become gridlock, and that the wide variation in educational priorities is
not reason enough to protect the interest of adults throughout the multilayered system. Education
governance has failed because it “yields an education system that pays greater deference to the
desires and interests of its employees, vendors, an other adult beneficiaries than to those of the
families and communities it serves” (p. 22).
However, there is insufficient evidence that any of these reforms have met goals of increased
academic achievement or of other desirable outcomes such as enhanced well being, motivation,
or resilience (see for example: Wong & Shen, 2005; Biniaminov & Glassman, 1983; Carlson,
Lavery, & Witte, 2002). Meanwhile, governance-based reforms continue to proliferate across the
country (e.g. parent empowerment or trigger laws) without any substantive evidence of
effectiveness. Governance-based reforms have been used as a method of reforming schools since
the 1890’ s. In 1939, there were more than 110,000 school districts; today, there are about 14,000
(Berkman & Plutzer, 2005). Henig (2013a, 2013) suggests that governmental consolidation
continues to take place as general-purpose governments and offices absorb responsibility for
school governance. Student academic progress, largely measured by standardized test scores, has
been the chief measure of the success for governance-based school reforms like mayoral control,
state takeovers, charter conversions, and others. In addition to providing a clearer measure of
parent beliefs, a measure of parent political efficacy could serve as an alternate assessment of the
success of governance-based reforms in schools.
Murphy (2012) contends that the rise of homeschooling over the past three decades
represents a microcosm of the larger conflicts in education policy and practice. In particular,
7
homeschooling represents a clash between two factions in education: there are those who
advocate for more state power, increased centralization, and more rigorous professionalism
among educators and there are those who may be suspicious of reformers and reject the notion
that only professionals can orchestrate a high quality educational experience for students. The
second part, suggests Murphy, values individual liberty over heightened regulation and family
responsibility over state control. While this may describe many homeschool advocates and
practitioners, it also echoes the conversations happening around other education governance
reforms, including charter schools, voucher programs, online schools, and turnaround models of
schooling. Perhaps because homeschooling represents the broader educational conversations
around school governance reforms, it is especially important to understand why the
homeschooling movement has been so successful not only in legalizing the practice but also
gaining mainstream legitimacy as an educational choice. Even more critically, education policy
research must attend to the questions of what attitudes and beliefs held by homeschoolers
promote such successful advocacy activity and whether their efficacy beliefs, individually and
collectively, translate to favorable outcomes for students.
Political Efficacy
School governance is a major focus of public policy, and parents are often cited as levers
in debates around educational governance. In the case of home schooling, parents have opted to
be the major governors of their children’ s education. Efforts of home school communities have
been met with considerable and rapid success in the United States. This is an education-focused
community that has successfully navigated political mores to great success – used the
democratic tools at their disposal to exercise democratic rights to “pursuit of liberty for
themselves and their posterity”. The problem of parent-school involvement remains a quandary
8
for the broader K-12 education community so educators, policymakers, parents, and guardians
would benefit from understanding how home schoolers understand their position as actors within
the policy process. The aim of this study is to validate a measure of political efficacy within a
population of parents and guardians who have opted to educate their children at home, to
examine differences across traditional public school teachers and home school teaching parents,
and evaluate whether diverse individuals (who traditionally report low political efficacy) in the
home school community report political efficacy differently.
A growing body of literature suggests that agency beliefs are integral to human success in
many sectors, and especially in education (Bandura, 1982). Indeed, “self-generated
processes…not only contribute to the meaning and valence of most external influences, but they
also function as important proximal determinants of motivation and action” (Bandura, 1989, p.
1175). Self-efficacy beliefs are one category of self-generated process and Bandura goes on to
define self-efficacy as future-oriented judgments about one’ s ability to organize skills and
activities to bring about a desired outcome (1994). Research on self-efficacy has proliferated
dramatically across disciplines and continues to demonstrate that self-efficacy is critical
antecedent to many positive outcomes in health, sports performance, political participation, and
academic achievement (Bandura, 1997).
The political science concept of political efficacy is closely related to the psychological
concept of self-efficacy, although the two developed independently within their separate fields of
origin (Morrell, 2005). “Simply put, efficacy is the citizens’ perceptions of powerfulness (or
powerlessness) in the political realm” (Morrell, 2003, p. 589). Each concept deals with
expectations of one’ s own competency to perform a needed set of behaviors (Bandura, 1994).
Political science researchers have continuously refined the measure of political efficacy and
9
identified a series of important associations with other political and demographic variables.
Importantly, however, political efficacy has not been broadly applied to educational contexts.
The question of political efficacy, then, requires empirical attention, especially as it relates to a
specific domain like educational governance. Political efficacy is comprised of two linked
beliefs: belief in one’ s own competence to participate in democratic tasks and belief in the
responsiveness of the governmental system to hear and respond to citizens’ wishes. Decreased
political efficacy results directly from beliefs about one’ s own inability to sufficiently
understand and participate in political mores or reduced confidence in the weight of one’ s
activity within a political system. The first component, which taps into beliefs about the citizen’ s
own ability to participate, is termed internal political efficacy (IPE) while the beliefs about the
government’ s responsiveness is defined as external political efficacy (EPE). Political efficacy
has important consequences for political beliefs and behavior, and therefore for the function and
inclusivity of deliberative democratic practice. Morrell (2005) states the importance of political
efficacy by describing what happens to a democracy in its absence: “Without a sense of internal
political efficacy, citizens will likely become apathetic about, indifferent to and disengaged from
the democratic process” (p. 50).
In a mere thirty years, homeschool advocates led a massive revolution. During the
1970’ s, home education was illegal in every U. S. state. By 1993, it was legal nationwide.
Somerville (2005) calls this shift “one of the great unpublicized political campaigns in U.S. civic
history” and “a political miracle” (p. 135). While regulation and oversight vary dramatically
across states, the fact remains that homeschoolers undertook and carried out a remarkable
democratic feat, using a number of “tactics” (Cooper, 2007, p. 9) to exercise their political will.
Even as the homeschool community grows more diverse in terms of race, religion, region, and
10
socioeconomic status (Jeub, 1994; Lyman, 1998), it remains a powerful and organized political
force capable of rapid and effective mobilization amidst complex and bureaucratic policy
streams. Homeschoolers have successfully exercised their political power to effect change in
local, regional, and national settings and their activity could be instructive to other parent and
advocacy interests attempting to effect change at the level of education policy.
In the broader P-12 community, meanwhile, parental involvement is a difficult issue.
Parent involvement in their children’ s education is unquestionably beneficial for students
(Fagan, Wright, Pinchevsky, 2014) yet sorely lacking in schools, especially where the students
are categorized as either low-income or minority status. Most districts provide some democratic
mechanism through which constituents express their political will regarding education policy,
such as school board elections, but these are conventionally under-attended and thus dramatically
underrepresent poor and minority enrollment in public schools. Homeschoolers have been able to
mobilize, navigate political mores, and leverage their power and size in order to change laws
nationwide. State by state, homeschoolers are still working to change local regulations so that
they are more favorable to alternately educated students. Such a gap in the political activity and
success of political advocacy demands attention. The objective of this inquiry is to explore
political efficacy of parents as a construct that provides additional insight into the democratic
beliefs and activity of homeschool parent, which holds promise for understanding, evaluating,
and promoting political efficacy in other constituencies in and around schools.
Promoting Autonomy in Home Schools
According to Ryan and Deci (2000), a set of conditions must be met in order for an
individual to experience enhanced motivation and optimal human development. Optimal
motivational conditions are met when individuals experience support both individually and
11
environmentally that meets their needs for autonomy, relatedness, and competence. While
several factors have been empirically associated with student motivation, including self-efficacy
beliefs, Reeve (2000) finds that various teaching styles may either support students’ autonomy,
thereby addressing students’ psychological needs and contributing to their academic motivation
or teaching styles (which are typically oriented toward control and custodialism) may undermine
student autonomy needs. Autonomy-supporting instructional practices opportunities for choice
and feedback, providing rationale for instructional activities, avoiding the use of controlling
language, and highlighting student success. Practices that undermine student-autonomy include
punishment and excessive use of extrinsic motivational strategies (see: Katz & Assor, 2007;
Reeve & Jang, 2006; Deci, Spiegel, Ryan, Koestner, & Kauffman, 1982).
Few empirical studies focused on autonomy-promoting instructional practices have been
carried in home education contexts. While limited in scope and in power, a few qualitative
studies of homeschool teaching parents suggest that autonomy-promotion among students is a
priority (Wyatt, 2008; Stevens, 2001) and that homeschool parents organize their schooling
environment around the goal of autonomy support. These studies did not explicitly detail the
kinds of instructional practices used in these home schools or provide any observed or
correlational evidence of its success. A study by Cai and colleagues (2002) is an important
exception in two ways: it provides an empirical evaluation of autonomy-promoting instructional
practices and it offers a distinct contrast to the qualitative findings. In this study, the authors used
the Problems in School (PIS) survey tool to measure the autonomy-supportive orientations of
both homeschool teaching parents and public school teachers. The public school teachers’
motivational orientations did not differ much, homeschool teaching parents were significantly
more oriented toward control than autonomy support in their teaching practices. Importantly, this
12
particular sample of homeschooling parents chose to homeschool based on their religious
convictions. The authors suggest that their orientation toward control may have been associated
with an agenda based on the precepts of that religion rather than an educational choice based on
opportunities for student choice, internal motivation, and independence.
There is no consensus in the literature about how homeschooling parents choose
instructional practices in order to enhance their students’ academic engagement. However, the
efficacy of teachers has been linked to increased student engagement, resilience, persistence
when faced with challenges, and academic achievement (Bandura, 1994). It stands to reason,
then, that parents who exhibit efficacy for homeschooling, political efficacy, or a combination of
both may be oriented to autonomy-supportive instructional practices, which then contribute to
students’ academic engagement, motivation, and achievement.
Research Questions
The research questions for this study were as follows:
1. Does the construct of political efficacy emerge as valid and reliable in a home
education context?
2. How is political efficacy associated with other agency beliefs (efficacy for
homeschooling) and motivations (motivation for homeschooling, basic needs
satisfaction) among homeschool teaching parents?
3. How is political efficacy of teaching parents associated with autonomy-promoting
teaching practices and student academic engagement in home schools?
13
Analytic Method
Data for this study were collected in conjunction with a larger study on agency beliefs of
teachers in traditional and choice public schools. An initial sample of about 90 teachers was
recruited to pilot a measure of teacher political efficacy. That measure underwent a number of
face validity checks (including cognitive interviews and field tests) with educators in a variety of
educational settings, including online, higher education, homeschool, charter, and public school
contexts. Exploratory factor analyses showed high reliability and validity scores for the measure
the measure, indicating unidimensionality for both Teacher Internal Political Efficacy (factor
scores ranging from .78 to .88, alpha = .921, n=78) and Teacher External Political Efficacy
(factor scores ranging from .60 to .89, alpha = .834, n=78). Such strong scores suggest this
measure is useful for further study in new contexts.
Data Collection
The sample for this study has been recruited using the listserv of an organization that
coordinates homeschool conventions across the nation. The listserv contains more than 50,000
active users. Researchers purchased an e-blast to recruit respondents, which includes a dedicated
email, as well as a coordinated social media push on FaceBook, Twitter, and GooglePlus. The
audience for these e-blasts is comprised largely of homeschooling parent-teachers, although
other advocates and vendors are also included in the listserv. In order to conduct analyses
focused only on the political efficacy of homeschooling teaching parents, we have included in
the survey tool a question that asks about the role of the respondent. Only data from current
teaching parents are included in the analyses. The e-blast provides potential respondents with a
link to complete the survey anonymously on Qualtrics. As data collection is ongoing at the time
of this writing, it is not yet possible to state the size of the sample.
14
Measures
Demographic variables, including respondents’ age, race, gender, income, education
level, martial status, number of children, grade levels taught, years of homeschooling, and
motivations for homeschooling were collected from all survey respondents.
Teaching parent political efficacy. Teacher political efficacy was comprised of nine
items; four items assess external political efficacy and five items measure internal political
efficacy. Teachers and parents reported their attitudes regarding political efficacy using a Likert-
type item scored from one to six (1=strongly disagree, 6=strongly agree). Sample items include,
“I know where to find information about educational policy issues that are important to me”
(internal) and “I generally assume school politics are fair and school politicians to do the best by
teachers like me” (external).
Efficacy for homeschooling. In order to assess teaching parent efficacy for the tasks
associated with homeschooling, Bell (2013) adapted a measurement tool developed by Deci and
colleagues, who pioneered work in self-determination theory (Williams & Deci, 1996; Williams,
Freedman, & Deci, 1998). This 4-item instrument repeatedly demonstrates high internal validity
with alpha values consistently above .80. Sample items include, “I feel confient in my ability to
homeschool my children” and “I am able to achieve my goals for homeschooling my children.”
Bell’ s adaptation for use in homeschooling contexts includes a Likert-like response scale from 1
(not at all true) to 7 (very true).
Basic needs satisfaction. Central to self-determination theory is the notion that every
person needs to have a set of basic needs met and those needs include autonomy, relatedness, and
competence. In order to measure how these needs are met among homeschooling teaching
parents, Bell (2013) adapted a series of three subscales, each of which deals with on of the needs
15
associated with self-determination theory. The 21-item measurement tool includes a Likert-like
response scale that ranges from 1 (not at all true) to 7 (very true). Sample items include, “I feel
like I have a lot of freedom to decide how to homeschool my child” (autonomy), “I really like the
people I interact with through homeschooling,” (relatedness), and “Often, I do not feel very
competent in homeschooling” (competence, reverse scored).
Parents’ perceptions of academic engagement. Bell (2013) adapted Reeve’ s (2002) scale
that measures academic engagement by identifying a series of cognitive and behavioral clues
indicative of student autonomy and engagement. This tool contains eight items and has a 5-point,
Likert-like response scale that ranges from 1 to 5. Directed toward parents, the tool asks teaching
parents to judge their students engagement by asking about several cognitive states or habits
associated with engagement, some of which include persistence, initiative, and enjoyment.
Sample items include, “How interested is the student in his/her school studies?” and, “How often
does this student give up when he/she encounters a challenge in his/her studies?” Higher scores
indicate higher quality of student academic engagement and the scores for this measure indicated
strong validity and reliability (alpha = .88).
Analysis
The present study is ongoing, but has two purposes. The first is to subject the measure of
political efficacy to more rigorous psychometric testing in a broader and more diverse sample of
respondents. Each of the two subscales (internal political efficacy and external political efficacy)
have previously demonstrated unidimensionality and strong factor structure, so confirmatory
factor analysis will reveal whether the properties of the measure bear up under additional
scrutiny and whether home school parents – who also serve as their children’ s educators –
report political efficacy similarly to those who work in public schools. After data collection has
16
been completed, we will undertake a series of regression analyses and structural equation models
(SEM) in order to test multiple hypotheses about the direction and strength of associations
among political efficacy, efficacy and motivation for homeschooling, and autonomy-promoting
practices.
Discussion
We believe that this study has important implications for research, practice, and policy.
Political efficacy is a construct not previously applied to an education context, so this study is
positioned to offer important insights on why different school system constituents, including
home school parents, act as they do. Importantly, this quantitative study looks at a unique set of
variables that links parent attitudes toward the educational policy system with concrete
instructional practices – an investigation that has not yet been undertaken in the extant
literature. This study is also unique in that its sample of respondents is comprised exclusively of
homeschool teaching parents and there is no comparison group of public school teachers. Again,
this is a novel contribution to the literature addressing homeschooling and suggests that the
homeschool community is a valid sample of interest for scholarly investigations and that the
conclusions of such studies can offer substantive implications for the broader education policy
and education practice contexts.
Homeschool parent political efficacy may offer some insights into the broader questions
of teacher representation, parent involvement, and public voice in school systems. The critique
that homeschoolers absent themselves from systems of public education appears contrary to
reality; they have instead utilized those very structures to effect change. This study is part of the
broader reconsidering of the homeschool community in light of the increased scholarship around
political efficacy and its impact on success broadly, and in education specifically. The particular
17
case of the homeschool parent is an invaluable tool to help better understand how school
governance systems can encourage political efficacy and the expression of political will among
all constituents.
18
References
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122-
147. Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educa-
tional Psychologist, 28(2), 117-148.
Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 71-81). New York: Academic Press. (Reprinted in H. Friedman [Ed.], Encyclopedia of mental health. San Diego: Academic Press, 1998).
Bandura, A. (1995). Exercise of personal and collective efficacy in changing societies. In A.
Bandura (Ed.), Self-efficacy in changing societies. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York:
Freeman.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Bell, D. (2013). Types of home schools and need-support for achievement motivation (Doctoral
dissertation). Retrieved from
http://digital.library.temple.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/p245801coll10/id/214758/rec/4
Berkman, M. and Plutzer, E. (2005). Ten thousand democracies. Washington, DC: Georgetown
University Press.
Biniaminov, I. and Glasman, N. S. (1983). School determinants of student achievement in
secondary education. American Educational Research Journal, 20 (2), 251-268.
Cai, Y., Reeve, J., & Robinson, D. (2002). Home schooling and teaching style: Comparing the
19
motivating styles of home school and public school teachers. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 94(2), 372– 380.
Deci, E., Spiegel, N., Ryan, R. M., Koestner, R., & Kauffman, M. (1982). Effects of
performance standards on teaching styles: Behavior of controlling teachers. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 74, 852– 859.
Fagan, A., Wright, E., & Pinchevky, G. (2014). The protective effects of neighborhood collective
efficacy on adolescent substance use and violence following exposure to violence.
Journal of Youth Adolescence, 43, 1498-1512.
Henig, J. (2013). The end of exceptionalism in American education: The changing politics of
school reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Henig, J. (2013a). The rise of education executives in the white house, state house, and mayor’ s
office. In P. F. Manna & P. McGuinn Eds.), Education governance for the 21st century:
Overcoming the structural barriers to school reform. Washington, D.C.: Brookings.
Henig, J. R. (2009). Mayors, governors, and presidents: The new education executives and the
end of educational exceptionalism. Peabody J. Educ. Peabody Journal of Education, 84(3),
283-299.
Jeub, C. (1994). Why parents choose to homeschool. Educational Leadership, 52, 50-52.
Katz, I., & Assor, A. (2007). When choice motivates and when it does not. Educational
Psychology Review, 19, 429– 442.
Kirst, M. W. (2007). Mayoral control of schools: Concepts, tradeoffs, and outcomes:
Commission on School Governance.
Kirst, M. W., & Bulkley, K. E. (2003). Mayoral Takeover: the different directions taken
in different cities. In J. G. Cibulka & W. L. Boyd (Eds.), A Race Against Time:
The crisis in urban schooling. Westport, CT: Praeger.
20
Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Service.
Russel Sage: New York.
Lyman, I. (1998). Homeschooling: Back to the future? Cato Policy Analysis (Policy Analysis
No. 294). Washington, DC: Cato Institute. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
415 325)
McGlynn, A. (2010). Identifying the Causes of Mayoral Control in Urban Public School
Systems. Urban Education, 45(5), 661-686.
Morrell, M. E. (2003). Survey and experimental evidence for a reliable and valid
measure of internal political efficacy. Public Opinion Quarterly 67: 589– 602.
Morrell, M. E. (2005). ‘Deliberation, democratic decision- making and internal political efficacy.
Political Behavior 27 (1): 49– 69. Murphy, J. (2012). Homeschooling in America: Capturing the Assessing the Movement.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin (Sage).
Petrilli, M., & Finn, C. (2013). The failures of U.S. Education Governance Today. In P. F.
Manna & P. McGuinn (Eds.), Education governance for the 21st century: Overcoming
the structural barriers to school reform. . Washington, D.C.: Brookings
Reeve, J. ( 2002). Self-determination theory applied to educational settings. In E.L. Deci & R.M.
Ryan (Eds.). Handbook of self-determination theory research (pp. 183-203). Rochester,
NY: University of Rochester Press.
Reeve, J. & Jang, H. (2006). What teachers say and do to support students’ autonomy during a
learning activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 209– 218.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000a). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and
new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, (2), 54– 67.
21
Somerville, S. W. (2005). Legal rights for homeschool families. In B. S. Cooper (Ed.),
Homeschooling in full view: A reader (pp. 135-149). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Stevens, M. L. (2001). Kingdom of children: Culture and controversy in the homeschooling
movement. Princeton Studies in Cultural Sociology;. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Stone, D. (2002). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making. New York, NY:
W. W. Norton and Company.
Wong, K, and Shen, F. (2005). When mayors lead urban schools: Towards developing a
framework to assess the effects of mayoral takeover of urban districts. In Howell
(Ed.), Besieged, (pp. 81– 101). Washington, D.C.: Brookings.
Wood, R. and Bandura, A. (1989). Impact of conceptions of ability on self-regulatory
mechanisms and complex decision-making. Journal of Personality and Psychology, 56
(3), 407-415.
Wyatt, Gary. (2008). Family ties : Relationships, socialization, and home schooling. Lanham,
MD: University Press of America.