ABSTRACT 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Title of Dissertation: IN PURSUIT OF EQUITY: THE POLITICS 

OF DESEGREGATION IN HOWARD 

COUNTY, MARYLAND 

 
Kayla M. Bill, Doctor of Philosophy, 2023 

Dissertation directed by: Campbell F. Scribner, Assistant Professor, 
Department of Teaching and Learning, Policy 

and Leadership 
 

 

School desegregation policies aim to redistribute educational resources and opportunities 

more equitably, but they have not always done so. Evidence indicates that political factors, 

including resistance from White parents and legal constraints, have undermined desegregation 

policies’ potential to fulfill their aims. Yet, a few studies suggest that windows of opportunity to 

desegregate schools exist. Even so, these studies often focus on how a subset of political factors 

shape desegregation efforts, and some political factors remain understudied. Furthermore, school 

desegregation research tends to focus on either the political dynamics of advancing these policies 

or the effects these policies have on segregation. Thus, the extent to which political factors affect 

desegregation policies’ potential to reduce segregation and, eventually, to advance educational 

equity remains an open question. 

My dissertation addresses these gaps in the literature by using a race-conscious political 

framework and a qualitative-dominant, convergent parallel mixed methods design to explore the 



politics and outcomes of the Howard County Public School System’s (HCPSS) recent effort to 

desegregate by redistricting, or redrawing school attendance boundary lines. Howard County is 

an ideal setting to study desegregation because it possesses several favorable conditions for 

desegregating schools, including racial/ethnic diversity, espoused commitments to educational 

equity, and a history of racial/ethnic and socioeconomic integration. These favorable conditions 

allow me to “test” whether desegregation is a feasible policy goal for school districts and to 

provide policymakers with insights about how to advance desegregation policies in ways that 

maximize their potential to reduce segregation and promote educational equity. 

I find that school overcrowding, growing racial/ethnic and socioeconomic segregation, 

and resource inequities led the HCPSS Superintendent and the Howard County Board of 

Education to initiate redistricting. The superintendent proposed a redistricting plan that had the 

potential to reduce segregation in HCPSS. Yet, various political factors—including resistance 

from wealthy White and Asian parents and limitations from HCPSS’s formal attendance 

boundary adjustment policy—led the board to enact a redistricting plan that had relatively less 

potential to reduce segregation and would have increased it at some school levels. Upon 

implementation, the enacted redistricting plan appeared to reduce segregation in HCPSS, but 

those reductions likely resulted from enrollment changes in the district. Ultimately, findings 

suggest that, under favorable political conditions, desegregation policies do have the potential to 

reduce segregation. However, realizing these policies’ potential will require districts to either a) 

explicitly prioritize desegregation, rather than allowing policymakers to attempt to balance 

desegregation with other, often competing policy goals, or b) align desegregation with other 

policy goals, rather than pitting it against them. 



 

 

 

 

 

 

IN PURSUIT OF EQUITY: THE POLITICS OF DESEGREGATION IN HOWARD 

COUNTY, MARYLAND 

 

 

by 

Kayla M. Bill 

 

 

Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the 

University of Maryland, College Park, in partial fulfillment 

of the requirements for the degree of 
Doctor of Philosophy 

2023 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 
 

Advisory Committee: 
Assistant Professor Campbell F. Scribner, Chair 

Associate Professor Emeritus Robert Croninger 

Professor Casey Dawkins 
Professor Claudia Galindo 
Assistant Professor Sophia Rodriguez 



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

© Copyright by 

Kayla M. Bill 
2023 



ii  

Dedication 
 

To Betty Malen, 

 

No amount of “Malen” citations in my reference list could capture how much you and 

your scholarship helped me conceptualize and write this dissertation. Thank you for challenging 

me as much as you supported me, for always knowing what to say, and for believing in me. We 

miss you. 



iii  

Table of Contents 

 
Dedication ii 

Table of Contents iii 

List of Tables iv 

List of Figures v 

Chapter 1: Introduction 1 

Chapter 2: A Conceptual Framework for Studying Desegregation Policymaking 14 

Chapter 3: A Review of Literature on the Politics and Prospects of School 

Desegregation 
45 

Chapter 4: Methodology 101 

Overview of Findings Chapters 145 

Chapter 5: The Sociopolitical and Institutional Context of Howard County and the 

Howard County Public School System 

146 

Chapter 6: The Initiation Phase of Redistricting 215 

Chapter 7: The Enactment Phase of Redistricting 275 

Chapter 8: The Implementation Phase of Redistricting 366 

Chapter 9: Outcomes of the Redistricting Process 404 

Chapter 10: Significance 436 

Appendices 469 

References 483 



iv  

List of Tables 

 
Table 1. HCPSS Demographics Relative to the State of Maryland and a Neighboring District 

Table 2. Interview Sample Demographics 

Table 3. HCPSS Elementary School Enrollment Rates in 2019 by Race/Ethnicity and FRPM 

Status 

Table 4. HCPSS Middle School Enrollment Rates in 2019 by Race/Ethnicity and FRPM Status 

Table 5. HCPSS High School Enrollment Rates in 2019 by Race/Ethnicity and FRPM Status 

Table 6. HCPSS District-Level Enrollment Trends between 2010 and 2019 by Race/Ethnicity 

and FRPM Status 



v  

List of Figures 

 
Figure 1. A Model of the Political Process and Prospects of Advancing Desegregation Policies 

Figure 2. Qualitative-dominant, Convergent Parallel Mixed Methods Research Design 

Figure 3. HCPSS School-Level Racial/Ethnic Segregation between 2010 and 2019 

Figure 4. HCPSS School-Level Socioeconomic Segregation between 2010 and 2019 

Figure 5. Projected Racial/Ethnic Segregation for the Feasibility Study Redistricting Plans 

Figure 6. Projected Socioeconomic Segregation for the Feasibility Study Redistricting Plans 

Figure 7. Projected Racial/Ethnic Segregation for the Superintendent’s Recommended 

Redistricting Plan 

Figure 8. Projected Socioeconomic Segregation for the Superintendent’s Recommended 

Redistricting Plan 

Figure 9. Projected Socioeconomic Segregation for Mallo’s Proposed Redistricting Plan 

Figure 10. Projected Socioeconomic Segregation for Wu’s Proposed Redistricting Plan 

Figure 11. Projected Racial/Ethnic Segregation for the Board’s Enacted Redistricting Plan 

Figure 12. Projected Socioeconomic Segregation for the Board’s Enacted Redistricting Plan 

Figure 13. Racial/Ethnic Segregation Associated with the Implemented Redistricting Plan 

Figure 14. Socioeconomic Segregation Associated with the Implemented Redistricting Plan 

Figure 15. Data Integration for the Initiation Phase of Redistricting 

Figure 16. Data Integration for the Enactment Phase of Redistricting 

Figure 17. Data Integration for the Implementation Phase of Redistricting 



1  

Chapter 1: Introduction 

 
Racial/ethnic and socioeconomic segregation between schools and between districts 

themselves is a persistent policy problem in the United States (Frankenberg et al., 2019; Fuller et 

al., 2022; Owens, 2020; Owens et al., 2016; Reardon & Owens, 2014; Richards et al., 2020). In 

2016, students of most racial/ethnic groups attended schools where their group was 

overrepresented relative to the public school student population overall. For example, although 

White students only accounted for approximately 48% of the student population that year, they 

attended schools that were 69% White. Similarly, while Black students only accounted for 15% 

of enrollment, they attended schools that were 47% Black (Frankenberg et al., 2019). Black and 

Latinx students were concentrated in some districts, while White and Asian students were 

concentrated in others (Fuller et al., 2022; Owens, 2020; Richards et al., 2020). 

Socioeconomic segregation between schools and districts has grown even more 

dramatically than racial/ethnic segregation in recent years (Owens et al., 2016; Reardon & 

Owens, 2014). For instance, school segregation in large districts between students who are 

eligible for free meals and students who are not eligible grew by more than 40% from 1991 to 

2012, and income segregation between districts increased by more than 15% from 1990 to 2010 

(Owens et al., 2016). Moreover, Black and Latinx students tend to be concentrated in low- 

income schools and districts (Frankenberg et al., 2019; Fuller et al., 2022; Fahle et al., 2020), 

which further compounds educational inequities because exposure to poverty contributes to 

racial/ethnic disparities in academic outcomes (Reardon et al., 2022; Reardon et al., 2019). These 

trends toward increasingly racially/ethnically and socioeconomically homogeneous schools and 

districts are particularly concerning given that segregation is associated with disparities in 

educational outcomes and resources (Baker et al., 2020; Carter & Welner, 2013; Matheny et al., 



2  

2023; Mickelson et al., 2021; Reardon et al., 2019; Reardon et al., 2022) and that it limits 

students’ interactions with diverse peers, which may have negative consequences for social 

cohesion in a pluralist, democratic society (Braddock II & Gonzalez, 2010; Mickelson & 

Nkomo, 2012; Mikulyuk & Braddock II, 2018). 

School desegregation policies are one potential remedy for these educational inequities. 

Although these policies come in various forms—from choice-based student assignment plans to 

busing students from schools in their neighborhood to schools in other parts of a district—they 

generally involve redistributing students across schools to increase racial/ethnic and 

socioeconomic diversity. The theory of action underlying desegregation policies is that 

diversifying schools will ensure that students of all races, ethnicities, and socioeconomic statuses 

have equal access to educational opportunities and resources. Indeed, some evidence suggests 

that desegregation has improved educational and occupational outcomes for students of Color 

(Anstreicher et al., 2022; Ashenfelter et al., 2006; Guryan, 2004; Johnson, 2019). For example, a 

recent analysis found that court-ordered desegregation, particularly in the South, improved Black 

students’ future labor market outcomes (Anstreicher et al., 2022). Yet, other evidence suggests 

that desegregation has come at a high cost for families of Color and has compounded educational 

inequities (Dougherty, 2020; Horsford, 2010; Horsford & McKenzie, 2008; Serbulo, 2019; Wells 

et al., 2004). For instance, Black students have been bused to schools outside their 

neighborhoods at rates disproportionate to their White peers (Horsford, 2010; Serbulo, 2019), 

and those who attend desegregated schools may be more exposed to racial/ethnic discrimination 

and disproportionate discipline and special education assignments (Horsford, 2010; Horsford & 

McKenzie, 2008; Wells et al., 2004). Desegregation efforts in the mid-20th century also 

negatively impacted Black communities, more broadly, as school boards closed all-Black 



3  

schools and sent Black students to formerly all-White schools (McPherson, 2011; Pride & 

Woodard, 1985), and often fired Black teachers and administrators (Caruthers et al., 2021; 

Horsford, 2010; Morris, 2008). Altogether, this evidence suggests that, while desegregation 

efforts may diversify schools, they have not always fulfilled their ultimate goals of advancing 

educational equity. 

Conflicting evidence about the “success” of desegregation stems, in part, from the 

political dynamics that shape how districts have implemented these policies. Simply put, districts 

have placed the burdens of desegregating schools on Black and other families of Color because, 

in most cases, White families have vehemently resisted desegregation (Horsford, 2010; Serbulo, 

2019). In response to desegregation efforts that occurred in the decades following Brown v. 

Board of Education (1954), which deemed racially separate school systems unconstitutional, 

White parents and community members participated in mass protests, engaged in violence 

against Black students, and left desegregating districts for all-White schools elsewhere (McRae, 

2018; Patterson, 2001; Pride & Woodard, 1985). Although the political dynamics of 

desegregation have evolved since the mid-20th century, White parents have continued to oppose 

these policies (Bierbaum & Sunderman, 2021; Castro et al., 2022; Lareau et al., 2018; Siegel- 

Hawley et al., 2017). Studies of these recent desegregation efforts suggest that White parents 

have moved from overtly racist opposition to desegregation to seemingly race-neutral 

opposition; many have argued against desegregation policies because they would increase 

students’ commute times and disrupt students’ sense of community by sending them to schools 

outside their neighborhood (Castro et al., 2022; Lareau et al., 2018). Ultimately, resistance from 

this group of parents has led many districts to advance desegregation plans that are, in the words 



4  

of Amy Stuart Wells and colleagues (2005), “as palatable as possible for middle-class White 

parents and students” (Wells et al., 2005; p. 2147). 

While community resistance has affected whether and how districts choose to implement 

desegregation policies, legal constraints have also undermined their capacity to advance policies 

that reduce segregation. These constraints stem from two cases, in particular: Milliken v. Bradley 

(1974) and Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 (2007). 

Milliken (1974) limited school systems’ ability to implement desegregation plans that crossed 

district boundary lines, consequently limiting their ability to overcome between-district 

segregation. In short, this case left racially/ethnically homogeneous districts, like those in the 

Northeast and Midwest, with few options to advance meaningful desegregation. Decades later, 

Parents Involved (2007) limited districts’ ability to use individual students’ race/ethnicity in 

school assignment decisions unless they were under court orders to desegregate, which fewer and 

fewer have been since the late 20th century (Reardon et al., 2012). Parents Involved (2007) was 

particularly consequential because desegregation policies that are race-neutral—meaning they do 

not account for students’ race/ethnicity and instead rely on less accurate proxies for 

race/ethnicity, like socioeconomic status—are less effective than race-conscious desegregation 

policies at mitigating racial/ethnic segregation (Reardon & Rhodes, 2013; Reardon et al., 2006). 

Despite these political barriers to desegregation, some evidence points to windows of 

opportunity to advance policies that can reduce segregation and do not disproportionately burden 

students and families of Color. A few studies have documented instances of community support 

for desegregation from community members, including White parents, which indicates that 

political resistance to these policies is not a foregone conclusion (Baum, 2010; Chavez & 

Frankenberg, 2009; Orfield, 2012). And several scholars have argued that districts with 



5  

countywide or regional structures have the diversity required to advance desegregation, at least 

to some extent (Grant, 2011; Orfield & Eaton, 1996; Siegel-Hawley, 2016). However, several 

gaps in the school desegregation literature make it difficult to gauge whether and under what 

conditions these windows of opportunity to desegregate schools in an equitable manner exist. 

First, studies of desegregation often focus on a subset of political factors that shape these 

efforts. For example, some focus on White parents’ resistance to these policies (e.g., Bartels & 

Donato, 2009; Castro et al., 2022; McRae, 2018), while others focus on how legal constraints 

affect districts’ capacity and will to advance them (e.g., Green & Gooden, 2016; McDermott et 

al., 2012). As a result, studies often do not identify how different types of political factors 

interact with one another to shape the desegregation policymaking process overall. Additionally, 

some political factors remain understudied. For instance, few scholars have addressed how the 

structural features of districts, including the formal policies that guide desegregation processes, 

shape these efforts and various policy actors’ power to influence them (see Bierbaum & 

Sunderman, 2021; Frankenberg & Diem, 2013; and Holme et al., 2014 for examples). 

Second, studies of desegregation tend to focus on either the political dynamics of 

advancing these policies or the effects these policies have on racial/ethnic and/or socioeconomic 

segregation. Some studies suggest that political factors lead districts to enact desegregation 

policies that affect fewer students or disproportionately burden students and families of Color, or 

pressure them to abandon desegregation efforts altogether (Horsford et al., 2013; Serbulo, 2019; 

Siegel-Hawley, 2013). However, these studies generally do not suggest the extent to which 

political factors undermine desegregation efforts. Thus, the impact of the political dynamics of 

desegregation on these policies’ potential to reduce segregation and, eventually, to advance 

educational equity remains an open question. Likewise, studies that focus on the segregation- 



6  

related outcomes of desegregation policies generally do not acknowledge the role that politics 

play in determining what policies are implemented. Measuring the impact of these policies only 

after they have gone through the political ringer may lead scholars and policymakers to falsely 

interpret their potential to reduce segregation. Distinguishing between desegregation policies’ 

potential to reduce segregation and their effects on reducing segregation is important in 

determining which of these policies are worth investing in. And exploring how political factors 

mediate desegregation policies’ potential to reduce and effects on reducing segregation is key to 

providing policymakers with insights about how to maximize these policies’ potential to fulfill 

their aims. 

This study addresses these gaps in the literature by exploring the politics and outcomes of 

one school district’s recent effort to desegregate by redistricting, or redrawing school attendance 

boundary lines. The Howard County Public School System (HCPSS)—a countywide, suburban 

school system in Maryland—attempted to redistrict during the 2019-2020 school year to address 

inequities between low-income students and their wealthier peers and to alleviate school 

overcrowding. Using a conceptual framework grounded in political theory, politics of education 

literature, and research on the roles of race and racism in policymaking, I explore the 

multifaceted political dynamics of this redistricting effort. I also employ a mixed methods case 

study design to identify how these political dynamics shaped the redistricting policy’s prospects, 

or potential to reduce segregation between schools in HCPSS. I gauge the policy’s prospects by 

capitalizing on different redistricting alternatives, or different redistricting plans, that the HCPSS 



7  

superintendent, Howard County Board of Education members, and other policy actors proposed, 

enacted (i.e., voted into effect), and implemented. I address two research questions in particular: 

1. How did political factors influence HCPSS’s attempt to redistrict during the 2019-2020 

school year? 

2. To what extent did these factors affect the proposed, enacted, and implemented 

redistricting plans’ prospects for reducing racial/ethnic and socioeconomic segregation 

between HCPSS schools? 

I use primarily qualitative data—including documents related to the redistricting process, 

observations of school board meetings, and interviews with key policy actors (e.g., HCPSS 

parents, Howard County elected officials)—to investigate the political factors that influenced the 

redistricting process. In alignment with my conceptual framework, I explore interactions among 

three levels of political factors: contextual factors, including the racialized social structure of 

U.S. society and legal constraints on school desegregation; systemic factors, including HCPSS’s 

structure, procedures, and values; and actor-level factors, including the policy goals, power, and 

influence efforts of HCPSS’s superintendent, school board members, and other policy actors. I 

use quantitative data—including HCPSS school enrollment rates and projections associated with 

the proposed, enacted, and implemented redistricting plans—to identify how political factors 

affected these plans’ potential to reduce racial/ethnic and socioeconomic segregation. 

Quantitative data also provide supplementary information about the political factors that 

influenced the redistricting process, including the extent to which different actors prioritized 

desegregation in the redistricting plans they proposed. 

Favorable Conditions for School Desegregation in Howard County, Maryland 



8  

Howard County is an ideal setting to study the relationship between the politics and 

prospects of redistricting because it possesses several favorable conditions for desegregating 

schools. First, HCPSS has a countywide district structure, which several scholars have argued is 

favorable for desegregation because it encompasses enough student diversity to advance 

desegregation, at least to some extent (Orfield & Eaton, 1996; Siegel-Hawley, 2016). Indeed, 

both Howard County and HCPSS are racially/ethnically diverse, and increasingly so. In 2019, 

the total population of Howard County was approximately 326,000. Roughly 50% of residents 

were White, 20% were Black, 19% were Asian, and 7% were Hispanic. Additionally, almost a 

quarter of residents spoke a language other than English, including Spanish (5%) or an Asian 

language (10%) (Howard County Department of Planning and Zoning, 2020). HCPSS is even 

more racially/ethnically diverse than the county as a whole. In 2019, its total student population 

was roughly 59,000. Approximately 35% of students were White, 24% were Black, 23% were 

Asian, 12% were Hispanic, and 7% were some other race (U.S. Department of Education, 2022). 

The racial/ethnic diversity in HCPSS provided an opportunity for the district to advance 

racial/ethnic desegregation without having to cross district boundary lines and face legal 

constraints from Milliken (1974). Although there is no specific breakdown of school 

demographics that constitutes “desegregation,” the theory of action underlying desegregation 

suggests that, in order for this policy to have a chance at redistributing educational resources and 

opportunities more equitably, a school population must include students from minoritized (e.g., 

Black students) and non-minoritized groups (e.g., White students). As Table 1 demonstrates, 

HCPSS is roughly as racially/ethnically diverse as the student population in Maryland. The key 

differences between these two populations are that HCPSS serves a higher portion of Asian 

students and a lower portion of Black and Hispanic students than the state overall. HCPSS’s 



9  

population is also substantially more racially/ethnically diverse than some other districts in 

Maryland, including Baltimore City Public Schools (BCPS), which borders HCPSS and is 

predominantly Black and Hispanic (Table 1). Thus, in 2019, HCPSS had more potential than 

districts like BCPS to advance racial/ethnic desegregation, and it was about as racially/ethnically 

diverse a district as one could expect in the state of Maryland. 

Table 1. HCPSS District-Level Demographics Relative to the State of Maryland and a 

Neighboring District 
 

Group 
% in Maryland 

Public Schools 

% in the Howard 

County Public 
School System 

% in Baltimore City 

Public Schools 

Race/Ethnicity    

American Indian/Alaska Native 0.3 0.2 0.2 

Asian 6.6 22.7 0.9 

Black 33.1 24 76.6 

Hispanic 19.4 12 13.5 

Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 0.1 0.1 0.2 

Two or more races 4.8 6.3 1.1 

White 35.6 34.6 7.6 

Socioeconomic Status    

Receives Free or Reduced-Price Meals 42.3 19.9 54.1 

Note: All data are from 2019. HCPSS race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status data are from the National Center for 

Education Statistics Common Core of Data. BCPS and Maryland Public Schools race/ethnicity data are from the 

Maryland State Department of Education (2020). BCPS and Maryland Public Schools socioeconomic status data are 

from the Maryland State Department of Education (2023). 

 

Although HCPSS is racially/ethnically diverse, it is a relatively wealthy district. In fact, 

Howard County is one of the wealthiest counties in the nation: in 2019, residents’ median 

household income was $121,160—almost double the national median household income (U.S. 

News, 2020). Furthermore, fewer than a quarter of HCPSS students received Free or Reduced- 

Price Meals (FRPM) (Table 1)—a number that is substantially lower than the proportion of 

students who receive FRPM in Maryland public schools overall and in neighboring districts like 

BCPS. While limited socioeconomic diversity meant that HCPSS had less potential to advance 

socioeconomic desegregation than a district with a more even split between students who do and



10  

do not receive FRPM, HCPSS could still advance it to some degree by redistributing FRPM and 

non-FRPM students more evenly across its schools. 

The second favorable condition for desegregation in HCPSS was the district’s espoused 

commitment to educational equity, which aligns with the purpose of desegregating schools. 

HCPSS has a Strategic Call to Action (SCTA), entitled “Learning and Leading with Equity,” that 

focuses on “ensur[ing] academic success and social-emotional well-being for each student in an 

inclusive and nurturing environment that closes opportunity gaps” (Howard County Public 

School System, 2022a). The SCTA outlines several goals and desired outcomes that are equity- 

oriented, including hiring and maintaining a diverse staff, ensuring that students of different 

racial/ethnic and cultural backgrounds are represented in the curriculum, and developing family 

and community partnerships to “maximize resources and learning opportunities” for students 

(Howard County Public School System, 2022a). 

Although the SCTA itself is simply a document, evidence suggests that it has guided 

district policies and practices. Each year, HCPSS publishes an annual report that assesses the 

district’s progress along with the desired outcomes outlined in the SCTA. The report describes 

the degree to which HPCSS has fulfilled each outcome and offers next steps to continue 

progressing toward its goals. For example, the 2018-2019 report indicated that the desired 

outcome of ensuring that “graduation rates among high schools and demographic groups are at 

exemplary levels” was an “area of concern” for HCPSS because the four-year graduation rate 

that year had decreased overall from 92.3% to 92.0% and because rates for Black and FRPM 

students, which were lower than the district average, also decreased. The report outlined several 

strategies that the district would employ in response to these disparities, including efforts to 

increase student engagement—which they believed would subsequently increase graduation 



11  

rates—by identifying students with low attendance rates, expanding beyond school opportunities 

for middle and high school students, and engaging family and community members to promote 

graduation (Howard County Public School System, 2019b). 

Superintendent Michael Martirano, who served HCPSS during the 2019-2020 

redistricting effort, introduced the SCTA when he became interim superintendent in 2017. 

Martirano is a White man and a long-time educator whose children attended HCPSS schools. 

The plan reflected his own espoused commitments to equity. As he has said, “Every student 

requires different kinds of support and instruction to best meet their needs” (Magill, 2017). In 

addition to implementing the SCTA early in his tenure, Superintendent Martirano also created 

additional positions in HCPSS focused on diversity, equity, and inclusion (Magill, 2017). 

Ultimately, the district’s and the superintendent’s commitments to equity—coupled with the fact 

that HCPSS’s policy on school attendance boundary adjustments granted the superintendent 

power to guide redistricting processes by enabling him to develop a redistricting plan for the 

board to consider (Howard County Public School System, 2022b)—suggest that HCPSS might 

have been inclined to redraw school boundaries in ways that had the potential to further advance 

equity. But because espoused commitments to equity do not always translate to equity-oriented 

policies, this study also serves as a test of whether HCPSS and its superintendent were, indeed, 

willing to “lead with equity” in redistricting. 

Finally, Howard County is home to Columbia, a planned community built in the 1960s 

that businessman James Rouse designed to foster racial/ethnic and socioeconomic integration. 

Columbia is located on the eastern side of the county and serves as its economic center. In the 

1960s, Howard County was predominantly White and rural, but Rouse wanted it to be “a garden 

for the growing of people,” where everyone resided within walking distance of their place of 



12  

work, grocery store, and other essential needs; where people of all income levels could afford to 

live; and where people of all backgrounds lived in harmony (Stamp, 2014). Because Rouse 

wanted Columbia to be “economically diverse, poly-cultural, multi-faith, and inter-racial” 

(Columbia Association, 2019b), he designed villages that had mixed-income housing options and 

built low-income apartments next to single-family homes (Stamp, 2014). Rouse also built 

interfaith centers, which different religious groups were to share (Hurley, 2017). 

A look at Columbia’s demographics decades later suggests that Rouse’s plan to create an 

integrated community may have worked. Columbia, like HCPSS and the county more broadly, is 

racially/ethnically diverse. In 2019, 47% of residents were White, just over a quarter were Black, 

13% were Asian, and 7% were Hispanic or Latinx. Rouse’s guiding value of integration appears 

to be ever-present in Columbia, too. Residents continue to espouse the ideals of diversity, equity, 

and inclusion (Hurley, 2017), and the Columbia Association, which manages Columbia’s 

operations and resources, has continued to prioritize offering residents a variety of housing 

options, ranging from subsidized apartments to single-family homes (Columbia Association, 

2019a). 

Altogether, these favorable conditions for desegregation make HCPSS’s recent 

redistricting effort a “critical case” (Yin, 2018; p. 49) of school desegregation. Yin (2018) argues 

that scholars may use critical cases to “test” (Yin, 2018; p. 29) the theoretical or empirical 

propositions associated with a phenomenon. Given the aforementioned evidence that political 

barriers often undermine desegregation efforts, this study tests the proposition that under 

favorable political conditions—like those in Howard County—desegregation is a feasible policy 

goal for school districts. Put differently, if desegregation is not a feasible policy goal in Howard 

County, it is not likely to be a feasible policy goal in districts where these or other favorable 



13  

conditions are not present. Understanding whether and under what conditions desegregating 

schools is a feasible goal for districts may provide policymakers with insights about how to 

advance these policies in ways that maximize their potential to reduce segregation and promote 

educational equity, and may provide scholars with directions for future research that can further 

support policymakers’ desegregation efforts. 

Overview of Chapters 

 

The following chapters provide detailed information about the theoretical and empirical 

underpinnings of this study, the methods I used to conduct this study, the findings, and their 

significance. Chapter 2 describes the study’s conceptual framework, and Chapter 3 organizes 

relevant research on school desegregation into concepts from this framework to identify the key 

takeaways from and gaps in this literature. Chapter 4 describes the mixed methods case study 

design I employed, as well as data sources, data collection, and analysis strategies. Chapters 5 

through 9 present the findings of this study. These chapters are organized in alignment with my 

conceptual framework. I begin by discussing the contextual and systemic political factors that 

motivated the redistricting process and then discuss how contextual, systemic, and actor-level 

political factors interact throughout the initiation, enactment, and implementation phases of the 

policy process. The final findings chapter discusses the outcomes of the 2019-2020 redistricting 

effort. Chapter 10 describes the significance of this study, addresses the study’s limitations, and 

presents directions for future research on the politics and prospects of school desegregation 

policies. 



14  

Chapter 2: A Conceptual Framework for Studying Desegregation Policymaking 

 
The conceptual framework for this study is a political model grounded in classic theories 

of political systems, power, and influence (Dahl, 1984; Easton, 1965; Schattschneider, 1960), 

scholars’ adaptations of those theories (Allison & Zelikow, 1999; Malen, 2006; Mazzoni, 1991), 

and literature on the role of race and racism in policymaking (Bonilla-Silva, 2018; Harris, 1993; 

Ray, 2019). This chapter explains the utility of political models for studying school 

desegregation policies and describes the particular model that guides this study, which arrays the 

contextual, systemic, and actor-level political dynamics that shape policy processes and 

outcomes. The model offers an analytic tool to identify how political factors erode or strengthen 

desegregation policies and, in doing so, generates practical insights that could help policymakers 

advance desegregation despite formidable political barriers. 

What Are Political Models and Why Should We Use Them to Study Desegregation 

Policymaking? 

Political models are conceptual tools that explain how political dynamics shape 

policymaking. While many versions of these models exist, they generally draw from work in two 

traditions of political science: one that focuses on the role of political systems in policymaking 

and another that focuses on the role of individual policy actors in policymaking (Gamson, 1968; 

Kanter, 1972). Easton’s (1965) political systems theory focuses on the role of political systems, 

including governments and other institutions that have decision-making authority, in 

policymaking. Generally, Easton’s theory suggests that conflicts in the broader social 

environment over resources (e.g., money) or values (e.g., equality) prompt political systems to 

advance policies that allocate those resources or values in a manner that resolves the conflicts 

and retains public support for the system. Other models focus on how policy actors, including 



15  

those who operate and are served by political systems, use their power to influence policymaking 

in the direction of their interests (Bachrach & Baratz, 1970; Bardach, 1977; Dahl, 1984; 

Schattschneider, 1975). Gamson (1968) suggests that an actor-oriented model takes "the vantage 

point of potential partisans and emphasizes the process by which such groups attempt to 

influence the choices of authorities or the structure within which decisions occur” (p. 2). 

Furthermore, whereas political systems theory focuses on how political systems regulate conflict 

through policy, actor-oriented models focus on the strategy of conflict that actors use to pursue 

their policy goals (Gamson, 1968; Kanter, 1972). 

As Gamson (1968) explains, the political systems and actor-oriented traditions are “dual 

perspectives” (p. 2) on policymaking that are often complementary. Consequently, scholars of 

political science, public policy, and education policy have bridged these perspectives to create 

political models that offer a more comprehensive view of the contextual, systemic, and actor- 

level factors that shape policy processes and outcomes (Allison & Zelikow, 1999; Campbell & 

Mazzoni, 1976; Malen, 2006; Marsh, 2012). 

There is a vast literature that documents the political dynamics of school desegregation 

(described in greater detail in the next chapter), and political models can provide a 

comprehensive view of the policy process by clarifying how and at what phase contextual, 

systemic, and actor-level dynamics constrain or foster the advancement of desegregation 

policies. Thus, in addition to providing insights for scholars regarding directions for future 

research, political models can also point policymakers toward windows of opportunity to 

advance desegregation policies. 

A Model of the Political Process and Prospects of Advancing Desegregation Policies 



16  

While drawing primarily from political theory, the political model that guides this study 

also draws on literature on race and racism in policymaking. Although existing political models 

provide strong grounding for gauging how contextual, systemic, and actor-level factors influence 

policy processes and outcomes, most are race-neutral, and thus susceptible to overlooking the 

pervasive roles that race and racism play in policymaking (López, 2003). To better capture how 

race shapes the advancement of redistributive policies, this model incorporates literature on how 

race and racism shape social and institutional structures, as well as actors’ power to influence 

policymaking (Bell Jr., 1980; Bonilla-Silva, 2018; Harris, 2003; Ray, 2019). 

The following sections describe the components of this model (Figure 1), which suggests 

that three sets of factors interact to shape policy processes and outcomes: 1) contextual factors, 

including the social, political, and economic environments, social structure, and values and 

norms surrounding a policy effort; 2) systemic factors, including the structure, procedures, 

values, and norms of the political system(s) advancing a policy; and 3) actor-level factors, 

including the actors involved in, or excluded from, policymaking, their policy goals, power, and 

political skill and will, and their efforts to influence the policy process. These factors interact 

throughout three policy phases: 1) initiation, during which actors identify policy problems and 

propose potential policies to address them; 2) enactment, during which actors choose to authorize 

one policy among many alternatives; and 3) implementation, during which enacted policies are 

translated into practice. The political dynamics that occur within each phase shape a policy’s 

prospects, or potential to fulfill its aims, and its eventual outcomes. 

Context and Inputs 

 

Context, or the environment in which policy making takes place, generates inputs that 

may prompt a political system, such as a local government or school district, to consider 



17  

Figure 1. A Model of the Political Process and Prospects of Advancing Desegregation Policies 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 
Adapted from Easton (1965), Malen (2006), Malen (1983), Geary (1992). 



18  

advancing a policy (Easton, 1965). The environment includes areas outside the formal political 

system, such as a society’s economy, social and governance structures, culture, and other 

systems (Dahl, 1984; Kirst & Wirt, 2009; Wirt & Kirst, 1975). Inputs fall into two primary 

categories: demands, which include conflicts in the environment or within a political system, and 

supports, which include the public’s belief in and loyalty to a system (Easton, 1965). 

Demands 

 

Demands act as stressors on political systems (Easton, 1965; Wirt & Kirst, 1975). In 

short, they give systems a job to do. David Easton (1965) describes demands as what the public 

thinks “ought to be done” or “ought to be done in this way, not that way” (Easton, 1965; p. 49). 

They may stem from societal conflict over the distribution of scarce resources, competing values, 

or competing conceptions of the same value (Dahl, 1984; Malen & Knapp, 1997; Wirt & Kirst, 

1975). These and other conflicts may be prevalent in diverse societies, given that people from 

different racial/ethnic, socioeconomic, gender, and other groups may have competing views, 

ideologies, and policy priorities (Easton, 1965). 

Conflicts over education, in particular, may stem from disagreements about which values 

should reign and what they look like in practice (Cuban, 1990). Take students’ assignments to 

schools, for example. While some argue that parents have a right to send their children to schools 

of their choosing, others argue for more regulated assignment policies that they believe will 

foster greater educational equity, given evidence that school choice may foster racial/ethnic and 

socioeconomic segregation (Bifulco et al., 2009; Ni, 2012; Stein, 2015). Yet, even those who 

agree that assignment policies should prioritize equity may disagree about what equity means. 

For instance, to some, equity means that students have equal access to the resources and 

opportunities they need to pursue their own educational goals, while to others, it means that 



19  

students are achieving equal outcomes on a particular measure (e.g., college attendance) 

(Bulkley, 2013; Fishkin, 2014). Value tensions like these have persisted for decades, and 

although they may never be fully resolved, the conflicts they generate pressure political systems 

to enact policies that regulate them. 

Social Structure 

 

A society’s social structure is one key contextual factor that both generates demands and 

determines which and whose demands political systems address. The U.S. social structure is 

largely shaped by race, a socially constructed category that privileges White people and 

disenfranchises people of Color (Bonilla-Silva, 2018; Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995). Although 

racism is often conceived of as an individual phenomenon in which actors hold racist prejudices 

or discriminate against actors of another race, it is also a structural phenomenon. Eduardo 

Bonilla-Silva (2018) describes racism as “a network of social relations at social, political, 

economic, and ideological levels that shapes the life chances of the various races” (p. 18). 

Historically, these social, political, economic, and ideological systems have invested in White 

people by allocating property, resources, and opportunities to them and away from Black, 

Indigenous, Latinx, Asian, and other people of Color (Harris, 1993; Lipsitz, 1995). These 

systems discriminate against people of Color so that White people may maintain the “material 

benefits” (Bonilla-Silva, 2018; p. 9) and power that stem from a racist social structure 

(Rothstein, 2017). However, they tend to operate covertly, meaning that how they reinforce and 

perpetuate inequality may be invisible to those who are not looking for them (Bonilla-Silva, 

2018; Rothstein, 2017). Bonilla-Silva (2018) describes this phenomenon as “color-blind racism” 

(p. 2) because it reproduces racial inequality through practices that are “subtle, institutional, and 

apparently nonracial” (Bonilla-Silva, 2018; p. 3). Recognition that racism operates in “color- 



20  

blind” or covert ways is also a tenet of Critical Race Theory (CRT). As David Gillborn and 

Gloria Ladson-Billings (2010) write, “Within CRT … the more important, hidden, and pervasive 

form of White supremacy lies in the operation of forces that saturate the everyday mundane 

actions and policies that shape the world in the interests of White people” (p. 39). Bonilla-Silva 

(2018) further argues that, because racism operates in such covert ways, it is a “formidable 

political tool” (Bonilla-Silva, p. 3) that allows systems to maintain racial hierarchies without 

appearing to be racist. 

Values and Norms 

 

A society’s social structure shapes it values and norms, and in doing so, it determines 

which and whose demands political systems deem legitimate and worthy of addressing (Dahl, 

1984; Malen, 2006; March & Olsen, 1989; Rowan & Miskel, 1999; Parsons, 1960). Because 

U.S. systems have been structured to maintain White power, American values and norms tend to 

privilege White interests. More specifically, the values that guide education policymaking in the 

U.S. have generally drawn attention away from educational inequities and masked the 

pervasiveness of racism in schools and society more broadly. For example, Henry Levin (2002) 

suggests that the values guiding education policymaking in the U.S. include: 1) choice, meaning 

families’ rights to choose schools for their children based on their own values, philosophies, 

religions, and preferences; 2) efficiency, or maximizing educational outcomes amidst resource 

constraints; 3) equality, meaning that all students, regardless of racial/ethnic, socioeconomic, or 

other identities, have equal access to educational opportunities, resources, and/or outcomes; and 

4) social cohesion, referring to the democratic purpose of schooling to prepare students to be 

active, productive participants in society. As evidenced by recurrent value conflicts in education 

(Cuban, 1990), these values are often in tension with one another, and given that the social 



21  

structure privileges White interests, systems often prioritize choice, efficiency, or social cohesion 

at the cost of equality, which typically requires a redistribution of resources that could threaten 

the racial hierarchy. Furthermore, if and when systems promote equality, they may do so with 

weak or symbolic policies that fail to address structural barriers (Bonilla-Silva, 2018). Derrick 

Bell’s (1980) principle of interest convergence offers one explanation for this phenomenon. Bell 

argued that political systems will only enact policies to redress racial inequities, for which Black 

people and other people of Color have long advocated, when those policies converge with 

dominant (i.e., White) interests. In other words, political systems legitimize and prioritize White 

demands and interests, and may only address the demands and interests of people of Color when 

they align with White demands and interests. 

Values and norms influence policy making at the local level too. McGivney and 

Moynihan’s (1972) “zone of tolerance” concept and Oakes and colleagues (2005) “zone of 

mediation” framework explain how relationships between society, community, and school 

districts influence what policies districts enact. McGivney and Moynihan (1972) suggest that 

communities’ priorities with regard to education—which may reflect or conflict with societal 

values and norms—determine their zones of tolerance, or the types of policies they will accept. 

Oakes and colleagues (2005) suggest that districts are “mediating institutions” (p. 287) that 

channel societal values and norms into local communities through education policies. When 

these policies conflict with local priorities, communities may resist them. Thus, while societal 

values and norms influence what policies districts try to advance, local values and norms 

influence what policies communities will accept, and “set the parameters” (Oakes et al., 2005; p. 

288) on policy actions districts can and will take. Zones of tolerance are neither shared across 

communities nor static within communities, and may vary depending on the policy issue at hand. 



22  

For instance, communities may have particularly narrow zones of tolerance for redistributive 

policies, like desegregation or detracking (Boyd, 1976). However, studies that identify instances 

of parental support for desegregation (e.g., Chavez & Frankenberg, 2009)—described in greater 

detail in the next chapter—suggest that zones of tolerance for this policy may vary across 

communities. 

The Nature of Conflict 

 

The nature of the conflict also determines whether a political system will address a 

demand. Conflicts have four dimensions: scope, visibility, intensity, and direction (Adamany, 

1972; Schattschneider, 1975). A conflict’s scope refers to how many actors are engaged in a 

conflict. For instance, are many or few actors involved? Conflicts in which few actors are 

involved may favor more powerful actors, while broader conflicts allow less powerful actors 

more opportunity to advance their policy goals. Visibility refers to how recognizable or relevant a 

conflict is to various actors. For example, is the issue at hand something that affects most people 

in their day-to-day lives, or is it only relevant to a small group of individuals? Conflict may 

occur more readily over visible issues, and actors may be more likely to join those that are more 

visible than those that are less visible. The intensity of a conflict refers to how intensely actors 

feel about the issue at hand. The more intensely actors feel about an issue, the more intense the 

conflict over that issue will be. A conflict’s intensity greatly influences its direction, or how it 

divides actors. For instance, does it fragment actors into many small groups, or does it split them 

into two larger ones? Schattschneider (1975) suggests that more intense conflicts tend to divide 

actors into two primary groups. Although actors within these two larger groups may disagree 

about particulars, like what policy solutions would best resolve the issue at hand, they often will 

lay those smaller disagreements to rest in favor of coalitions that strengthen their chances of 



23  

influencing change. Altogether, conflicts that are broad in scope, highly visible, and very intense 

are more likely to elicit a policy response from a political system (Adamany, 1972; 

Schattschneider, 1975). 

Supports 

 

In addition to generating demands on a political system, the environment also generates 

supports for it. Whereas demands give systems a job to do, supports give them legitimacy, or the 

right and responsibility to do that job; consequently, supports are critical to a system’s survival 

over time (Dahl, 1984; Easton, 1965; Rowan & Miskel, 1999). Supports often come from the 

political community, or members of a political system who may vary in ideology or culture but 

are "drawn together by the fact that they participate in a common structure and set of processes, 

however tight or loose the ties may be” (Easton, 1965; p. 177). Supports may include a general 

confidence in the system; buy-in to its ideals, organizations, and procedures; and acceptance of 

its decisions. Easton (1965) suggests that the political community may support “goals or ideals 

by literally fighting for them or by merely espousing them, an institution by verbally defending 

it, the actions of others by joining them, and persons by voting for them or acting on their behalf” 

(p. 159). I describe political systems’ strategies for gaining support from the political community 

later in this chapter. 

Political Systems 

 

Political systems—the institutions that receive inputs in the form of demands and 

supports from the environment—are responsible for the authoritative allocation of values in a 

society (Easton, 1965), meaning they advance policies that determine how power and other 

resources are “shaped and shared within the community” (Lasswell & Kaplan, 1950; p. 200). 

These institutions “define the framework within which politics takes place” (March & Olsen, 



24  

1989) through their structures, procedures, and values. Easton (1965) refers to the individuals 

that operate a political system as “authorities” and to the group of authorities running a system at 

a given time as a “political regime.” Regimes set the tone of the system by establishing the 

structures, procedures, and values that guide decision making (Easton, 1965). 

Three primary political systems play a role in education policy making in the United 

States: local school districts, state governments, and the federal government. Education has 

historically been a local endeavor (Henig, 2013). In the early 19th century, one-room 

schoolhouses, run by their small surrounding communities, were the governing bodies of 

education. As American society industrialized in the early 20th century, legislators sought more 

control over education and these hyper-local schooling arrangements were replaced by town or 

regional school districts—the organizational units that we recognize today (Gamson & Hodge, 

2016; Kaestle, 1983; Scribner, 2016; Tyack, 1974). The U.S. education system began to shift 

away from local control in the mid-20th century. Many small districts consolidated into larger 

districts; the Supreme Court became highly involved in local education matters (in large part 

through desegregation cases, which are described in the next chapter), paving the way for more 

federal involvement; and an increased federal role brought states more power over local school 

districts (Gamson & Hodge, 2016; Henig, 2013; Malen, 2011; Scribner, 2016). Although 

districts maintain a semblance of power through their ability to implement (or not implement) 

policies, some scholars argue federal and state governments have “relegated local school boards, 

district officials and site educators to a reactive, arguably subservient role in that they are 

required to meet the goals developed elsewhere with the resource allocations determined 

elsewhere or experience the actions set elsewhere” (Malen, 2011; p. 38). 



25  

Although federal and state governments and school districts often compete with one 

another for power over education policy making, they share two common purposes. First, these 

systems seek to regulate conflict by addressing demands from the broader sociopolitical context, 

like those described in the previous section, or from within the political system itself. While 

external demands typically involve value conflicts or unequal resource distributions, internal 

demands include pressure to alter systems’ structures, procedures, or decision-making processes 

(Easton, 1965). Addressing demands helps systems to fulfill their second purpose: to preserve 

legitimacy by maintaining support from the political community. 

Regulating Conflict 

 

As previously described, contextual factors such as social structure, societal values and 

norms, and the nature of a conflict influence a demand’s likelihood of being addressed by a 

political system. But features of the political system itself also play a significant role in whether 

and how demands are addressed. These institutional features are not neutral; they prioritize some 

issues over others, ignore or suppress the demands of some groups over others, and are 

structured in ways that empower some actors within the system while disenfranchising others 

(Bachrach & Baratz, 1970; March & Olsen, 1989; Schattschneider, 1960). Key features include 

institutions’ structures, procedures, values, and norms. 

Structure and Procedures 

 

The structure and procedures of a political system influence whether, how, and by whom 

demands are addressed. First and foremost, institutional structure determines which demands 

make it into a political system and have a chance at making it onto policy makers’ agendas 

(Easton, 1965). In democracies, all members of society have the potential to raise demands by 

protesting, contacting their representatives, or otherwise notifying the “authorities” of their local, 



26  

state, or federal government about the issues they want a system to address. However, political 

systems are organized to let some demands in while others “wither on the vine” (Easton, 1965; p. 

178). For example, systems may force demands into different “action channels” (Allison & 

Zelikow, 1999; p. 301), or processes through which they must go in order to get addressed. 

Although these channels may improve systems’ efficiency, they often create barriers that slow 

the political process, reduce the number of demands systems must deal with at a given time, and 

deter actors from raising demands in the first place (Easton, 1965). 

In addition to reducing the number of demands that systems must address, institutional 

structures and procedures determine the actors involved in a policy process, the issues about 

which and processes through which they make decisions, and the power they have to influence 

those decisions (Allison & Zelikow, 1999; March & Olsen, 1989; Mazzoni, 1991; Meltsner, 

1972; Ray, 2019). Tim Mazzoni (1991) refers to the different structures in which education 

policies are made as arenas, or “political interactions characterizing particular decision sites" (p. 

116). Different arenas prioritize different actors. As Betty Malen writes, “Different arenas may 

be more or less open, accessible, and receptive to different players and their points of view” 

(Malen, 2006; p. 86). For example, the centralization of American schooling has shifted 

education from a single-purpose to a general-purpose arena. Single-purpose arenas bring actors 

like school board members, superintendents, educators, and parents to the policymaking table, 

while general-purpose arenas bring mayors, governors, state legislators, presidents, and interest 

groups. In addition to prioritizing different actors, these arenas also prioritize different issues. 

Whereas education is the sole focus of a school board, it is one of many social issues that a 

mayor, governor, or president must address, meaning that actors may have to fight harder to get 

education issues on agendas in general-purpose arenas (Henig, 2013). 



27  

Whereas arenas determine which actors and issues are prioritized in a policy process, the 

procedures associated with those arenas establish the rules that actors must follow when raising 

or addressing demands and shape their power to influence the policy process (Allison & 

Zelikow, 1999; March & Olsen, 1989). For instance, procedures establish the formal roles within 

institutions, the paths through which actors gain access to those roles, and the power associated 

with those roles. Procedures may also determine which actors have access to key power 

resources, like information about an issue or the "authorities” who make decisions (Allison & 

Zelikow, 1999). 

Given that institutions are embedded in societies, they are necessarily shaped by the 

social structure. Thus, in the U.S., racism shapes the aforementioned structures and features of 

political systems, and subsequently plays a major role in determining actors’ power to influence 

the policy process. Victor Ray’s (2019) theory of racialized organizations explains how racism is 

embedded in political systems. More specifically, he describes how political systems (along with 

other institutions) are “meso-level social structures that limit the personal agency and collective 

efficacy of subordinate racial groups while magnifying the agency of the dominant racial group” 

(p. 36). For example, institutions may concentrate people of Color at the bottom of organization 

hierarchies and allow White actors disproportionate access to resources, power, and agency. This 

theory aligns with Bell’s (1980) principle of interest convergence, which suggests that White 

actors’ interests are prioritized over the interests of actors of Color. 

Values and Norms 

 

A political system’s values and norms also determine which (and whose) demands it will 

address (Allison & Zelikow, 1999; Easton, 1965; Malen, 2006; March & Olsen, 1989). Given 

that institutions “shape and are shaped by the larger social system” (Tyack, 1974; p. 9), their 



28  

values and norms are influenced by societal values and norms. For instance, in a society that 

values democratic participation, institutions may adopt a democratic governance structure and 

procedures that allow political communities to participate in decision-making. Institutional 

values and norms also constrain actors’ behavior (March & Olsen, 1989). In contrast to an 

institution with a democratic structure, an institution that values authority and centralizes power 

may restrict actors’ participation in decision-making. 

Different policymaking arenas may possess different values and norms. For example, 

Henig (2013) suggests that single-purpose institutions like school districts value expertise and 

professionalism, while general-purpose institutions like city councils value majoritarianism and 

efficiency. So, just as arenas’ structure and procedures prioritize different actors, so too do their 

values and norms. The values and norms of the authorities who operate political systems also 

determine what demands systems will address (Allison & Zelikow, 1999; Kingdon, 2003). 

Allison and Zelikow (1999) suggest that issues are more likely to appear on policy makers’ 

agendas when policy makers view them as important. Similarly, Kingdon (2003) argues that 

policy makers’ values, personal experiences with issues, and receptivity to the political 

community’s concerns influence whether they will address particular demands. The racial/ethnic 

identities of authorities may also shape whose demands systems address. For example, given that 

White people tend to be concentrated at the top of organizational hierarchies and people of Color 

tend to be concentrated at the bottom, systems may be more likely to address demands from 

White actors than from actors of Color (Bell, 1980; Ray, 2019). 

Retaining Legitimacy 

 

In addition to regulating conflict, political systems seek to retain their legitimacy. 

 

Political systems may attempt to gain legitimacy by inculcating in the political community that 



29  

“it is right and proper … to accept and obey the authorities and to abide by the requirements of 

the regime” (Easton, 1965; p. 278), or by embarking on efforts to get authorities to buy into 

institutional procedures, values, and norms (Easton, 1965). One strategy that systems use to gain 

support from both the political community and authorities is conforming their aims and missions 

to societal values and norms (Meyer & Rowan, 1977; Rowan & Miskel, 1999; Parsons, 1960). 

Yet, conforming to societal values and norms often conflicts with systems’ ability to address 

demands efficiently. For example, political systems that adopt democratic procedures in 

alignment with democratic values may gain support from members of the political community, 

who want a say in governance, but simultaneously decrease the speed (and thus, the frequency) 

with which they make policy decisions. 

Political systems attempt to cope with the tradeoff between legitimacy and efficiency by 

decoupling their social and technical operations; that is, they create subsystems within the 

organization that separately work to accomplish the oft-competing goals of maintaining 

legitimacy and addressing demands efficiently (Meyer & Rowan, 1977; Parsons, 1960; Rowan & 

Miskel, 1999). For example, scholars have described education as a “loosely coupled” system 

(Rowan & Miskel, 1999; p. 363) because it separates administrative mechanisms (e.g., 

certification, accreditation), which serve to maintain the public’s confidence in the system, from 

technical activities and outcomes (e.g., teaching and learning) that occur within the system itself 

(Meyer & Rowan, 1978; Rowan & Miskel, 1999). Ray (2019) builds on this work to describe 

how organizations use decoupling as a strategy to gain (or preserve) a progressive, equity- 

oriented reputation while maintaining (intentionally or unintentionally) racist structures, 

procedures, and norms. For example, as Ray (2019) explains, “diversity policies often serve a 

ceremonial public-relations function but do little to change the racial distribution of 



30  

organizational power” (Ray, 2019; p. 42). These and other symbolic policies allow systems to 

satisfy the political community enough to temporarily resolve conflicts resulting from dissonance 

between societal values and norms and the community’s perceptions of the system’s values and 

norms without actually addressing that dissonance (Edelman, 1964; Rosen, 2009). 

Policy Actors 

 

Political systems and the contexts in which they are situated interact with a third set of 

factors—actor-level factors—to shape policymaking. Contextual and systemic factors shape the 

contours of policymaking, while policy actors engage in the on-the-ground politics that mobilize 

and characterize policy processes and affect policy outcomes. The two primary sets of actors 

involved in policymaking are the individuals who operate the political system advancing a policy 

and the individuals who operate it (March & Olsen, 1989) and the “political community” 

(Easton, 1965; p. 177) that the political system serves, which consists of people “drawn together 

by the fact that they participate in a common structure and set of processes” (Easton, 1965; p. 

177). But other actors may be involved in the policy process too. In education policymaking, 

specifically, common actors may include teachers, administrators, school boards, parents, and 

individuals involved with market-based education reforms, including businesses and charter 

management organizations. Less common actors like foundations, research centers, and 

academics may also participate in education policymaking. In recent decades, interest groups— 

organized or unorganized assemblies of actors with common policy goals—have played an 

increasing role in education policymaking (Malen, 2001). Furthermore, as education increasingly 

becomes a general-purpose government issue, local, state, and national government officials like 

mayors, governors, and presidents may play a role in education policymaking (Henig, 2013). 



31  

These and other policy actors may be visible during the policy process, meaning they 

receive publicity and are high-profile actors, or they may be hidden, meaning they work behind 

the scenes to influence policymaking (Kingdon, 2003). Visible actors (e.g., the U.S. President) 

often set the agenda of a political system and, consequently, play a large role in determining 

what problems the system will try to address with policy. Hidden actors typically play a smaller 

role in agenda setting but a larger role in the specification of alternative policy options. For 

example, since these actors tend to be very familiar with the policy issues at hand, they may 

propose different policies and deliberate with one another over which proposals the system 

should consider. While these actors are not center stage, they often play a significant role in 

determining what policy solutions are considered and, subsequently, which ones are advanced. 

Policy actors have different and often competing policy goals, power resources, and 

political skill and will to deploy those resources to advance their policy goals. Altogether, these 

factors affect the directions in which actors attempt to sway policy processes, the strategies they 

use to exert influence over policymaking, and their capacity and will to do so (Allison & 

Zelikow, 1999; Kingdon, 2003). 

Policy Goals 

 

Policy actors’ interests and values drive their policy goals, or the policy outcomes they 

desire (Allison & Zelikow, 1999; Dahl, 1984; Lasswell & Kaplan, 1950; Meltsner, 1972; 

Schattschneider, 1975). Given the pluralist nature of American society, actors’ policy goals are 

often in conflict with one another (Cuban, 1990; Dahl, 1984; Lasswell & Kaplan, 1950). While 

some goals may stem from shared interests and values, such as democratic governance, others 

may be related to their individual interests and values or those of a subgroup (Schattschneider, 

1975). For example, White actors may seek to preserve their status at the top of the social 



32  

hierarchy, while racially/ethnically minoritized actors may advocate for changes in the social 

structure and the distribution of resources. Actors may also pursue the interests of the institution 

they represent (Allison & Zelikow, 1999); Allison and Zelikow (1999) suggest that “where you 

stand depends on where you sit” (p. 307), meaning that actors’ policy goals are influenced if not 

determined by their institutional affiliations and their positions within those institutions. 

Power 

 

Actors possess different degrees of power to pursue their policy goals. Power refers to 

actors’ capacity to pursue their policy goals (Gamson, 1968; Kanter, 1979; Wrong, 1979). In 

short, power is “potential without direction” (Gamson, 1968; p. 1); it suggests actors’ potential to 

influence policymaking but does not necessarily mean that they have exerted influence. Power is 

relational, meaning that actors possess power over other actors and in particular domains (e.g., 

policy arenas) (Bachrach & Baratz, 1970). Power is unevenly distributed among policy actors 

(Dahl, 1984; Lasswell & Kaplan, 1950), in part because of the inequitable social structure of 

American society. As previously described, White policy actors acquire power from social and 

institutional hierarchies that prioritize their policy goals over the policy goals of 

racially/ethnically minoritized actors (Bonilla-Silva, 2018; Ray, 2019). Consequently, White 

actors may possess more power to influence policymaking than actors of Color. For example, 

institutional leaders may incorporate White actors’ interests in a policy they are enacting, but fail 

to include the interests of actors of Color. Yet, while power is inequitably distributed among 

policy actors, it is not always zero-sum (Dahl, 1984). In other words, one actor’s possession of 

power does not necessarily preclude others from exercising it. 

Policy actors may also derive power from sources beyond the social structure. Perhaps 

the most obvious source of power is formal authority, such as a leadership position in a political 



33  

system (Lasswell & Kaplan, 1950). Formal authority grants actors access to and control over 

information and the ability to set policy agendas, which determine whether a policy issue sees 

the light of day and shape how it is addressed. Actors’ sources of power may also include control 

over the flow of resources (e.g., money, personnel, support) to other actors; control over 

boundaries or the interface between different elements of an organization; and the ability to 

“define the reality of others” (p. 176) by crafting images, ideas, and values to describe a situation 

in the way they wish it to be described (Morgan, 1986). Additionally, actors may gain power 

from coalitions with other actors, because an increase in the number of actors advocating for an 

issue may increase its visibility. Coalitions may also draw their power from the resources of 

individual members, such as money, time, and social status. However, coalitions run the risk of 

being undermined by disagreements among individual actors. Furthermore, while there is power 

in numbers, individual actors’ resources are typically more liquid, or easily accessible, than 

groups’ resources (Wrong, 1979). 

Political Skill and Will 

 

In addition to possessing differential power resources, actors also possess differential 

political skill and will to deploy their resources (Allison & Zelikow, 1999; Dahl, 1984; Meltsner, 

1972; Wrong, 1979). Political skill refers to how effectively actors employ their resources. For 

instance, actors must gauge which resources to deploy at which point in the policy process to 

maximize their potential for influence (Allison & Zelikow, 1999; Meltsner, 1972). Political will 

refers to actors’ willingness to deploy those resources. Actors' political skill and will may also be 

viewed as a source of power, because others actors’ perceptions of their power resources and 

political skill and will to deploy them may affect whether and how those actors engage in their 

own influence efforts (Allison & Zelikow, 1999). 



34  

Influence Efforts 

 

The convergence of actors’ power and political skill and will, along with the contextual 

and systemic factors previously described, shape actors’ capacity to influence the policymaking 

process in the direction of their policy goals (Allison & Zelikow, 1999; Dahl, 1984; 

Schattschneider, 1975). Dahl (1984) describes influence as the extent to which an actor affects 

another actors’ actions or interests. Notably, actors’ influence is not to be conflated with their 

power, for they must have the political skill and will to deploy their resources if they are to exert 

influence (Dahl, 1984). 

Scope and Domain 

 

Dahl (1984) suggests that analysts must ask of actors’ influence: “influential over what 

actors with respect to what matters?” (p. 27). The first part of the question—influence over what 

actors—is the domain of actors’ influence (Dahl, 1984). For example, a university professor may 

have influence over the students who take her classes in the education department, but not over 

students who take her colleague’s classes in the biology department. The latter part of the 

question—influence with respect to what matters—is the scope of actors’ influence (Dahl, 1984). 

The scope of the education professor’s influence over her students is likely over matters related 

to education, and more specifically, the education matters she teaches in her classes. She likely 

has little influence over her students on matters such as where they shop for groceries or what 

they cook for dinner. 

Strategies 

 

Like the list of actors’ potential power resources, the list of political strategies that actors 

may use to influence a policy process is practically infinite. General groups of strategies include 

persuading other actors to change their policy goals by citing research or by omitting aspects of 



35  

the policy issue that may undermine the sanctity of their goals (Dahl, 1984), inducing them by 

adding advantages that make their policy goals seem more desirable, or constraining them by 

adding new disadvantages that make competing policy goals seem less desirable (Gamson, 1968; 

Lasswell & Kaplan, 1950). Bachrach and Baratz (1970) argue that actors may also exert 

influence by who and what enters the policy arena. This strategy, which they describe as 

nondecision-making, involves actors devoting their resources to excluding certain actors from the 

policymaking process or keeping certain issues off the agenda. For instance, actors may threaten 

other actors to deter them from participating, delegitimize an issue they are advocating for or 

their stance on that issue, or reshape a system’s structure to create barriers that preclude them 

from engaging in the policy process. 

Actors may also seek to exert influence by manipulating how other actors view policy 

issues and proposed solutions to them (Edelman, 1964; Edelman, 1988; Elder & Cobb, 1983). 

Edelman (1988) describes how actors create a political spectacle, which “constructs and 

reconstructs social problems, crises, enemies, and leaders” and “plays a central role in winning 

support and opposition for political causes and policies” (Edelman, 1988; p. 1). Elder and Cobb 

(1983) further suggest that actors operating political systems may employ symbols as a strategy 

to retain legitimacy for the system. Symbols help actors shape the spectacle in their favor by 

evoking attitudes, emotions, and perceptions that generate support for their policy goals. 

Edelman (1964) describes two types of symbols: 1) referential symbols, or representations of 

elements of a policy issue that help actors shape how other actors view it; and 2) condensation 

symbols, which “condense” emotions about a policy issue into a “symbolic event, sign, or 

action” (p. 6). Referential symbols may include statistics related to a policy problem or cost 

figures associated with a proposed policy solution. On the other hand, condensation symbols 



36  

may include patriotic signs like the American flag or American values. Actors employ these 

symbols to garner support for their policy goals. For example, some White actors have coopted 

the principle of equal opportunity—which has historically referred to attaining equal rights for 

minoritized groups—to resist affirmative action policies, or those that intend to remove structural 

barriers that limit minoritized groups’ access to certain jobs and universities, by claiming that 

those policies give preferential treatment to people of Color and unfairly disadvantage White 

people (Bonilla-Silva, 2018). 

Relatedly, actors may attempt to frame policy issues in ways that garner support for their 

position (Gamson & Modigliani, 1987; McAdam, 1996). Gamson and Modigliani (1987) define 

a frame as “a central organizing idea or story line that provides meaning to an unfolding strip of 

events, weaving a connection among them” (p. 376). Furthermore, a frame "suggests what the 

controversy is about, the essence of the issue” and “generally implies a policy direction or 

implicit answer to what should be done about the issue” (p. 376). McAdam (1996) explains how 

some leaders of the civil rights movement used issue framing as a strategy to “assign meaning to 

and interpret relevant events and conditions in ways that are intended to mobilize potential 

adherents and constituents, to garner bystander support, and to demobilize antagonists” 

(McAdam, 1996; p. 339). For example, activists like Martin Luther King Jr. described their 

policy goals using the language of Christianity, democracy, and nonviolence, which aligned with 

American values. These strategies helped them gain positive and sympathetic coverage from the 

media that attracted broader support for the movement. 

Gauging Influence 

 

Influence can be difficult to measure, given that policy efforts can involve a plethora of 

visible and hidden actors, complex and interrelated issues, and endless influence tactics. In an 



37  

effort to help analysts wrangle this complex phenomenon, political scholars have developed four 

strategies for gauging actors’ influence (Bachrach & Baratz, 1970; Geary, 1992; Pfeffer, 1992). 

First, scholars suggest gauging influence by assessing the degree to which actors’ policy goals 

align with the policy’s outcome (Pfeffer, 1992). In short, this method aims to determine who 

“won” and who “lost” in the policymaking game. For example, let us say that actor A seeks 

policy outcome A and actor B seeks policy outcome B. If the policy process resulted in outcome 

A, this strategy would suggest that actor A exerted influence. 

A second strategy for gauging actors’ influence relies on actors’ reputation. This strategy 

involves assessing actors’ perceptions of other actors’ power and influence (Pfeffer, 1992). 

Building on the prior example, analysts using this method might gauge influence by asking both 

actors A and B who, in their view, had what power to influence the policy process, and who took 

advantage of their power to do so. 

A third strategy involves assessing the types and amounts of resources actors have at 

their disposal to influence the policy process (Pfeffer, 1992). This strategy, which Pfeffer (1992) 

refers to as a representational measure of power, focuses on actors’ power arsenals, rather than 

whether they deployed the resources within those arsenals. Consequently, this strategy reveals 

actors’ potential to exert influence. Using this method, analysts would explore the resources 

(e.g., money, materials, access to information) that actors A and B had access to throughout the 

policy process. 

The final strategy for gauging actors’ influence, grounded in Bachrach and Baratz’s 

(1970) concept of nondecision-making, leads analysts to search for instances where actors have 

kept other actors out of the policymaking arena or suppressed issues from making it onto 

policymakers’ agendas (Geary, 1992). For instance, this strategy may reveal to analysts that 



38  

actors A and B held private, rather than public, meetings throughout the policy process in an 

attempt to prevent actor C from influencing the policy outcome. 

Each of the aforementioned strategies for gauging influence reveals one component of the 

complex influence equation but may overlook other critical components. For instance, analysts 

using the reputational method may have trouble getting any information—let alone accurate 

information—from actors about who influenced the policy process. When used together, though, 

these strategies offer analysts a strong basis for assessing who influenced whom, over what, and 

to what end (Pfeffer, 1992). 

Policy Phases 

 

The aforementioned sections describe how three sets of political factors interact to 

influence policymaking processes: 1) contextual factors, such as the social structure and values 

of a society; systemic factors, such as political systems’ procedures and values; and actor-level 

factors, such as actors’ policy goals and their sources of power to advance them. Existing models 

of policymaking in political science, public policy, and education policy suggest that interactions 

among these political factors take place in different segments of the policy process (Bardach, 

1977; Kingdon, 2003; Malen, 2006; Mazzoni, 1991; Sabatier & Weible, 2014). Yet, those 

models tend to either view policymaking as a rational and linear process, ignoring the contextual 

and political realities of policymaking, or focus on one segment of the policy process rather than 

the process as a whole. The conceptual model for this study draws on the strengths of these 

existing models to offer a heuristic that helps analysts to examine how contextual, systemic, and 

actor-level political dynamics shape a policy as it moves from idea to implementation. The 

model divides the policy process into three phases: 1) initiation, during which actors identify 

policy problems and begin considering how to address them; 2) enactment, during which actors 



39  

decide to enact one policy solution among many alternatives; and 3) implementation, during 

which actors put the enacted policy into effect. Existing models suggest that each phase is 

associated with unique activities and influence efforts, which are described in the following 

sections. Yet, given the messy nature of policymaking, a policy’s journey through these phases 

need not be linear. 

Initiation Phase 

 

The initiation phase of policymaking involves identifying and defining policy problems, 

getting them on policymakers’ agendas, and proposing potential solutions for them (Baumgartner 

& Jones, 1991; Brewer, 1974; Cohen et al., 1972; Easton, 1965; Kingdon, 2003; Lasswell, 1956). 

Although the context generates an overwhelming number of demands that systems may consider 

addressing, these demands only become policy problems “when we come to believe we should 

do something to change them” (Kingdon, 2003; p. 198). As previously described, some demands 

are more likely to become policy problems—that is, to make it into the political system and onto 

policymakers’ agendas—than others. For instance, policymakers may be more responsive to 

demands that align with the values of the system and the actors who operate it (Easton, 1965; 

Kingdon, 2003). Actors may engage in influence efforts to translate their demands into policy 

problems that make their way onto policymakers’ agendas by lobbying policymakers or those 

who have access to them, framing their demands in ways that appeal to policymakers and 

broader publics (Stone, 1989), or “shopping” (p. 1050) for policy arenas that are more favorable 

to them and the issues with which they are concerned (Baumgartner & Jones, 1991). 

At the same time policy problems are developing, so too are potential solutions to them 

(Cohen et al., 1972; Kingdon, 2003). Building on Cohen and colleagues’ (1972) “garbage can 

model” of organizational choice, Kingdon (2003) argues that policy problems and potential 



40  

solutions, or policy alternatives, flow concurrently down separate “streams.” In other words, 

while actors are advocating for policymakers to address certain problems, actors are also 

proposing policies they believe could address those problems. Alongside the problem and policy 

streams flows the political stream, which may include changes in the public’s opinion on an 

issue, interest groups’ advocacy for particular policy changes, and newly elected officials 

entering their arenas with new policy agendas. When the problem, policy, and political streams 

merge, they create a “policy window,” or “an opportunity for advocates of proposals to push 

their pet solutions, or to push attention to their special problems” (Kingdon, 2003; p. 165). These 

windows may open when new policy problems emerge or when changes in the political stream 

favor existing problems or potential solutions to them. For example, new leadership in an 

organization may provide opportunities for employees to push forth policy changes that prior 

leadership did not favor. When policy windows open and problems make it on to policymakers’ 

agendas, the policy enactment phase begins. 

Enactment Phase 

 

The enactment phase of the policy process is, in short, the decision-making phase. This 

phase involves policymakers choosing one policy to adopt among many alternatives (Brewer, 

1974; Howlett et al., 2015; Kingdon, 2003; Lasswell, 1956). When deciding among these 

alternatives, policymakers may consider their feasibility (e.g., budgetary constraints), alignment 

with community members’ values, and likelihood of being supported by the community and 

other political actors (Kingdon, 2003). Actors may use a variety of the political strategies 

previously described to influence policymakers’ decisions about which policy to enact, including 

but not limited to persuasion, inducement, and constraint (Dahl, 1984; Gamson, 1968; Lasswell 

& Kaplan, 1950). 



41  

Implementation Phase 

 

After policymakers have enacted a policy, implementation begins. Implementation 

involves putting an enacted policy into effect (Bardach, 1977; Brewer, 1974; Lasswell, 1956). 

Bardach (1977) describes implementation as “a process of assembling the elements required to 

produce a particular programmatic outcome” (p. 57). This phase is often associated with a unique 

cast of characters and slate of influence efforts. While higher-level bureaucrats are responsible 

for enacting policies, lower-level bureaucrats are highly involved in policy implementation 

(Bardach, 1977). In education, for instance, district officials and board of education members 

often enact policies while principals, teachers, and other school-based actors are left to 

implement them. 

Bardach (1977) describes the politics of implementation as a “system of games” (p. 55). 

These “games” may include delaying the policy, diverting resources from essential elements of a 

policy, or deflecting from or attempting to renegotiate the enacted policy's goals. Actors whom 

the policy is intended to affect may also engage in massive resistance, a strategy that attempts to 

overwhelm political systems so the policy fails. Policymakers may attempt to combat massive 

resistance by prescribing implementation strategies, enabling lower-level bureaucrats to 

implement policies by providing them with additional supports, incentivizing actors to accept the 

policy, or deterring them from resisting it by instituting a penalty structure for noncompliers. 

Scholars have also explored implementation games in education, in particular (Honig, 2009; 

Malen, 2006; Marsh, 2012). For example, Malen (2006) describes four categories of 

implementation politics: 1) policy dilution, which includes influence efforts that minimize a 

policy’s impact or undermine it completely; 2) policy appropriation, which refers to actors’ 

efforts to “selectively and strategically” (p. 98) implement policies in ways that advance their 



42  

own interests; 3) policy nullification, which involves attempts to revoke enacted policies through 

legislation, litigation, or mass resistance; and 4) policy amplification, which involves developing 

political structures and alliances that support the implementation of a policy. 

In addition to political games, implementation may be hindered by administrative 

limitations and structural constraints (Bardach, 1977; Weatherly & Lipsky, 1977). For example, 

the lower-level bureaucrats often responsible for implementing policies may be hindered by the 

daily time and energy demands of their jobs (Weatherly & Lipsky, 1977). Additionally, 

implementation within complex institutions, like school districts and schools, may be hindered 

by the lack of coordination across different organizational units. Implementations of policies that 

span multiple settings (e.g., multiple schools) may also be limited by variations in the social 

system, which make it difficult to standardize implementation procedures (Bardach, 1977). 

Policy Prospects 

 

The contextual, systemic, and actor-level political dynamics that occur throughout the 

three phases of the policy process shape policies’ prospects for fulfilling their aims. Allison and 

Zelikow (1999) suggest that policies are “political resultants” (p. 294), rather than “results,” 

because they stem from "compromise, conflict, and confusion of officials with diverse interests 

and unequal influence” and "the activity from which decisions and actions emerge is best 

characterized as bargaining along regularized channels among individual members of the 

government” (p. 295). For example, policy alternatives proposed in the initiation phase may be 

watered down by enactment politics, and further diluted by implementation games. 

While political models typically only include policy outcomes at the end of the policy 

process (e.g., Allison & Zelikow, 1999; Easton, 1965; Malen, 2006), the conceptual model for 

this study includes policy prospects, or interim outcomes, during initiation, enactment, and 



43  

implementation phases. Each phase may have multiple prospects. For instance, each policy 

alternative proposed during the initiation phase may be associated with a different potential 

outcome. Given the persistent and powerful nature of political dynamics, a policy's prospects are 

also likely to change over time. Incorporating prospects into a political model provides scholars 

with an analytic structure to capture snapshots of the ongoing effects of influence efforts, in 

addition to their cumulative effects on policy outcomes. 

Policy Outcomes and Feedback 

 

While a policy has several prospects for fulfilling its aims throughout the policy process, 

after implementation, it generates outcomes. Easton (1965) distinguishes between policy 

prospects, which he refers to as outputs, and policy outcomes by suggesting that “an output is the 

stone tossed into the pond and its first splash; the outcomes are the ever widening and vanishing 

pattern of concentric ripples” (p. 352). A policy’s outcomes may relate to its aims but may 

extend beyond them as well. For example, the outcomes of a state policy intended to expand 

healthcare access may include changes (or stasis) in the percentage of residents who have access 

to healthcare. But they may also include changes in residents’ political views related to social 

policy and the distribution of political power in the state. Regardless of whether the policy 

increases access to healthcare, if residents believe that the state government is not responsible for 

providing healthcare, they may vote out the governor whose administration advanced the policy. 

Outcomes re-enter the policy context and may feed back into the political system as 

inputs, generating future policy changes (Easton, 1965). Baumgartner and Jones (2002) suggest 

that feedback may be positive, amplifying the likelihood and scope of future policy changes, or 

negative, maintaining stability in the system rather than promoting further changes. Returning to 



44  

the healthcare policy example, voting out the governor whose administration advanced the policy 

may amplify policy changes, such as rescinding the policy or advancing a new one. 

Chapter Summary 

 

This chapter presented this study’s conceptual framework, which is a political model 

grounded in classic traditions of political systems, power, and influence; scholars’ adaptations of 

those traditions; and literature on the role of race and racism in policymaking. The model 

suggests that contextual, systemic, and actor-level political factors interact throughout the policy 

process. Contextual and systemic political factors shape contours of the policymaking process; in 

short, they determine what policy issues political systems prioritize, how political systems make 

policies, and who has the power to influence them. Actor-level factors operate within the 

boundaries of contextual and systemic factors, and include policy actors’ power, political skill 

and will, and the strategies they use to advance their goals. Altogether, these three sets of factors 

affect who is able to influence policymaking and how they do so. In this study, I use four 

strategies to gauge actors’ influence: 1) assessing the alignment between actors’ policy goals and 

policy outcomes; 2) assessing actors’ perceptions of whether and how other actors influenced the 

process; 3) assessing actors’ sources of power to influence the policy process; and 4) assessing 

whether certain actors were excluded from the process. I use these strategies to gauge influence 

in the initiation phase of the policy process, where policies are introduced; the enactment phase, 

where policies are voted into effect; and the implementation phase, where policies are put into 

practice. 



45  

Chapter 3: A Review of Literature on the Politics and Prospects of School Desegregation 

 

This chapter reviews literature on the politics and prospects of advancing school 

desegregation policies. In line with my conceptual framework, this chapter explains how 

contextual, systemic, and actor-level political dynamics have shaped the aims and outcomes of 

desegregation policies. I begin with a discussion of the contextual factors—including residential 

and school segregation, federal support for and constraints on desegregation, and a diversifying 

student population—that have shaped desegregation efforts from the late 1800s through the 

Supreme Court’s Parents Involved in Community Schools (2007) case. Given that these factors 

have largely left desegregation in the hands of school districts, I then examine how systemic 

factors, including districts’ structure, procedures, values, and norms, have affected their 

prospects for desegregating. Finally, I discuss how the policy actors who operate and are served 

by school districts—district policymakers and community members—have attempted to 

influence, and have often eroded, districts’ prospects for desegregating schools in the 21st 

century. I close by discussing how these political factors have converged to shape policy 

outcomes related to both school segregation rates and distributions of political power within 

districts. 

Desegregating Schools in a Segregated, Unequal, and Diversifying Context 

 

Residential and school segregation and inequality are perhaps the most salient contextual 

factors that have shaped whether, when, and how school districts attempt to desegregate. For 

decades, most children have lived in neighborhoods and attended schools with children of the 

same race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status and had differential access to resources and 

opportunities. In 2015, over three-quarters of children lived in neighborhoods where their 

racial/ethnic group was overrepresented. White children were the most isolated from peers of 



46  

other races/ethnicities: the average White child lived in a neighborhood that was 78% White 

(Owens, 2020). And high levels of neighborhood segregation have tended to overlap with 

segregation between districts and between schools within districts. Around the same time period, 

Black and Latinx students were concentrated in some districts while White and Asian students 

were concentrated in others (Fuller et al., 2022; Owens, 2020; Richards et al., 2020). 

Additionally, most students attended schools where the majority of peers were their same 

race/ethnicity. This trend was particularly strong for White students and Latinx students, who 

attended schools that were 69% White and 55% Latinx, respectively. Furthermore, Black and 

Latinx students were concentrated in schools where more than two-thirds of their peers were 

Black and/or Latinx while White and Asian students were concentrated in schools where roughly 

one-third or less of their peers were Black and/or Latinx. Racial/ethnic school segregation was 

particularly high in suburban districts, where Black and Latinx students attended schools that 

were roughly 75% students of Color and White students attended schools where roughly two- 

thirds White (Frankenberg et al., 2019). 

Given the relationship between race/ethnicity and income level (Shrider et al., 2021), 

neighborhoods, districts, and schools that are segregated by race/ethnicity also tend to be 

segregated by socioeconomic status. From 1990 to 2010, between-district income segregation 

increased by more than 15%, and from 1991 to 2012, between-school income segregation in 

large districts increased by more than 40% (Owens et al., 2016). Black and Latinx children are 

generally concentrated in low-income neighborhoods, districts, and schools at higher rates than 

White and Asian children. For instance, in 2015, Black and Latinx children tended to live in 

neighborhoods where income was 25-30% lower and poverty rates were twice as high relative to 



47  

White and Asian children. Black and Latinx students also attended low-income schools at much 

higher rates than their White and Asian peers (Owens, 2020). 

The racial/ethnic and socioeconomic segregation between neighborhoods, districts, and 

schools has perpetuated a profoundly unequal society. Residential and school segregation fosters 

resource and opportunity gaps between predominantly White and/or Asia