The Role of Special Education Interest Groups in National Policy ...

for several reasons. Although prior research has not been concerned with organized interests as a unit of analysis, case studies of Congressional reauthorization processes suggest that parent and professional organizations frame their policy interests fundamentally differently (Egnor, 2003; Melnick, 1994; Price-Ellingstad, 2001). Anecdotal evidence, such as the previous New York Times article quote and other news coverage, suggests further that parent advocacy involves high stakes and uses emotional symbols (Katz, 1996). Another difference involves the groups’ political motivations. While some professional groups, such as teacher unions, have local chapters, most parent advocacy groups’ grassroots movements are organized as support groups that hold regular meetings (including Internet support group sites and chat rooms). This implies that many parents become involved in the public domain by joining a local support network. These differences in parents’ versus professional groups’ motivations and political behavior provide a sound foundation for comparison.

There is evidence of the long-standing presence of special education advocacy organizations in the policy-making process.⁴ Studies that have examined special education policy and politics include research on the role of courts in shaping policy (Melnick, 1994; Rebell & Hughes, 1996), policy expansion (Melnick, 1994), the effects of legalization (Kirp & Jensen, 1986; Neal & Kirp, 1985), gaps in implementation (Clune & Van Pelt, 1985), and the effect of state-level lobbying on policies at the local school level (Baxt & Brouillette, 1999). Furthermore, a few excellent historical accounts exist on advocacy group participation in the initial passage of the federal special education legislation (Melnick, 1994; Tweedie, 1983). A case study on the passage of the Handicapped Children Protection Act narrated interest group participation in the political events leading to the passage of the 1986 act (West, 1988). Case studies have also examined the events and forces that shaped the 1997 reauthorization of the statute (Price-Ellingstad, 2001) and the policy crisis that characterized the discipline amendments of that reauthorization (Egnor, 2003).

Yet, despite the long-standing presence of interest groups in education policy and politics, there is a scarcity of empirical research that analyzes their role in obtaining victories and shaping policy. Groups, in