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

quantify and systematically code how groups (1) frame their interests (for example, is the interest anchored in civil rights or a political matter of resource distribution?), (2) portray students with disabilities, and (3) narrate their policy story (for example, does it emphasize hope or how matters have gotten worse?). For instance, an argument for a particular expansion of entitlements can be based on unacceptable variation in implementation across states, and the right for children to receive services. In contrast, the same argument can be made by emphasizing how far the country has come in special education service delivery since the enactment of the law, and that with a particular federal intervention, such as transition services from school to adult life, children with disabilities will be able to become fully participating citizens. Each definition gives a slightly different twist to the way in which the issue is defined. Prior research in this area has examined frames, portrayals, and narratives separately (Donovan, 2001; Schneider & Ingram, 1993, 1997, 2005; Stone, 1997). By analyzing these aspects over time through systematic coding, this study provides a method to empirically capture the rich and complex way in which groups strategically advocate their interests. I suggest that the components of problem definition are more strategically malleable than previously thought. When communicating their interests to policy makers, organizations have a variety of ways to anchor their claim.

The groups I examined in the study include not just disability advocacy groups and those representing education professionals, but also organizations outside of education, such as government, religious, and medical organizations that have testified before Congress or submitted an amicus curiae brief to the Supreme Court. I examine the circumstances under which groups outside of special education are drawn into the policy-making process, and show that they enter the debate when issue frames are extended to other domains (e.g., religion, medicine), or when the frames are drastically transformed (e.g., from a local educational matter to one of human rights).

I propose that there is a fundamental tension between defining the policy as a civil rights matter versus a traditional grant-in-aid program.