Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: In many advanced democracies predictable differences between parties in government have become more difficult to discern. We argue that in response to a less observable structure in electoral politics, citizens are less engaged in the democratic process. We test the hypothesis that fewer party differences in economic policy and outcomes dampens electoral participation rates. Based on aggregate-level data from 19 OECD democracies from the 1950s to 2000, we find the highest turnouts occur in elections where voters can discern differences in party control of unemployment based on long-term historical record. Even after controlling for different electoral systems, state structure, and election procedures, three factors-- unions, Labor parties, and Left party performance on unemployment-- create a context conducive to higher levels of turnout.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: This paper will explore the implications of current federal education policy for children who are educationally “at risk.” It will also present the results of a study which examined the overlap and conflict between the No Child Left Behind legislation and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

Based on the results of a recent study, this paper will examine the resources and challenges that federal education policy and funding affords children in public schools. This study seeks to provide the audience with an overview of the implementation challenges of this federal education policy.

This presentation will be divided into sections. In the beginning the presenter will explain the legal rights children are entitled to receive as a result of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the rights that children are accorded based on No Child Left Behind. Next, she will present the results of a small study involving 20 local level implementers who provide services under the regulations for both No Child Left Behind and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. This study examines the limitations that exist in the implementation of both policies as a result of under-funding, poor oversight, racial disparities and the contradictions inherent in the goals of the reviewed federal legislation. Based on these findings, the presenter will provide recommendations for policy changes.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Democrats and Republicans declared the day that George W. Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2002 an end to the education crisis. Why then has America failed to see the achievement gap decline and instead seen opposition grow to NCLB? This paper answers two questions. First, why did so much support exist within the federal government to pass NCLB? Second, why does so much opposition among many actors exist to such a supported bill? Content analysis of the New York Times and Washington Post from 1999 through 2007 is used to explain actors’ involvement (or lack of involvement) in both the passage and implementation efforts. Not only are actors considered, but also time pressures pre- and post-passage. Political pressures to ensure bipartisanship existed before passage as well as education pressures because the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) needed to be re-authorized; however, NCLB needs to be re-authorized again in 2007 and political opinions and pressures have shifted. There are multiple reasons why NCLB faces opposition, including concerns over funding, accountability, states rights’, expectations for qualified teachers and a failure to show improvements in the schools. NCLB serves as a case study of the political process by showing that to create successful policy, politicians must listen to actors involved in the implementation process and plan for successful enforcement while balancing political pressures.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Does political affiliation affect criminalization and the criminal process, and if so, how? This paper aims to answer this question by examining and comparing two types of ideological opposition to military service in Israel: the 2002-2003 left-wing objection to serve in the army due to the occupation of Palestinian territories, and the 2005 right-wing objection to serve due to the disengagement from the Gaza strip, which involved evacuating Jewish settlers. Both groups challenged the ethos of compulsory and egalitarian military service in Israel, but differed in their demographic characteristics and motivations. The paper uses a multi-method ethnographic analysis to compare the criminalization policies, and case disposition practices, applied by the Israeli military justice system to these two groups. I begin by offering a genealogical account of how investigatory and prosecutorial policies were created and shaped, and then move on to provide a comparative quantitative analysis of case disposition, based on Personnel Unit and Military Advocate General records. The findings are supplemented by in-depth interviews with military legal personnel and initial findings from a media survey. The findings address three possible criminal processing models: a formal-legal model, emphasizing legally-relevant variables; a substantive-political model, highlighting the political and demographic differences between the groups; and an organizational model, highlighting concerns about caseload. Initial findings from this work in progress lend support to a complex combination of these models as an explanation for the army’s policies in criminalizing and processing disobedient soldiers.

Publication Type: Proceeding