Show description

Hochschild 1984, 169; Smith and Feagin 1995, 5–9). At the same time, the different histories and circumstances of minority groups lead to somewhat different patterns across and within groups of interest and interest competition, problem definitions, and stances toward institutions. Two-tiered pluralism implies that pluralism exists in form but not fully in fact for groups whose “formative” or initial relationship with the United States was not entirely voluntary or consensual. Groups predominantly located within this second level—Latinos, African Americans, Native Americans, and Asians—have the formal rights of citizens.

Legal system— the difference between de jure and de facto segregation and exclusion. Today minorities experience “de jure pluralism” but de facto exclusion, because they occupy a second, and lower, tier of pluralist politics. 1 offers a schematic representation of the concept two-tiered pluralism. In the case of education politics, we can point to minorities’ achievement of policies such as busing and bilingual education, yet other important policy issues remained largely beyond their influence, including the institutional design of school districts and education finance systems, and district-wide systemic reform initiatives.

From a regime perspective, the influence wielded by racial and ethnic groups in education politics may be less a function of their internal resources than their control over external resources and strategic knowledge essential for “getting things done” in the education arena. This coalitional perspective moves attention away from the assets of particular groups and draws attention to the conditions under which reform interests INTERESTS, IDEAS, AND INSTITUTIONS 25 mobilize. Clearly, educational reform is no longer only, or largely, a matter of working through the district hierarchy to carry out district-devised initiatives.