This study used testimony, documents, and interviews to examine the use of information in higher education policy making. The article discusses the coalition alignment regarding the state's tuition assistance program and the concomitant information sources on which each coalition drew in the budget process. The results show that there were differences in information sources between and within coalitions, and information was used for different purposes. The article demonstrates the potential utility of Paul A. Sabatier's Advocacy Coalition Framework and elicits information-related suggestions for its future applicability to higher education policy analysis.

This single case study uses the Advocacy Coalition Framework and Multiple Streams Framework to understand the ways higher education policy actors at the city-, state-, and system-level used information to build coalitions and change admission standards during the remediation debate at the City University of New York. By examining what information was used, when it was presented, by whom, and for what purposes, this study helps improve our understanding of the policymaking process and the role information can play in high-stakes debates with major consequences, including limiting student access to baccalaureate degrees. Implications for policy and future research are discussed.