Meanings, Silos, and High-Stakes Advocacy

Earley, Penelope M.

doi:10.1177/0022487105275842

Cited by 8 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, we are acutely aware that the OSEP's ability to provide continued support for personnel preparation may be affected by competing programs, alternative approaches to teacher preparation, and diversion of education funds that affect only a small, but vulnerable, segment of the K-12 population-children with disabilities-for other uses during fiscally challenging eras. Philosophical arguments that the very existence of the federal personnel preparation program in special education provides evidence of the continued separateness of general and special education (Early, 2005) must, likewise, be considered. Also, we are aware that in an era of educational alignment, the consolidation of federal programs may seem to offer a reasonable approach to rationalizing the "patchwork quilt of federal policy" (O'Day & Smith, 1993;Riley, 1995).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contexts, Funding History, and Implications for Evaluating the Office of Special Education Program’s Investment in Personnel Preparation

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, the authors explore contexts that have shaped the federal program for personnel preparation in special education. A brief review is provided of the historical, political, and policy considerations that influenced the directions, implementation, and impacts of the federal personnel preparation program funding at particular points in time. Issues and questions are posed for those who seek to understand the impact of the program, and recommendations are provided for how answers to those questions might be used to improve the program and enhance its impact.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contexts, Funding History, and Implications for Evaluating the Office of Special Education Program’s Investment in Personnel Preparation

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The concept of policy silos originates in organization and public administration literature, denoting centralized bureaucratic control that facilitates rapid decision‐making, but impedes horizontal coordination, collaboration with other actors, and information‐sharing (Scott, 2020; Vorley & Nelles, 2020). Policy silos can “perpetuate narrow, relatively self‐serving policy options” (Earley, 2005, p. 217). In the context of datafication and platformization, silos can emerge due to narrow problem definition and unexamined policy dimensions, and manifest as policy disconnects or imbalances between regulatory jurisdictions and policy foci.…”

Section: Policy Fragmentation and Overlapmentioning

confidence: 99%

Regulating datafication and platformization: Policy silos and tradeoffs in international platform inquiries

Popiel

2022

Policy & Internet

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A key concern in international policy debates about articulating oversight of digital platform markets involves policy silos, arising from the scope of platformization and datafication, and the challenges in defining their policy boundaries and coordinating a comprehensive policy response. This article examines how policymakers grapple with the problem by looking at a growing number of expert inquiries on digital platforms—a proxy for the international policy debate—that focus on policy problems ranging from market dominance and privacy risks to the spread of disinformation. Specifically, the article develops a schema of related policy silos and tradeoffs that arise in these debates: (1) policy area silos, (2) market/sectoral silos, (3) temporal silos, and (4) normative tradeoffs. Then, it critically examines the implications of these silos and tradeoffs for policy interventions aimed at addressing concerns related to datafication and platformization, raising key questions about the scope of and assumptions underlying platform regulation internationally and noting the way they constrain policy design and thwart more holistic policy solutions.

show abstract

“…Authentic, meaningful, long-lasting transformation in institutions of higher education is often derailed by issues of tenure, departmental agendas, external pressures, scarce resources, and tradition (Earley 2005, Kezar 2008). While historically higher education has embraced shared governance models, faculty reward structures have prioritized individual faculty agendas.…”

Section: Self-study Ethosmentioning

confidence: 99%