教育政策合法化理論建構與實際運作之研究
摘 要

本研究之主要目的，在於探討教育政策合法化的基本概念與實施歷程，並透過調查研究與訪談，瞭解我國教育政策合法化的現況，最後根據研究結論，提出實施或改善教育政策合法化的建議。
為達致上述目的，本研究兼採文獻分析、問卷調查與訪談等研究方法：首先，透過文獻分析，探討教育政策合法化的基本概念與實施歷程，以瞭解教育政策合法化的涵義、範圍、原則、影響因素、策略、程序、檢討；其次，根據文獻探討之結果，編製「教育政策合法化研究調查問卷」，進行調查研究，藉以瞭解教育政策合法化的範圍、原則、影響因素、策略、程序、檢討；再次，根據文獻探討之所得，編擬「教育政策合法化理論建構與實際運作之研究訪談大綱」，以蒐集關於教育政策合法化範圍、原則、影響因素、策略、程序、檢討等之意見；最後，根據研究結論，提出具體建議。
本研究之調查研究對象計有三類：一為制訂教育政策者；二為影響教育政策者；三為執行教育政策者。共發出問卷561份，實得有效問卷388份，問卷資料處理採SPSS for Windows 12.0統計套裝軟體進行統計分析。
此外，本研究之訪談對象亦有三類：本研究一為制訂教育政策者；二為影響教育政策者；三為執行教育政策者。共針對16人進行半結構式訪談，並由研究者自行歸納分類，進行資料分析。
綜合文獻分析之結果與調查研究及訪談之發現，獲得以下結論：
一、教育政策合法化乃是將教育政策完成法定程序，取得正當性，以獲取人民認可與支持的動態過程。
二、應合法化的教育事項為有全國一致性質的重大政策；而目前最應加強合法化的是教育經費分配與補助。
三、教育政策合法化應遵守實現教育目的、遵守程序正義、立法從寬執法從嚴等原則；但實際上除延請專業人員的情況稍佳外，其餘皆有待加強。
四、應該影響合法化的參與者有教育部、立法院、行政院人員等；而在實際上最應提升其影響力的是教師與學生。
五、合法化過程中應該考慮的背景因素有教育、世界、社會等；在實際上最不足的是教育的本質，考慮太過的則是政治生態。
六、應該有效的合法化策略有訴諸媒體、遊說等，應該不太有效的有舉辦研討會、提交研究報告等；而實際運用最不足的是參與立法規劃，運用太多的是投書。
七、應該產生影響的合法化程序有諮詢、提案、審核、審查等；但實際上除立院程序及其他委員會的聯合審查外，其餘皆尚未完備。
八、合法化曾經遭遇的困難有人治色彩過重、政黨過份干預等，其中以議事效率不彰為最；且普遍存在不合時宜、陳義過高等缺失，以偏重行政制度為最。
九、改進合法化的對策中，應該可行的有公開過程與資訊、適時鬆綁法律等；在實際上最須加強的是提升人員的專業知能與素養。
十、大致而言，不同背景變項填答者對於合法化應如何進行與實際進行之情形的意見大同小異，若自整體觀之，則以不同職務者彼此間的意見差異稍大。
十一、教育政策合法化理論建構的修正模式，可以圖8-1示之。

研究者根據文獻探討內容、調查與訪談研究發現，以及自身意見，提出實施與改善教育政策合法化的建議：
一、規劃教育經費與學雜費制度、學生與家長的權利義務、教育的評鑑制度等事項的合法化。
二、立法過程中嚴格掌握立法時效並謀穩定適用、堅守教育原理與目的之符應、遵守程序正義使實質合法。
三、適當平衡中央教育行政機關與立法機關的立法權力、角色與功能。
四、建立完善的聽證與諮詢制度，充分容納不同意見以減低可能遭遇的阻力。
五、加強相關人員的教育與法律專業素養，並成立教育政策合法化智庫。
六、重新梳理並檢討現有的教育法律，適時予以修正改善。
七、重新調整教育部組織架構，並增設法制辦公室以取代現有的法規委員會
八、積極參與教育政策立法的規劃或提供相關資源，以助達成立法目的。
九、審慎評估遊說、請願、參加公聽會、舉辦研討會、出版刊物等策略的有效性。
十、於運用投書策略之前，先考慮運用其他策略的可行性。
十一、利益團體與媒體應理性約束自身的影響力無限上綱。
十二、執行教育政策者須更主動積極參與教育政策的制訂與合法化。

A study on theory construction and actual operation of
educational policy legitimation

Abstract

The objectives of this study are: (1) to explore the primary concepts of educational policy legitimation and its practice, (2) to investigate the current situation of educational policy legitimation, (3) to summarize the results and offer some suggestions for practicing or improving educational policy legitimation.
In order to accomplish the objectives, the study adopts documentary research, questionnaire survey and interview. First, through documentary analysis, the study explores the primary concepts of educational policy legitimation and its practice to understand the meanings, fields, principles, influential factors, strategies, processes, and reviews. Second, according to the results drawn from literature, the researcher develops "the study questionnaire of educational policy legitimation " used for investigation survey to understand the fields, principles, influential factors, strategies, processes, and reviews of educational policy legitimation. Third, according to the results drawn from literature, the researcher draws up "the interview outline of a study on theory construction and actual operation of educational policy legitimation " used for understanding the fields, principles, influential factors, strategies, processes, and reviews of educational policy legitimation.
The subjects of this study, on questionnaire survey with a sample size of 561 subjects, and the effective number of 388 subjects, are randomly selected from those who - formulate educational policy, influence educational policy, and implement educational policy. The data from the questionnaire is processed for statistical analysis using "SPSS for Windows 12.0" statistical package software.
Additionally, the subjects of this study on semi-structured interviews , with a sample size of 16 subjects, are selected from those who - formulate educational policy, influence educational policy and implement educational policy. The data from the interviews are sorted, homogenized by the researcher and continue to be analyzed.
From the findings of document analysis, questionnaire survey and interview, the following conclusions are drawn:
1. Educational policy legitimation is the dynamic process for accomplishing the legal
procedure of educational policy and acquiring validity of the people's approval and support.
2. Educational agenda to be legitimated is an important policy with nation-wide acceptance. Hence, legitimation of educational budget redistribution and subsidy should initially be reinforced.
3. Educational policy legitimation should follow the principles of educational end accomplishment, procedure justice, bountiful legislation and strict enforcement of the law. Currently, the expert has been invited and the rest is expected to be completed.
4. Actors from the department of education, legislature and executive staff should influence legitimation. Actually, it should promote increased influence from teachers and students.
5. In the process of legitimation, background factors including education, world and society should be taken into consideration. It is seen that, the most underrepresented is the essence of education, and most overrepresented is political ecology.
6. Legitimation strategy including media and lobbying should be effective, seminar and study report should not be effective. Actually, involvement of legislative formulation is not sufficient, mailing lists are over utilized.
7. Legitimation procedure includes consultation, proposal, examination and inspection. Currently, except legislature procedure and united investigation of other committee, the rest is not completed.
8. The difficulty of legitimation are autocratic and party over- intervention, and the
ineffectiveness of the council is the most difficult in all of above. A common deficiency is irrelevancy and creating an elitist dialogue; though most of it is to over emphasize administration system.
9. To improving legitimation, making public of process and information; and releasing appropriate law is feasible. In practice, advanced professional knowledge and capacity are very important.
10. Generally speaking, opinions about how to practice and actual practice of respondents with different backgrounds are similar. Through observation, it is seen that the opinions of respondents of different works have more discrepancies.
11. Entire framework of educational policy legitimation as figure 8-1.
From the findings of document analysis, questionnaire survey, interview, and opinions of researcher, there are several suggestions for practice and improvement of educational policy legitimation.
1. To formulate the legitimation of educational budget; tuition and incidental fee systems; rights and obligations of students and parents; education assessment systems.
2. To control legislative process strictly in expeditious, stable and applicable manner while emphasizing educational principium and purposes, in procedural justice and essential legality.

3. To balance the legislative power, character and function properly between central education administration organizations and legislature.
4. To establish the integrity of hearing and consultative systems by accepting diverse opinions while reducing possible resistance.
5. To improve the equipment of education and legislation knowledge for related personnel and to establish a think tank for education policy legitimation.
6. Rearrange and review contemporary educational law, ameliorate and effect improvement at the appropriate moment.
7. Rearrange the organization frame of ministry of education and add the department of legislative to replace the legal affairs committee.
8. To participate actively in formulation of educational policy legislation or provide related resources for enhancing the goal of legislation.
9. To evaluate cautiously the effectiveness of the strategies of lobbying, hearing, seminar and publication.
10. Prior to implementing mailing lists, consider other strategies.
11. Interested groups and media should be rational with self-discipline and should not have unchecked influence.
12. People who implement education policy should participate actively in the formulation and legitimation of education policy.

壹、中文部分
王如哲（2003）。教育行政學。台北市：五南。
立法院（2005）。立法院全球資訊網。2005年3月17日，取自http://www.ly.gov.tw/index.jsp
田隆源（1993）。我國著作權法修正政策合法化之研究。國立台灣師範大學三民主義研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北市。
古登美、沈中元、周萬來（2004）。立法理論與實務。台北縣：國立空中大學。
白佳慧（1995）。全民健康保險法合法化過程之研究。國立政治大學公共行政研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北市。
行政院（2004）。中央行政機關法制作業應注意事項。台北市：行政院。
朱志宏（1990）。公共政策概論。台北市：三民。
朱志宏（1991）。政策的合法化。載於魏鏞、朱志宏、詹中原、黃德福（編著），公共政策（頁151-171）。台北縣：空大。
朱志宏（1995）。立法論。台北市：三民。
朱志宏（2004）。公共政策。台北市：三民。
吳定（1991）。公共行政論叢。台北市：天一。
吳定（2000）。公共政策（全）。台北縣：空大。
吳定（2004）。公共政策辭典。台北市：五南。
何信全（1988）。海耶克自由理論研究。台北市：聯經。
呂餘慶（1998）。國民小學教育政策執行現況及其相關因素之研究。台北市立師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北市。
余致力（2003）。民意與公共政策—理論探討與實證研究。台北市：五南。
李連寧、孫葆森（1998）。教育法制概論。北京市：教育科學。
李惠宗（2004）。教育行政法要義。台北市：元照。
周志宏、陳舜芬主編（2000）。教育法規。台北市：學林。
周志宏（2003）。教育法與教育改革。台北市：高等教育。
江芳盛（1998）。垃圾桶模式在我國教育決策分析上的應用。教育政策論壇，1（2），13-25。
林天祐、虞志長、張志毓、余瑞陽、邱春堂、楊士賢（1996）。教育政策行程及制訂過程之分析。初等教育學刊，5，1-40。
林水波、張世賢（2001）。公共政策。台北市：五南。
林閔政（1996）。論「民眾參與」在教育政策制定過程中的理論與實踐—以師資培育法為例。東海大學公共行政研究所碩士論文，未出版，台中市。
林嘉誠、朱浤源（1992）。政治學辭典。台北市：五南。
官有垣（1998）。利益團體與政黨。載於翁興利、施能傑、官有垣、鄭麗嬌（主編），公共政策（頁69-111）。台北縣，空大。
沈弘毅（1998）。美國賭博合法化之研究-以發展沿革、觀光賭場之管制及影響效果為中心。中國文化大學美國研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北市。
沈世國（2002）。勞基法修法合法化過程之研究—以工時案為例。國立台北大學公共行政暨政策學研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北市。
柯三吉（1998）。公共政策：理論、方法與台灣經驗。台北市：時英。
柯正峰（1998）。我國邁向學習社會政策制定之研究—政策問題形成、政策規劃及政策合法化探討。國立台灣師範大學社會教育學系博士論文，未出版，台北市。
洪德旋、林振裕、江亮演、林勝義（1996）。社會政策與立法。台北縣：空大。
徐佳青（2002）。台灣利益團體影響墮胎藥物RU486合法化過程之研究。國立陽明大學衛生福利研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北市。
翁興利（1998）。議程設定。載於翁興利、施能傑、官有垣、鄭麗嬌（主編），公共政策（頁167-209）。台北縣：空大。
孫治本（譯）（1999）。U. Beck著。全球化危機（Was 1st globalisierung?）。台北市：商務。
許育典（2002）。法治國與教育行政。台北市：高等教育。
張世賢（編）（2005）。公共政策分析。台北市：五南。
張芳全（1999）。教育政策。台北市：師大書苑。
張芳全（2000）。教育政策立法。台北市：五南。
張芳全（2001）。教育政策導論。台北市：五南。
張建成（2002）。批判的教育社會學研究。台北市：學富。
張景泰（1997）。我國社會工作師法合法化過程之研究。政治作戰學校政治研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北市。
張鈿富（1996）。教育政策分析—理論與實務。台北市：五南。
教育百科辭典編審委員會（1994）。教育百科辭典。台北市：五南。
教育部（2004）。各級學校名錄。台北市：教育部。
曹俊漢（1990）。公共政策。台北市：三民。
陳文玉（1997）。政策制定過程之研究—台北縣開放教育政策個案分析。國立新竹師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，新竹市。
陳加再（2002）。教育政策合法化過程之研究—以教育基本法之制定為例。國立台北師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北市。
陳向明（2000）。質的研究方法與社會科學研究。北京：教育科學出版社。
陳芳玲（2002）。教育政策行銷之研究—以台北縣國民小學九年一貫課程之推動為例。國立暨南國際大學教育政策與行政研究所碩士論文，未出版，南投縣。
陳朝政（1998）。我國安樂死政策合法化議題之研究。台灣大學政治研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北市。
陳銘祥（2002）。立法政策—將政策轉化為法律之理論與實踐。月旦法學，86，73-81。
舒緒緯（1998）。師資培育法制訂過程及其內涵之研究。國立高雄師範大學教育學系博士論文，未出版，高雄市。
黃一峰（譯）（1987）。D. C. Kozak & J. D. Macartney著。權力遊戲規則—立法程序。載於詹中原（主編），權力遊戲規則—國會與公共政策（Congress and public policy）（頁271-316）。台北市：五南。
黃立怡（1998）。美國同性戀婚姻合法化之研究。淡江大學美國研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北縣。
黃昭元、蔡茂寅、陳忠五、林鈺雄（主編）（2001）。綜合小六法。台北市：學林。
彭詩文（2003）。艾波（M. W. Apple）「合法化知識」之研究。國立台北師範學院課程與教學研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北市。
彭鳳偵（1990）。我國立法過程中黨政關係之研究—人民團體法個案分析。國立政治大學三民主義研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北市。
結構群編輯群（編譯）（1991）。R. Cotterrell著。法律社會學導論（The sociology of law : An introduction）。台北市：結構群文化。
湯絢章（1993）。公共政策（上下）。台北市：商務。
楊桂杰（1999）。我國教育立法歷程及其模式建構之研究。國立台灣師範大學三民主義研究所博士論文，未出版，台北市。
詹金月（1995）。我國全民健康保險政策合法化過程之研究。國立陽明大學衛生福利研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北市。
廖俊松、周俊妹、邱靜儀（1999）。立法決策機會因素的研究。中國行政評論，8（2），75-108。
劉國兆（2003）。地方教師會影響教育政策合法化過程之研究—以台北市國中小校長遴選自治條例為例。銘傳大學公共管理與社區發展研究所碩士在職專班論文，未出版，台北市。
翟國將（1985）。資訊系統與政策合法化：我國立法院資訊系統之方案設計及預評。國立中興大學公共行政研究所碩士論文，未出版，台中市。
葉連祺（2000）。析論中小學學校內部規範法治化之流程和策略。學校行政，10，93-98。
葉俊榮（2001）。面對行政程序法—轉型台灣的程序建制。台北市：元照。
謝文全（2003）。教育行政學。台北市：高等教育。
謝卓君（2002）。教育基本法制定過程之個案研究。國立中正大學教育學研究所碩士論文，未出版，嘉義縣。
謝美慧（2001）。教育政策評估理論之研究—以北高兩市幼兒教育卷政策為例。國立台灣師範大學教育學系博士論文，未出版，台北市。
謝瑞智（1996）。教育法學。台北市：文笙。
謝榮泰（1982）。墮胎合法化問題之研究。東海大學社會學研究所碩士論文，未出版，台中市。
應群（1982）。我國國家賠償法的政策分析。國立政治大學公共行政研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北市。
蔣嘉一（1985）。司法院大法官會議與政策合法化之研究。國立台灣大學政治研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北市。
蔡茂寅、李建良、林明鏘、周志宏（2001）。行政程序法實用。台北市：學林。
顏國樑（1996）。教育政策執行及其相關因素之研究—理論建構與應用分析。國立台灣師範大學教育學系博士論文，未出版，台北市。
顏國樑（1997）。教育政策執行理論與應用。台北市：師大書苑。
顏國樑（2002a）。我國教育政策合法化的過程、影響因素及其啟示。新竹師院學報，15，1-36。
顏國樑（2002b）。教育法規。高雄市：麗文。
顏厥安、周志宏、李建良（1995）。教育法令之整理與檢討。載於行政院教育改革審議委員會委託研究案學術研討會系列一之「鬆綁原則」學術研討會論文集。
瞿立鶴（1987）。教育政策理論之分析。理論與政策月刊，1（2），5-9。
羅清水（1999）。教育政策執行評估之研究—以高職實用技能班政策為例。國立台灣師範大學工業教育研究所博士論文，未出版，台北市。
羅傳賢（2002）。立法程序與技術。台北市：五南。
羅傳賢（2004）。國會與立法技術。台北市：五南。
羅曉雯（2001）。國中基本學力測驗教育政策執行之研究—以台北市國民中學為例。國立政治大學教育學系碩士論文，未出版，台北市。

貳、外文部分
Alexiadou , N. (2002). Social inclusion and social exclusion in England: Tensions in education policy. Journal of Educational Policy, 17(1), 71-86.
Alpert, E. J. (1979). A reconceptualization of representational role theory. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 4, 587-604.
Anderson, J. E. (1975). Public policy-making. New York: Praeger.
Anderson, J. E. (1990). Public policy making. New York: CBS College Publishing.
Anderson, J. E. (1997). Public policy making: An introduction. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Barnett, R. A. (1985). Higher education: Legitimation crisis. Studies in Higher Education, 10(3), 241-255.
Bentley, A.F. (1967). The process of government. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Binderkrantz, B. (2005). Interest group strategies: Navigating between privileged access and strategies of pressure. Political Studies, 53(4), 694-719.
Birnbaum, R. (2000). Policy scholars are from Venus: Policy makers are from Mars. The Review of Higher Education, 23(2), 119-132.
Blackmore, J., & Thorpe, S. (2003). Media / ting change: The print media’s role in mediating education policy in a period of radical reform in Victoria, Australia. Journal of Education Policy, 18(6), 577-595.
Box, R.C. (1995). Critical theory and the paradox of discourse. American Review of Public Administration, 25(1), 1-17.
Carl, H. V., Baumer, D. C., & Gormley, W. T. (1992). Politics and public policy. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly.
Clark, B. R. (1983). The higher education system: Academic organization in cross-national perspective. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Cobb, J. J. (1981). An introduction to educational law: For administrators and teachers. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.
Cobb, R. W., & Elder, C. D. (1972). Participation in American politics: The dynamics of agenda building. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Codd, J. A. (1988). The construction and deconstruction of educational policy documents. Journal of Education Policy, 3(3), 235-247.
Dahl, R. A., & Lindblom, C. E. (1953). Politics, economics, and welfare. New York: Harper & Brothers.
Daugherty, R., & Eleed-Owens, P. (2003). A national curriculum for Wales: A case study of education policy making in the era of administrative devolution. British Journal of Education Studies, 51(3), 233-253.
Derthick, M., & Quirk, P. (1985). The politics of deregulation. Washington, DC: Brooking Institution.
Downs, A. (1967). Inside bureaucracy. Boston: Little, Brown.
Dror, Y. (1968). Public policymaking reexamined. New York: Chandler Pulishing.
Dudley, G. (2004). The enlightenment function and dimensions of time: Evolutionary theory and limits of privatisation in British Trunk Roads policy. Political Studies, 6, 389-408.
Dyke, V. V. (1968). Process and policy as focal concepts in political research. In R. Austin(Ed.), Political Science and Public Policy, (pp.23-40). Chicago: Markham.
Dye, T. R., & Zeigler, L. H. (1975). The irony of democracy. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.
Dye, T. R. (1998). Understanding public policy. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Easton, D. (1953). Political system. New York: Knopf.
Easton, D. (1965). A framework for political analysis. Englewood Cliff, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Elleven, R. K., & Walker, M. (2003). Legal training and perception of chief housing officers: A southwestern United State study. Education and the Law, 15(1), 59-66.
Etzioni, A. (1969). Readings on modern organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Farrar, E. (1988). Introduction to “Federal education policy: A review of the 80s”. Educational Policy, 2(4), 339-342.
Fenger, M., & Klok, P. (2001). Interdependency, beliefs, and coalition behavior: A contribution to advocacy coalition framework. Policy Sciences 34, 157-170.
Fisher, L.A. (1988). State legislatures and the autonomy of colleges and universities: Comparative study legislation in four states. The Journal of Higher Education, 59(2), 133-162.
Franklin, B. (2004). Education, education and indoctrination! Packaging politics and the three ‘Rs’. Journal of Education Policy, 19(3), 255-271.
Friedrich, C. J. (1963). Man and his government: An empirical theory of politics. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Garson, G. D. (1976). Handbook of political methods. Boston: Holbrook.
Gawthrop, L. (1971). Administrative politics and social change. New York: St. Martins.
Gershberg, A. I. (1999). Education ’decentralization’ process in Mexico and Nicaragua: Legislative versus ministry-led reform strategies. Comparative Education, 35(1), 63-85.
Goldstein, K. M. (1999). Interest groups, lobbying, and participation in America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gouveia-Pereira, M., Vala, J., Palmonavi, A., & Rubin, M. (2003). School experience, relational justice and legitimation of institutional. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 18(3), 309-325.
Grant, K., & Edgar, D. (2003). Using the theory of policy networks and communities to explore who determines the Scottish higher education research policy: Issues for education managers. The International Journal of Educational Management, 17(7), 318-329.
Gunnell J. (1996). The genealogy of American pluralism: from Madison to behavioralisn. International Political Science Review, 17(3), 253-265.
Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms. Cambridge: Polity.
Hasecke, E. B. (2002). Balancing the Legislative Agenda: Scheduling in the United States House of Representatives. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University.
Herman, V., & Mendel, F. (1976). Parliaments of the world. London: Macmillan.
Hirschman, A. (1970). Exit, voice and loyalty. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Honig, M. I. (2004). Where is “up” in bottom-up reform? Educational Policy 18(4), 527-561.
Jansen, J. D. (1990). Curriculum policy as compensatory legitimation? A view form the periphery. Oxford Review of Education, 16(1), 10-29.
Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (1990). Democratic politics and policy analysis. Baltimore, MD: Brooks Publishing.
Jewell, M. E., & Patterson, S. C. (1977). The legislative process in the United States. New York: Random House.
Johannesson, I. A., Geirsdottir, G. & Finnbogason, G. E. (2002). Modern education sagas: Legitimation of idea and practice in Iceland education. Scandinavian Journal of Education Research, 46(3), 1-49.
Johnson, B.L. (1999). The politics of research-information use in the education policy arena. Education Policy, 13(1), 23-36.
Jones, C. O. (1973). Political science and state and local government. Washington D. C.: American Political Science Association.
Jones, C. O. (1977). An introduction to the study of public policy. Boston : Duxburg.
Jones, C. O. (1984). An introduction to the study of public policy. Monterey, CA: Books Cole.
Jordan, G. (2000). The process of government and the government process. Political studies, 48, 788-801.
Kingdon, J. W. (1995). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (2nd ed.). New York: Harper Collins College Publishers.
Kollman, K. (1998). Outside lobbying: Public opinion and interest group strategies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Kuklinski, J. H., & Elling, R. C. (1977). Representational role, constituency option and legislative roll-call behavior. American Journal of Political Science, 72, 165-177.
Kuklinski, J. H. (1979). Representativeness and elections: A policy analysis. American Political Science Review, 21, 135-147.
Lasswell, H., & Kaplan, A. (1950). Power and society. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Levi, M. (1990). Introduction: the limits of rationality. In M. Levi et al. (Ed.), The limits of rationality (pp.1-16). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Levin, B. (2004). Media-government relations in education. Journal of Educational Policy, 19(3), 271-284.
Levite, A., & Tarrow, S. (1983). The legitimation of excluded parties in dominant party system: A comparison of Israel and Italy. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 15(3), 295-327.
Lindblom, C. E. (1959). The science of “muddling through”. Public Administration Review, 19, 79-88.
Lindblom, C. E. (1968). The policy-making process. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Lindblom, C. E. (1979). Still mudding, not yet through. Public Administration Review, 39(6), 517-526.
Lindblom, C. E. (1994). Success through inattention in school administration and elsewhere. Educational Administration Quarterly, 30(2), 199-213.
Lowi, T. J. (1995). The end of the republican era. Norman, OK: The University of Oklahoma Press.
Magalhes, P. C. (2003).The limit to judicialization: Legislative politics and constitutional review in the Iberian democracies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University.
Mahoney, C. (2004). The power of institution: State and interest group activity in the European Union. European Union politics, 5(4), 441-466.
March, J. G., & Olson, J. P. (1989). Rediscovering institutions: The organizational basis of politics. New York: Free.
Mazzoni, T. M. (1991). Analyzing state school policymaking: An arena model. Educational evaluation and policy analysis, 13(2), 115-138.
McDaniel, J. E., Sims, C. A., & Miskel, C.G. (2001). The national reading policy arena: Policy actors and perceived influence. Educational policy, 15(1), 92-114.
McLendon, M. K. (2003). Setting the governmental agenda for state decentralization of higher education. The journal of higher education, 74( 5), 479-515.
Merelman, R. M. (1966). Learning and legitimacy. American political science review, 60, 553.
Meyer, K. (1980). Legislative influence: Toward theory development through causal analysis. Legislative studies quarterly, 5(4), 32-54.
Milbrath, L. (1963). The Washington lobbyists. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Mintrom, M., & Vergari, S. (1996). Advocacy coalitions, policy entrepreneurs, and policy change. Policy studies journal, 24, 420-434.
Mondak, J. J. (1994). Policy Legitimacy and the Supreme Court: The Sources and Contexts of legitimation. Political Research Quarterly, 47(3), 675-692.
Mundo, P. A. (1992). Interest groups: Cases and characteristics. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Nord, W. R. (1976). Concept and controversy in organization behavior. Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear Publisher.
Olson, M. (1971). The logic of collective action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Ordeshook, P. C. (1986). Game theory and political theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ornstei, N., & Elder, S. (1978). Interest groups, lobbying and policymaking. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly.
Peabody, R. L. et al. (1973). To enact a law. New York: Praeger.
Persianis, P. (1998). Compensatory legitimation in Greek educational policy: An explanation for the abortive educational reforms in Greece in comparison with those in France. Comparative Education, 34(1), 71-84.
Persianis, P. (2000). Conflict between centrality and localism and its impact on knowledge construction and legitimation in peripheral universities: The case of the University of Cyprus. Compare, 30(1), 35-51.
Pfeffer, J. (1992). Managing with power: Politics and influence in organizations. Boston: Harvard University Press.
Quade, E. S. (1989). Analysis for public decisions. New York: American Elsevier.
Quie, A. H. (1973). The U.S. House of representative and education legislation. Educational Research, 2(9), 11-17.
Quie, A. H. (1979). Albert H. Quie: Education policy legislation. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 1(4), 71-74.
Ranney, A. (1968). The study of policy content: A framework for choice. In R. Austin (Ed.), Political science and public policy (pp.3-22). Chicago: Markham.
Ranney, A. (1996). Governing: An introduction to political science. NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Rieselbach, L. N. (1973). Congressional politics. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Riker, W. (1962). The theory of political coalitions. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Rochford, F. (2003). Academic freedom as insubordination: The legalisation of the academy. Education and the Law, 15(4). New York: Routledge.
Rosenthal, A., & Fuhrman, S. (1981). Legislative education staff in the states. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 3(4), 5-16.
Sabatier, P. A. (1986). Top-down and bottom-up approaches to implementation research: A critical analysis and suggested synthesis. Journal of Public Policy, 6(1), 21-48.
Sabatier, P. A. (1999). Theories of the policy process. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Sancken, D. M., & Medina, M. J. (1990). Investigation the content of state-level policy formation: A case study of Arizona’s bilingual education legislation. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(4), 389-402.
Sato, H. (1999). The advocacy coalition framework: The policy process analysis. Policy Studies Journal, 27(1), 28-44.
Schattschneider, E. E. (1960). The semi-sovereign people: A realist's view of democracy in America. Hinsdale, IL: The Dryden.
Schlager, E. (1995). Policy making and collective action: Defining coalitions within the advocacy coalition framework. Policy Sciences, 28, 243-270.
Seidman, L. M. (2002). Democracy and legitimation: A response to professor Guinier. Loyola University Chicago Law, 34(1), 77-87.
Sharkansky, I. (1972). Public administration: Policy-marking in government agencies. Chicago: Markham.
Shoop, R. J., & Dunklee, D. R. (1992). School law for the principal: A handbook for practitioners. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Smith, R. A. (1995). Interest group influence in the U. S. congress. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 20(21), 89-159.
Smith, T. A. (1982). A phenomenology of the policy process. International Journal of Sociology , 23(1), 1-16.
Song. M., & Miskel, C. (2005). Who are the influentials? A cross-state social network analysis of the reading policy domain. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(1), 7-48.
Starling, G. (1988). Strategies for policy making. Chicago: The Dorsey.
Stewart, D. J. (1998). Legalisation of education: Implications for principals' professional knowledge. Journal of Educational Administration, 36 (2), 129-145.
Ston, D. (2000). Non-governmental policy transfer: The strategies of independent policy institutes. Governance: An international Journal of Policy and Administration, 13(1), 45–62.
Tacheron, D., & Udall, M. K. (1970). The job of the congressman. Indianapolis. IN: Bobbs-Merrill.
Tamanaha, B.Z. (1999). The view of Habermas from below: Doubts about the centrality of law and legitimation enterprise. Denver University Law Review, 76(4), 456-478.
Taylor, A. (2002). Informing education policy. Journal of Educational Policy, 17(1), 49-70.
Teichler, U. (1998, December). Current agendas and priorities in higher education policy research: An international view. Paper presented at National conference on the future of higher education policy and research. Canberra, Australia.
Thorpenberg, S. (2005). University policy and ideological shift: On reversed reification and norm system changes. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 3(1), 52-78.
Truman, D. B. (1971). The governmental process. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Wade, L. L. (1972). The elements of public policy. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Wahlke, J., Eulau, H., Buchanan, W., & Ferguson, L. C. (1962). The legislative system: Explorations in legislative behavior. New York: Wiley.
Weiler, H. N. (1983). Legalization, expertise, and participation: Strategies of compensatory legitimation in education. Comparative Education Review, 27(2), 259-277.
Weiler, H. N. (1988). The politics of reform and nonreform in French education. Comparative Education Review, 32(3), 251-261.
Yates, B. L. (2004). Media literacy and the policymaking process: A framework for understanding influences on potential educational policy outputs. Simile, 4(1), 257-289.
Zander, M. (1990). The law-making process. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
Zelditch, M. (2001). Process of legitimation: Recent development and new direction. Social Psychology Quarterly, 64(1), 4-17.