Matching Items (5)
Filtering by
- All Subjects: public policy
- Creators: Herrera, Richard
Description
The GI Bill has an extensive history dating back to 1944. There have been different versions over the years, the most recent being the Post-9/11 GI Bill. Theory would suggest that the education incentives that go along with the bill would cause veterans to go back to school. However, this study explores other factors that may influence the decision-making process. Using a sample of 25 undergraduate student veterans from Arizona State University, this study explores the outside factors that may affect the decision to return to school post-military.
ContributorsMosqueira, Nicole Marie (Author) / Herrera, Richard (Thesis director) / Von Hagen, Mark (Committee member) / Grant, Gisela (Committee member) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor) / Department of Psychology (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2016-05
Description
The aim of this study is to analyze the impact Arizona legislation has had on STEM education access, specifically for Latino students. Using socio-ecological systems theory, this study explores the relation between the macro and exo-systemic context of education legislation and the micro-systemic context of being a STEM undergraduate at a state university. In order to understand how STEM education is affected, legislation was analyzed through the Arizona Legislative Database. Additionally, current STEM undergraduates were interviewed in order to discover the factors that made them successful in their majors. Data from the interviews would demonstrate the influence of the Arizona legislation macro and exo-systems on the microsystemic portion of Latinos and their access to STEM education. A total of 24 students were interviewed as part of this study. Their responses shed light on the complexities of STEM education access and the importance of mentorship for success in STEM. The overall conclusion is that more efforts need to be made before STEM education is readily available to many, but the most effective way to achieve this is through mentorship.
ContributorsHernandez-Gonzalez, Rosalia (Author) / Herrera, Richard (Thesis director) / Casanova, Saskias (Committee member) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor) / School of Life Sciences (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2017-05
Description
Campaign finance regulation has drastically changed since the founding of the Republic. Originally, few laws regulated how much could be contributed to political campaigns and who could make contributions. One by one, Congress passed laws to limit the possibility of corruption, for example by banning the solicitation of federal workers and banning contributions from corporations. As the United States moved into the 20th Century, regulations became more robust with more accountability. The modern structure of campaign finance regulation was established in the 1970's with legislation like the Federal Election Campaign Act and with Supreme Court rulings like in Buckley v. Valeo. Since then, the Court has moved increasingly to strike down campaign finance laws they see as limiting to First Amendment free speech. However, Arizona is one of a handful of states that established a system of publicly financed campaigns at the state-wide and legislative level. Passed in 1998, Proposition 200 attempted to limit the influence of money politics. For my research I hypothesized that a public financing system like the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission (CCEC) would lead to Democrats running with public funds more than Republicans, women running clean more than men, and rural candidates running clean more than urban ones, and that Democrats, women, and rural candidates would win in higher proportions than than if they ran a traditional campaign. After compiling data from the CCEC and the National Institute on Money in State Politics, I found that Democrats do run with public funds in statistically higher proportions than Republicans, but when they do they lose in higher proportions than Democrats who run traditionally. Female candidates only ran at a statistically higher proportion from 2002 to 2008, after which the difference was not statistically significant. For all year ranges women who ran with public money lost in higher proportions than women who ran traditionally. Similarly, rural candidates only ran at a statistically higher proportion from 2002 to 2008. However, they only lost at higher proportions from 2002 to 2008 instead of the whole range like with women and Democratic candidates.
ContributorsMarshall, Austin Tyler (Author) / Herrera, Richard (Thesis director) / Jones, Ruth (Committee member) / Economics Program in CLAS (Contributor) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2016-12
Description
The American courts have become increasingly central to many important political debates. The marriage equality debate, the boundaries between religious freedom and society, the death penalty, eminent domain and many other contemporary issues that have direct effects on the lives of all Americans continue to play out in the court systems. While Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 82 sees the federal and state courts as complementary, this research sees these courts as often-rival political venues that political interests make strategic choices about taking legal actions in.
Prior research finds that political interests turn to the state courts for two reasons: The structure of law creates a legal incentive and the political interests have access to state level resources, e.g. attorneys skilled in the laws of a state. Yet, there appear to be important gaps in existing theory. A distinction between state and national political interests is seemingly important. State political interests are embedded within their state political communities; consequently these interests should have strong attachments with their respective state courts. Also, state political interests can be expected to select courts on the basis of political ideology and state judicial selection methods. Prior research has shown the connection between these factors and judicial decision-making, but not interest group participation.
To examine these areas of uncertainty, this research collected more than 3500 observations of the participation of political interests in the American courts. Two legal areas were selected: eminent domain and marriage equality. Ultimately, this study finds that state political interests develop strong attachments to their respective state courts and are more likely to enter into the state courts than their nationally-oriented counterparts. This research also finds that judicial ideology and state judicial selection both influence the decision to enter into the state courts. This shows a relationship between these factors and the decision to enter into the state courts. It also suggests that these factors not only affect the choices that judges make, but other actors as well, including political interests.
Prior research finds that political interests turn to the state courts for two reasons: The structure of law creates a legal incentive and the political interests have access to state level resources, e.g. attorneys skilled in the laws of a state. Yet, there appear to be important gaps in existing theory. A distinction between state and national political interests is seemingly important. State political interests are embedded within their state political communities; consequently these interests should have strong attachments with their respective state courts. Also, state political interests can be expected to select courts on the basis of political ideology and state judicial selection methods. Prior research has shown the connection between these factors and judicial decision-making, but not interest group participation.
To examine these areas of uncertainty, this research collected more than 3500 observations of the participation of political interests in the American courts. Two legal areas were selected: eminent domain and marriage equality. Ultimately, this study finds that state political interests develop strong attachments to their respective state courts and are more likely to enter into the state courts than their nationally-oriented counterparts. This research also finds that judicial ideology and state judicial selection both influence the decision to enter into the state courts. This shows a relationship between these factors and the decision to enter into the state courts. It also suggests that these factors not only affect the choices that judges make, but other actors as well, including political interests.
ContributorsLohse, Paul Bryan (Author) / Lewis, Paul B (Thesis advisor) / Herrera, Richard (Committee member) / Hoekstra, Valerie (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2017
Description
Presidents exercise influence over policy discussion and options in America by the frequency and language they use to describe the current conditions, the perceived problems, and the solutions. The ability for presidents to articulate problems and solutions assumes an underlying purpose exists. This study examines how presidents frame the policy discussion for education in America and how they describe the purpose of education in the public record: the benefit of education is for society (common good), or the benefit it to the student (private good). Then the study examines the extent to which those frames stay consistent or are variable within and between administrations. The study utilizes presidential issue framing and agenda-setting to examine historical documents in the Public Papers of the President archive to determine the articulated purpose using the framework proposed by David Labaree. This study focuses on three administrations of the most recent period of federalism in education policy in America, starting with Bill Clinton and ending with Barack Obama. The study found that President William Clinton used the purposes of Social Mobility and Social Efficiency most frequently, President George W. Bush used Social Efficiency – Public Good and Social Efficiency – Private Good most, and President Barack Obama used Social Efficiency – Public Good more than all other frames. All three presidents maintained relatively consistent use of their prominent frames throughout their administrations with some indication that slight shifts may occur. All three presidents had low utilization of the frame Democratic Equality, and all used the combined frame Social Efficiency the most. Some variation between the utilization of the second-level codes of Private Good and Public Good do exist between administrations. The prominence of the combined frame Social Efficiency across administrations may suggest a more crystalized definition for the purpose of K-12 education in America.
ContributorsBryant, Aaron C (Author) / Dorn, Sherman (Thesis advisor) / Herrera, Richard (Thesis advisor) / Judson, Eugene (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2023