Michael Berkman

Legislative Professionalism and Incumbent Reelection: The Development of Institutional Boundaries

It is well established that legislators from highly professionalized bodies are more likely to win reelection than members of less professionalized legislatures. We find that the effect of professionalization on incumbent electoral success is far more pervasive. As the level of professionalism of a legislature increases, the effects of external political and economic forces (such as coattails from higher level elections and national economic conditions) on a legislators chances for reelection diminish in strength. This implies that legislative professionalization promotes institutionalization by establishing boundaries that insulate members from external shocks. We reach these conclusions by specifying and testing a district-level model of state legislative election outcomes, using as dependent variable the probability that an incumbent will win reelection. The model is estimated with probit using data for more than 42,000 state legislators from 1970 to 1989.

Do women legislators matter? Female legislators and state abortion policy.

This study evaluates the impact of women state legislators on state abortion policies. Two dimensions of state abortion policy were identified and it was found that women state legislators, once they reach a critical mass within the legislature, can affect state policies on regulations concerning parental notification of abortions, but not public funding. But women legislators, and especially women Democratic legislators, can affect state abortion policies in other ways that are less well understood. Through an analysis of post-Webster abortion bills it was found that women representatives secure committee assignments that allow them to block pro-life legislation. This is especially pronounced in states with few women legislators and states most likely (according to other studies) to support policies restricting choice.

Evolution and creationism in America's classrooms: a national portrait.

Despite many legal and legislative decisions, a new study shows that one in eight high school biology instructors teach their students that creationism or intelligent design is a valid alternative to evolutionary biology.

Defeating Creationism in the Courtroom, But Not in the Classroom

Sixty percent of U.S. high school biology teachers are not advocates for either evolutionary biology or nonscientific alternatives. Just over 5 years ago, the scientific community turned its attention to a courtroom in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Eleven parents sued their Dover, Pennsylvania, school board to overturn a policy explicitly legitimizing intelligent design creationism. The case, Kitzmiller v. Dover, followed a familiar script: Local citizens wanted their religious values validated by the science curriculum; prominent academics testified to the scientific consensus on evolution; and creationists lost decisively. Intelligent design was not science, held the court, but rather an effort to advance a religious view via public schools, a violation of the U.S. Constitutions Establishment Clause (1). Many scientists cheered the decision, agreeing with the court that the school board displayed “breathtaking inanity” [p. 765 (1)]. We suggest that the cheering was premature and the victory incomplete.

Do Governors Matter? Budgeting Rules and the Politics of State Policymaking:

Whether and how governors influence public policies in the U.S. is open to question. This research tests a model of gubernatorial influence on public policymaking in which gubernatorial power is conceived of the governor’s power over the budgetary process relative to that of the state legislature. We argue that governors with greater control over the budget process will use those powers to deliver a higher proportion of policies that confer benefits to statewide versus more localized constituencies. As governors’ electoral security increases, their willingness to support legislatively desired localized spending increases. Empirical results derived from pooled cross-sectional models largely support the models tested.

State Legislators as Congressional Candidates:The Effects of Prior Experience on Legislative Recruitment and Fundraising

Prior research on congressional recruitment establishes that “experi enced” or “quality” candidates compete more successfully for votes and money Little research, however, inquires into how type of prior experi ence affects strategic decisions on when to run or success once a race is undertaken. This research explores the impact of type of prior experi ence, focusing on state legislators who run for the U.S. House. We exam ine how experience affects decisions to run and money raised for all non incumbent general election House candidates between 1988 and 1994. We find that type of prior experience matters. In particular, state legisla tors, especially those serving in professionalized legislatures, are more risk averse in deciding when to run. They also raise more of their money from PACs, and even more as the density of their states interest group structure and professionalism of their legislature increases.

Scientific Expertise and the Culture War: Public Opinion and the Teaching of Evolution in the American States

The teaching of evolution in public schools has been a central element in the nations “culture wars” since the 1920s and remains a contentious issue today. Content standards for the teaching of biology have been flashpoints for conflict, with well publicized battles occurring in state governments, in federal courts, and in local school districts. We show that a full understanding of evolution politics at the state level must simultaneously account for three important features. First, cultural politics typically includes an important role for public opinion. Second, scientists and their professional organizations have actively sought a monopoly on defining what is and is not science by marginalizing their uncredentialled opponents and by erecting boundaries that buffer science policy from the influence of politics and public opinion. Third, in the American federal system courts rarely settle cultural issues but merely narrow the space within which politics can operate. In accounting for these features, we explain why court victories for science have had only limited impacts and provide a model for understanding other issues—such as sex education, stem cell research, and global warming—in which moral and ideological arguments may conflict with scientific consensus.

Enablers of Doubt How Future Teachers Learn to Negotiate the Evolution Wars in Their Classrooms

Evolution deniers do not need to establish their own scientific position but merely cast doubt on some aspect of evolution or obtain a small amount of legitimacy for creationism or intelligent design to sow sufficient doubt in the mainstream. This doubt is one of three pillars, along with demands for equal time and the incompatibility of science and religion, that Eugenie Scott has argued define contemporary anti-evolution efforts. High school biology teachers play a crucial role in whether a high school biology course reinforces the scientific consensus or whether it confers legitimacy on creationist perspectives with pedagogical strategies consistent with the three pillars. As we have shown elsewhere, many public school teachers do contribute to public opinion on evolution. But where do these norms come from? This article begins to answer this question, using data from our 2007 National Survey of High School Biology Teachers and new data from a series of focus groups with preservice teachers. We find that, as early as in the preservice college years, teachers develop attitudes and pedagogical coping mechanisms that lead to support for the anti-evolution movement.

Evolution, Creationism, and the Battle to Control America's Classrooms: Teachers and What They Teach

Who should decide what children are taught in school? This question lies at the heart of the evolution–creation wars that have become a regular feature of the U.S. political landscape. Michael Berkman and Eric Plutzer show that, since the 1925 Scopes “monkey trial,” many have argued that the people should decide by majority rule and through political institutions; others variously point to the federal courts, educational experts, or scientists as the ideal arbiters. Berkman and Plutzer illuminate who really controls the nation’s classrooms. Based on their innovative survey of 926 high school biology teachers, they show that the real power often lies with individual educators who make critical decisions in their own classrooms. Broad teacher discretion sometimes leads to excellent instruction in evolution. But the authors also find evidence of strong creationist tendencies in America’s public high schools and, more generally, a systematic undermining of science and the scientific method in many classrooms.

Teachers in Their Schools and Communities

There are worse things taught in our schools, and I will continue to support local control of education. New Hampshire Governor Stephen Merrill (1995) In the previous chapter, we showed how the individual characteristics of teachers help explain their varied approaches to teaching evolution and why some teachers are willing to cross the constitutional line by treating creationism as a scientific alternative to evolutionary biology. To a large extent, the analyses suggest that the type of learning opportunities afforded to each of the nations public school students is a chance event, based almost entirely on the particular teacher they encounter in their general biology class. But such an interpretation would not tell the entire story. And that is because teachers are not randomly distributed across classrooms, nor are they as immune to community influences as they are to state content standards. In this sense, it is again useful to think of teachers as street-level bureaucrats who are entrusted to implement state policy while also being afforded substantial autonomy commensurate with their positions as credentialed professionals. In Chapter 6, we assessed the extent to which teachers are responsive to state standards – official policies that are crafted by state policy makers. These policy makers include those directly elected by the people, as well as political appointees and civil servants who will reflect various degrees of responsiveness to public opinion. In this chapter, we shift our focus from this top–down conception of democratic control to a bottom–up model (Meier and O’Toole 2006) and assess their responsiveness to the communities they serve.