Domesticating a revolution: No child left behind reforms and state administrative response

Harvard Educational Review

Volumn 76, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 526-556

  Sunderman, Gail L ^a   Orfield, Gary ^a  

^a HARVARD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33947239485     PISSN: 00178055     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.17763/haer.76.4.973012q682h313v0     Document Type: Review

References (57)

1. Arizona State Board of Education. (2004). Minutes. Retrieved August 31, 2005, from http://www.ade.state.az.us/stateboard/minutes/default.asp
2. Arizona State Legislature, Joint Legislative Budget Committee (2004). Fiscal year 2005 appropriations report. Retrieved March 14, 2005, from http://www.azleg.state.az.us/jlbc/05app/adegs.pdf
3. Arizona State Legislature, Joint Legislative Budget Committee (2005). Fiscal year 2006 appropriations report. Retrieved August 30, 2005, from http://www.azleg.state.az.us/jlbc/06app/adegs.pdf
4. Blagojevich, R. R. (2004). Governor Rod R. Blagojevich state of the state address January 15, 2004. Retrieved June 19, 2004, from http://wwwdeva.illinois.gov/gov/includes/contentsosspeech2004.cfm
5. Boser, U. (2001, January 11). Pressure without support. Education Week, pp. 68-84.
6. Boyd, D. (2003). The current state fiscal crisis and its aftermath. Albany: Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government.
7. Center on Education Policy. (2005a). From the capital to the classroom: Year 3 of the No Child Left Behind Act. Washington, DC: Author.
8. Center on Education Policy. (2005b). Title I funds: Who's gaining and who's losing - school year 2005-06 update. Washington, DC: Author.
9. Center on Education Policy. (2006). A shell game: Federal funds to improve schools. Washington, DC: Author.
10. Connecticut State Department of Education. (2005a). Cost of implementing the federal No Child Left Behind Act in Connecticut: State-level costs, part I. Hartford: Author.
11. Connecticut State Department of Education. (2005b). Cost of implementing the federal No Child Left Behind Act in Connecticut: Local-level costs, part II. Hartford: Author.
12. Darling-Hammond, L., & Marks, E. L. (1983). The new federalism in education: State responses to the 1981 Education Consolidation and Improvement Act. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
13. DeBray, E. (2005). Politics, ideology, and Congress: The formation of federal education policy during the Clinton and Bush administrations. New York: Teachers College Press.
14. Driscoll, W., & Fleeter, H. (2003). Projected costs of implementing the federal No Child Left Behind Act in Ohio. Columbus: Levin, Driscoll, & Fleeter.
15. Education Commission of the States. (2004). State takeovers and reconstitutions. Retrieved March 28, 2006, from http://ecs.org/ clearinghouse/51/67/5167.htm
16. Education Commission of the States. (2006). Accountability - Sanctions: Takeovers. Retrieved March 27, 2006, from http://www.ecs.org/ html/issue.asp?issueid=222&subIssueID=158
17. Elmore, R. F., & Fuhrman, S. H. (1995). Opportunity-to-learn standards and the state role in education. Teachers College Record, 96, 432-457.
18. General Accounting Office. (2002). Title I: Education needs to monitor states' scoring of assessments (No. GAO-02-393). Washington, DC: Author.
19. General Accounting Office. (2003). Title I: Characteristics of tests will influence expenses; information sharing may help states realize efficiencies. (No. GAO-03-389). Washington, DC: Author.
20. Government Accountability Office. (2004). No Child Left Behind: Improvements needed in education's process for tracking states' implementation of key provisions (No. GAO-04-734). Washington, DC: Author.
21. Hunter, R. C. (1997). The mayor versus the school superintendent: Political incursions into metropolitan school politics. Education and Urban Society, 29, 217-232.
22. Illinois State Board of Education. (2003). State superintendent announces agency budget cuts. Retrieved September 9, 2003, from http://www.isbe.state.il.us/news/2003/june19-03.htm
23. Illinois State Board of Education. (2005). Proposed FY 2006 budget. Retrieved April 29, 2005, from http://www.isbe.net/budget/FY06/ 06_Budget_Book.pdf
24. Imazeki, J., & Reschovsky, A. (2004). Is No Child Left Behind an un (or under) funded federal mandate? Evidence from Texas. National Tax Journal, 57, 571-588.
25. Kennedy, K. (2006, February 2). Spellings urges states to streamline data on education. St. Petersburg Times Online.
26. Lee, J. (2006). Tracking achievement gaps and assessing the impact of NCLB on the gaps: An in-depth look into national and state reading and math outcome trends. Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University.
27. Mathews, J. (2000, September 18). State to end takeover of Compton schools. Los Angeles Times.
28. McDermott, K. A. (2004). Incentives, capacity, and implementation: Evidence from Massachusetts education reform. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16, 45-65.
29. Meyer, J. W., Scott, W. R., Strang, D., & Creighton, A. L. (1994). Bureaucratization without centralization: Changes in the organizational system of U.S. public education, 1940-1980. In W. R. Scott & J. W. Meyer (Eds.), Institutional environments and organizations: Structural complexity and individualism (pp. 179-205). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
30. Mintrop, H., & Trujillo, T. (2005). Corrective action in low-performing schools: Lessons for NCLB implementation from first-generation accountability systems. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(48). Retrieved December 3, 2005, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v13n48/
31. National Conference of State Legislatures. (2003). Education-related legislative tracking data-base. Retrieved October 1, 2003, from http://www.ncsl.org/programs/educ/educ_leg.cfm
32. National Governors Association & National Association of State Budget Officers. (2004). The fiscal survey of states. Retrieved March 8, 2006, from http://nasbo.org/publications.php
33. New York State Education Department Office of Human Resources Management. (2004). 1999-2004 state education department workforce study. Albany: Author.
34. O'Day, J., & Bitter, C. (2003). Evaluation study of the Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program and the High Achieving/Improving Schools Program of the Public Schools Accountability Act of 1999. Sacramento: American Institutes of Research.
35. Office of the Legislative Auditor. (2004). Evaluation report: No Child Left Behind. St. Paul: State of Minnesota, Program Evaluation Division.
36. Ohlemacher, S., & Okoben, J. (2003, March 6). Education hit hard by Taft's budget cuts. The Plain Dealer. Retrieved from http://www. cleveland.com/printer.ssf?base/news/1046959953211550.xml
37. Orfield, G. (1969). The reconstruction of Southern education: The schools and the 1964 Civil Rights Act. New York: Wiley-Interscience.
38. Otlofshy, G. F., & Olson, L. (2001, January 11). The state of the states. Education Week, pp. 86-106.
39. Palaich, R., Augenblick, J., Silverstein, J., & Brown, A. R. (2005, May). The cost of fulfilling the approved procedural requirements of NCLB in New Mexico. Denver: Augenblick, Palaich, and Associates.
40. Patterson, J., & Alter, J. (2005, July). NCLB costs in Minnesota. St. Paul: State of Minnesota Office of the Legislative Auditor.
41. Peterson, P. E., Rabe, B. G., & Wong, K. K. (1986). When federalism works. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
42. Ripley, R. B., & Franklin, G. A. (1991). Congress, the bureaucracy, and public policy (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
43. Rowan, B. (1990). Commitment and control: Alternative strategies for the organizational design of schools. Review of Educational Research, 16, 353-389.
44. Spellings, M. (2005, April 7). Raising achievement: A new path for No Child Left Behind; prepared remarks for Secretary Spellings at Mount Vernon, VA. Retrieved April 7, 2005, from http://www.ed.gov/print/news/speeches/ 2005/04/04072005.html
45. Strauss, V., & Loeb, V. (1998, March 27). A general's strategy backfires. The Washington Post, p. B1.
46. Sunderman, G. L. (2006). The unraveling of No Child Left Behind: How negotiated changes transform the law. Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University.
47. Sunderman, G. L., & Kim, J. (2006). The expansion of federal power and the politics of implementing the No Child Left Behind Act. Teachers College Record, 108, 2609-2635.
48. Tyack, D., & Hansot, E. (1982). Managers of virtue: Public school leadership in America, 1820-1980. New York: Basic Books.
49. U.S. Census Bureau. (2006). Statistical abstract of the United Slates. Washington, DC: Author.
50. U.S. Department of Education. (2005). Statewide longitudinal data system grants. Retrieved March 28, 2006, from http://www.ed.gov/programs/ slds/applicant.html
51. U.S. Department of Education. (2006a). Budget History Table: FY 1980-present. Retrieved February 27, 2006, from http://www.ed.gov/about/ overview/budget/history/ed-history.pdf
52. U.S. Department of Education. (2006b). Fiscal year 2001-2007 state tables for the U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved February 24, 2006, from http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/statetables/index.html
53. U.S. Department of Education. (2006c). NCLB policy letters to states. Retrieved March 22, 2006, from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/ stateletters/index.html
54. Virginia Department of Education. (2005). Report to the governor and general assembly on the costs of the federal No Child Left Behind Act to the Virginia department of education. Richmond, VA: Author.
55. Weizel, R. (1997, April 16). Hartford public schools face state takeover. The Boston Globe, p. C16.
56. Wirt, F. M., & Kirst, M. W. (1982). The politics of education: Schools in conflict. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
57. Wyatt, E. (2000, July 13). Little improvement despite an overhaul, L. I. school district is at a crossroads. The New York Times, p. B1.