The expansion of federal power and the politics of implementing the no child left behind act

Teachers College Record

Volumn 109, Issue 5, 2007, Pages 1057-1085

  Sunderman, Gail L ^a   Kim, James S ^b  

^a HARVARD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 35649019881     PISSN: 01614681     EISSN: 14679620     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Adkins, L. T. (2003, October 1). Federal act sends dozens more students to Kenwood. Hyde Park Herald, 1-2.
2. Amrein, A. L., & Berliner, D. C. (2002). High-stakes testing, uncertainty, and student learning. Retrieved August 22, 2003, from Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(18) http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n18/
3. Boehner, J. (2003). Education funding: Resources for reform, fact sheet. Committee on Education and the Workforce. Retrieved February 29, 2003, from http://edworkforce.house.gov/ issues/108th/education/funding/summary. htm
4. Boyd, D. (2003). The current state fiscal crisis and its aftermath. Albany, NY: The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government.
5. Bush, G. W. (2003, January 8). President Bush celebrates first anniversary of No Child Left Behind. Remarks by the President on the first anniversary of the No Child Left Behind Act. Retrieved March 23, 2003, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/ 2003/01/20030108-4.html
6. Cibulka, J. G. (1996). The reform and survival of American public school: An institutional perspective. Washington, DC: The Falmer Press.
7. Connecticut State Department of Education. (2005, March 2). Cost of implementing the federal No Child Left Behind Act in Connecticut: State-level costs part I. Hartford, CT: Author.
8. Driscoll, W., & Fleeter, H. (2003). Projected costs of implementing the federal "No Child Left Behind Act" in Ohio. Columbus, Ohio: Levin, Driscoll & Fleeter.
9. Duncan, A. (2003). Neighborhood schools for all of Chicago: Remarks of CPS CEO Arne Duncan, City Club of Chicago, August 28, 2003. Retrieved September 8, 2003, from www.cps.k12.il.us/AboutCPS/PressReleases/August_2003/ DuncanRemarks_8_28.html
10. General Accounting Office. (2002). Title I: Education needs to monitor state's scoring of assessments. Washington, DC: Author.
11. General Accounting Office. (2003a). No Child Left Behind Act: More information would help states determine which teachers are highly qualified. Washington D.C: Author.
12. General Accounting Office. (2003b). Title I: Characteristics of tests will influence expenses; information sharing may help states realize efficiencies. Washington, DC: Author.
13. Gewertz, C., & Reid, K S. (2003). Hard choices: City districts making cuts. Education Week, 22(21), 1, 14.
14. Godwin, K., & Sheard, W. (2001). Education reform and the politics of 2000. The Journal of Federalism, 31, 111-129.
15. Helderman, R. S. (2003, September 12). Schools in VA fail federal standards, no area district satisfies new law. The Washington Post, p. B1.
16. Henriques, D. B. (2003, September 2). Rising demands for testing push limits of its accuracy. New York Times, p. 1.
17. Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
18. Imazeki, J. & Reschovsky, A. (2004). Is No Child Left Behind an un (or under) funded federal mandate? Evidence from Texas. National Tax Journal, 57, 571-88.
19. Jorgensen, M. (2002, January 1). Can the testing industry meet growing demand? Issues in Science & Technology, 19.
20. Kaestle, C. F., & Smith, M. S. (1982). The federal role in elementary and secondary education, 1940-1980. Harvard Educational Review, 52(4), 384-408.
21. Kingdon, J. W. (1995). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (2nd ed.). New York: Harper Collins.
22. Knapp, M. S., Stearns, M. S., Turnbull, B. J., David, J. L., & Peterson, S. M. (1991). Cumulative effects of federal education policies at the local level. In A. R. Odden (Ed.), Education policy implementation (pp. 105-124). New York: State University of New York Press.
23. Loveless, T. (1999). The tracking wars: State reform meets school policy. Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.
24. Manna, P. (2003). Federalism, agenda setting and the development of federal education policy, 1965-2001. University of Wisconsin-Madison.
25. Mathis, W.J. (2003, May). No Child Left Behind: Costs and benefits. Phi Delta Kappan, 84, 679-686.
26. Michelau, D. E., & Shreve, D. (2002). Education reform from the top down. State Legislatures, 21-25.
27. Miller, G., & Kennedy, E. M. (2003, January 8). Letter to Roderick Paige, Secretary, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://edworkforce.house.gov/democrats/ rel1803.html
28. Murphy, J. T. (1971). Title I of ESEA: The politics of implementing federal education reform. Harvard Educational Review, 41, 35-63.
29. Nathan, R. P., Gais, T. L., & Fossett, J. W. (2003, November 7). Bush federalism: Is there one, what is it, and how does it differ? Paper presented at the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management, Washington, DC.
30. National Association of State Budget Officers. (2003). 2002 state expenditure report. Washington, DC: Author.
31. National Conference of State Legislatures. (2003a). Education-related legislative tracking database. Retrieved October 1, 2003, from http://www.ncsl.org/programs/educ/ educ_leg.cfm
32. National Conference of State Legislatures. (2003b). State budget and tax actions 2003: Preliminary report, executive summary. Washington, DC: Author.
33. National Conference of State Legislatures. (2005). No Child Left Behind Quick Facts 2004-2005. Retrieved 11-1-05 from http://www.ncsl.org/programs/educ/ NCLB2005LegActivity.htm
34. National Governors Association. (2003, Winter Meeting). A responsive federal-state partnership, Washington, DC.
35. National Governors Association & National Association of State Budget Officers. (2003). The fiscal survey of states. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved on 10-8-03 from http://www.nga.org/nga/legislativeUpdate/1,1169, C_POLICY_POSITIONAD_5106,00.htm
36. New Hampshire School Administrators Association. (2002, November 26). Memo regarding analysis of cost impact of ESEA (No Child Left Behind Act) on New Hampshire. Penacook, NH: Author.
37. Odden, A. (Ed.). (1991). Education policy implementation. New York: State University of New York Press.
38. Office of the Legislative Auditor. (2004). Evaluation report: No Child Left Behind. St. Paul, MN: Office of the Legislative Auditor, State of Minnesota, Program Evaluation Division.
39. Ohlemacher, S., & Okoben, J. (2003, March 6). Education hit hard by Taft's budget cuts. The Plain Dealer, p.l. Paige, R. (2002, October 22). Letter to the Chief State School Officers regarding implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act. Retrieved December 1, 2002, from http://www.ed.gov/ News/Letters/021022.html
40. 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, CO: Augenblick, Palaich and Associates, Inc.
41. Peterson, P. E., Rabe, B. G., & Wong, K K (1986). When federalism works. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
42. Rees, N. (2003, October 8). Public school choice, letter to the editor. New York Times p. 30.
43. Sunderman, G., & Kim, J. (2004). Inspiring vision, disappointing results: Four studies on implementing the No Child Left Behind Act. Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University.
44. Sunderman, G. L. & Orfield, G. (2006). Domesticating a revolution: No Child Left Behind and state administrative response. Harvard Educationl Review, 76 (4), 526-556.
45. 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.
46. Title I Report (January 2002). A detailed outline of provisions in H.R. 1 that make significant changes in Title I and related programs. Available at http://titlei.com/ishindex/jan02.htm
47. Virginia Board of Education. (2003, June 9). Virginia's accountability system and "No Child Left Behind. " Richmond, VA: Virginia Board of Education.
48. Virginia Department of Education. (2005, September 21). 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.
49. Winerip, M. (2003, October 1). In "No Child Left Behind," a problem with the math. New York Times, p. 21.