Chapter 7: Evidence of the impact of school reform on systems governance and educational bureaucracies in the united states

Review of Research in Education

Volumn 34, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 226-253

  Sunderman, Gail L ^a  

^a GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77952573149     PISSN: 0091732X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3102/0091732X09349796     Document Type: Article

References (130)

1. All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, Pub. L. 95-561, Nov. 29, 1975, 89 Stat. 773 (1975).
2. Ball, S.J. (2008). The education debate. Bristol, UK: Policy.
3. Barr, R., & Dreeben, R. (1983). How schools work. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
4. Berry, C. (2007). The impact of school finance judgements on state fiscal policy. In M. R. West & P. E. Peterson (Eds.), School money trials: The legal pursuit of educational adequacy (pp. 213-240). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
5. Bidwell, C.E. (1965). The school as formal organization. In J. G. March (Ed.), Handbook of organizations (pp. 972-1022). Chicago: Rand McNally.
6. Boger, J.C., & Orfield, G. (2005). School resegregation: Must the South turn back? Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
7. Boser, U. (2001). Pressure without support. Education Week, 20, 68-84.
8. Bracey, G.W. (2002). The war against America's public school: Privatizing schools, commericializing education. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
9. Burch, P. (2006). The new educational privatization: Educational contracting and high stakes accountability Teachers College Record, 108(12), 2582-2610.
10. Burch, P. (2009). Hidden markets: The new education privatization. New York: Routledge/ Taylor and Francis.
11. Burch, P., Steinberg, M., & Donovan, J. (2007). Supplemental educational services and NCLB: Policy assumptions, market practices, emerging issues. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 29(2), 115-133.
12. Carl, J. (2009). "Good politics is good government": The troubling history of mayoral control of public schools in twentieth-century Chicago. American Journal of Education, 115(2), 305-336.
13. Carson, R. (1962). Silent spring. Greenwich, CT: Fawcett.
14. Center for Research on Education Outcomes. (2009). Multiple choice: Charter school performance in 16 states. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
15. Center on Education Policy. (2007). Educational architects: Do state educatoin agencies have the tools necessary to implement NCLB? Washington, DC: Author.
16. Chemerinsky, E. (2005). The segregation and resegregation of American public education: The court's role. In J. C. Boger & G. Orfield (Eds.), School resegregation: Must the South turn back? (pp. 29-47). Chapel Hill: University of North Caroline Press.
17. Chicago Public Schools. (2007). SES tutoring programs: An evaluation of Year 3 in the Chicago Public Schools. Chicago: Author.
18. Chubb, J.E. & Moe, T.M. (1990). Politics, markets, and America's schools. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
19. Cibulka, J.G. (1996). The reform and survival of American public school: An institutional perspective. Washington, DC: Falmer.
20. Cibulka, J.G. (2001). The changing role of interest groups in education: Nationalization and the new politics of education productivity. Educational Policy, 15(1), 12-40.
21. Coons, J.E. & Sugarman, S.D. (1978). Education by choice: The case for family control. Berkeley: University of California Press.
22. Council of Economic Advisors. (1964). The annual report of the Council of Economic Advisors. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
23. Crenson, M.A. & Ginsberg, B. (2002). Downsizing democracy: How America sidelined its citizens and privatized its public. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
24. Cuban, L. & Shipps, D. (2000). Reconstructing the common good in education: Coping with the intractable American dilemmas. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
25. 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.
26. DeBray, E.H. (2006). Politics, ideology, and Congress: The formation of federal education policy during the Clinton and Bush administrations. New York: Teachers College Press.
27. DeBray-Pelot, E. (2007). Dismantling education's "iron triangle": Institutional relationships in the formation of federal education policy between 1998 and 2001. In C. F. Kaestle & A. Lodewick (Eds.), To educate a nation: Federal and national strategies of school reform (pp. 64-89). Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
28. Dreeben, R. (Ed.). (1996). The occupation of teaching and educational reform (Vol. 2). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
29. Education Consolidation and Improvement Act of 1981, 20 U.S.C. § 3801 et seq. (1981).
30. Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 6651 (1965).
31. Elmore, R.F. & Fuhrman, S.H. (1995). Opportunity-to-learn standards and the state role in education. Teachers College Record, 96(3), 432-457.
32. ESEA, Title VII-Bilingual Education, Language Enhancement, and Language Acquisition Programs (Bilingual Education Act), 20 U.S.C. § 7101 (1968).
33. Feingold, R.D. (2007, February 15). Feingold part of Senate coalition calling for improvements to NCLB testing mandates. Retrieved March 26, 2007, from http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/releases/07/02/20070215nclb.html.
34. Fiske, E.B. & Ladd, H.F. (2000). When schools compete: A cautionary tale. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
35. Frankenberg, E. (2008). School segregation, desegregation, and integration: What do these terms mean in a post-Parents Involved in Community Schools, racially transitioning society? Seattle Journal for Social Justice, 6(2), 533-590.
36. Friedman, M. (1955). The role of government in education. In R. A. Solo (Ed.), Economics and the public interest (pp. 123-144). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
37. General Accounting Office. (2002). Title I: Education needs to monitor states' scoring of assessments (No. GAO-02-393). Washington, DC: Author.
38. Glenn, C.L. (2007). Common problems, different solutions. Peabody Journal of Education, 82(2), 530-548.
39. Gordon, L. (Ed.). (2008). Where does the power lie now? Devoluion, choice, and democracy in schooling. Albany: State University of New York Press.
40. Gray, V. (1973). Innovation in the states: A diffusion study. American Political Science Review, 67(4), 1174-1185.
41. Hannushek, E. (1994). Making schools work. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
42. Harrington, M. (1962). The other America. New York: Macmillan.
43. Hedges, L.V. & Greenwald, R. (1996). Have times changed? The relation between school resources and student performance. In G. Burtless (Ed.), Does money matter? (pp. 74-92). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
44. Hedges, L.V. Laine, R.D. & Greenwald, R. (1994). Does money matter? A meta-analysis of studies of the effects of differential school inputs on student outcomes. Educational Researcher, 23, 5-14.
45. Heinrich, C.J. Meyer, R.H. & Whitten, G. (2008, March). Supplemental educational services under No Child Left Behind: Who signs up, and what do they gain? Paper presented at the American Education Research Association, New York.
46. Heistad, D. (2006). Analysis of 2005 supplemental educational services in Minneapolis Public Schools: An application of matched sample statistical design. Minneapolis, MN: Minneapolis Public Schools; Research, Evaluation, and Assessment Department.
47. Henig, J.R. (1994). Rethinking school choice: Limits of the market metaphor. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
48. Henig, J.R. (2004). Washington D.C.: Race, issue definition, and school board restructuring. In J. R. Henig & W. C. Rich (Eds.), Mayors in the middle: Politics, race, and mayoral control of urban schools (pp. 191-218). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
49. Henig, J.R. (2007). The political economy of supplemental educational services. In F. M. Hess & C. E. Finn Jr. (Eds.), No remedy left behind: Lessons from a half-decade of NCLB (pp. 66-95). Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute.
50. Henig, J.R. & Rich, W.C. (2004). Mayors in the middle: Politics, race, and mayoral control of urban schools. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
51. Hess, F.M. (2002). Revolution at the margins: The impact of competition on urban school systems. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
52. Hill, P.T. Pierce, J. Lawrence, C. & Guthrie, J.W. (1997). Reinventing public education: How contracting can transform America's schools. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
53. Hochschild, J. & Scovronick, N. (2003). The American dream and the public schools. New York: Oxford University Press.
54. Improving America's Schools Act of 1994, 20 U.S.C. § 8902 (1994).
55. Jeffrey, J.R. (1978). Education for children of the poor: A study of the origins and implementation of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.
56. Johnston, P. Allington, R. & Walker, D. (1985). Curriculum confluence in classroom and clinic. Elementary School Journal, 85, 465-477.
57. Kaestle, C.F. & Smith, M.S. (1982). The federal role in elementary and secondary education, 1940-1980. Harvard Educational Review, 52(4), 384-408.
58. Kantor, H. (1991). Education, social reform, and the state: ESEA and federal education policy in the 1960s. American Journal of Education, 100(1), 47-83.
59. Kirst, M. (1988). The federal role and Chapter 1: Rethinking some basic assumptions. In D. Doyle & C. Cooper (Eds.), Federal aid to the disadvantaged: What future for Chapter 1? (pp. 97-115). London: Falmer.
60. Kirst, M. & Jung, R. (1982). The utility of a longitudinal approach in assessing implementation: A thirteen-year review of Title I, ESEA. In W. Williams, R. F. Elmore, J. S. Hall, R. Jung, M. Kirst, S. A. MacManus, B. J. Narver, R. P. Nathan & R. K. Yin (Eds.), Studying implementation: Methodological and administrative issues (pp. 119-148). Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.
61. 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.
62. Ladd, H.F. & Fiske, E.B. (2003). Does competition improve teaching and learning? Evidence from New Zealand. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(1), 97-112.
63. Lee, J. (2007). The testing gap: Scientific trials of test-driven school accountability systems for excellence and equity. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
64. Levin, H.M. (1982). Federal grants and educational equity. Harvard Educational Review, 52(4), 444-460.
65. Lipman, P. (2004). High stakes education: Inequiality, globalization, and urban school reform. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
66. Liu, G. (2006). Interstate inequality in educational opportunity. New York University Law Review, 81, 2044-2128.
67. Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
68. Losen, D.J. & Welner, K.G. (2002). Legal challenges to inappropriate and inadequate special education for minority children. In D. J. Losen & G. Orfield (Eds.), Racial inequity in special education (pp. 167-194). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
69. Lowi, T.J. (1984). Ronald Reagan: Revolutionary? In L. M. Salamon & M. S. Lund (Eds.), The Reagan presidency and the governing of America (pp. 29-56). Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
70. Lucas, S.R. & Beresford, L. (2010). Naming and classifying: Theory, evidence, and equity in education. Review of Research in Education, 34(1), 25-84.
71. Manna, P. (2006). School's in: Federalism and the national education agenda. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
72. Martin, R. & McClure, P. (1969). Title I of ESEA: Is it helping poor children? Washington, DC: Washington Research Project and NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund.
73. McGuinn, P. (2006). No Child Left Behind and the transformation of federal education policy, 1965-2005. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
74. Meredith, Custodial Parent and Next Friend of McDonald v. Jefferson County Bd. of Ed et al. 551 U.S. 701 (2007).
75. 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, CA: Sage.
76. Minorini, P. & Sugarman, S.D. (1999a). Educational adequacy and the courts: The promise and problems of moving to a new paradigm. In H. Ladd, R. Chalk, & J. Hansen (Eds.), Equity and adequacy in education finance: Issues and perspectives (pp. 175-208). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
77. Minorini, P. & Sugarman, S.D. (1999b). School finance litiation in the name of educational equity: Its evoluation, impact and future. In H. Ladd, R. Chalk, & J. Hansen (Eds.), Equity and adequacty in educational finance: Issues and perspectives (pp. 34-71). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
78. Mintrop, H. & Sunderman, G.L. (2009). Predictable failure of federal sanctions-driven accountability for school improvement-And why we may retain it anyway. Educational Researcher, 38(5), 353-364.
79. Murphy, J. Glimer, S.W. Weise, R. & Page, A. (1998). Pathways to privatization in education. Greenwich, CT: Ablex.
80. National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). At nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S Department of Education.
81. Natriello, G. McDill, E.L. & Pallas, A.M. (1990). Schooling disadvantaged children: Racing against catastrophe. New York: Teachers College Press.
82. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6301et seq. (2002).
83. Odden, A. (2003). Equity and adequacy in school finance today. Phi Delta Kappan, 85(2), 120-125.
84. Orfield, G. (1969). The reconstruction of Southern education: The schools and the 1964 Civil Rights Act. New York: Wiley-Interscience.
85. Orfield, G. (2005). The Southern dilemma: Losing Brown, fearing Plessy. In J. C. Boger & G. Orfield (Eds.), School resegregation: Must the South turn back? (pp. 1-25). Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
86. Orfield, G. & Eaton, S. E. (Eds.). (1996). Dismantling desegregation: A quiet reversal of Brown v. Board of Education. New York: New Press.
87. Orfield, G. & Lee, C. (2007). Historic reversals, accelerating resegregation, and the need for new integration strategies. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles; Civil Rights Project.
88. Otlofshy, G.F. & Olson, L. (2001). The state of the states. Education Week, 20, 86-106.
89. Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 et al. 551 U.S. 701 (2007).
90. Peterson, P.E. Rabe, B.G. & Wong, K.K. (1986). When federalism works. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
91. Potter, A. Ross, S.M. Paek, J. McKay, D. Ashton, J. & Sanders, W.L. (2007). Supplemental educational services in the state of Tennessee: 2005-06 (2004-2005 student achievement results). Memphis, TN: University of Memphis, Center for Research in Education Policy.
92. Raudenbush, S.W. (2009). The Brown legacy and the O'Connor challenge: Transforming schools in the images of children's potential. Educational Researcher, 38, 169-180.
93. Reagan, R. (1983). Message to the Congress of the United States, March 17, 1993. Congressional Quarterly, 9, 715-716.
94. Reading School District v. Department of Education, 855 A.2d 166 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004).
95. Reagan, R. (1985). Remarks at the National Association of Independent Schools annual meeting, February 28, 1985 (Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents 21, No. 9). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
96. Rickles, J.H. Barnhart, M.K. & Gualpa, A.S. (2008, April). Supplemental educational services participation and impact on student achievement: The case of one urban district over five years. Paper presented at the American Education Research Association, New York, NY.
97. Ripley, R.B. & Franklin, G.A. (1991). Congress, the bureaucracy, and public policy (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
98. Rowan, B. (1990). Commitment and control: Alternative strategies for the organizational design of schools. Review of Educational Research, 16, 353-389.
99. Rowan, B. (2002). The ecology of school improvement: Notes on the school improvement industry in the United States. Journal of Educational Change, 3, 283-314.
100. School District of the City of Pontiac,et al.v. Margaret Spellings, 05-2708 (United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, 2008).
101. School District of the City of Pontiac,et al.v. Margaret Spellings, 05 CV 71535-DT (United States District Court Eastern District of Michigan Southern Division 2005).
102. Shipps, D. (2004). Chicago: The national "model" reexamined. In J. R. Henig & W. C. Rich (Eds.), Mayors in the middle: Politics, race, and mayoral control of urban schools (pp. 59-95). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
103. State of Connecticut v. Spellings, 3:05 CV 1330 (D. Conn. 2006).
104. Sunderman, G.L. (1995). The politics of school reform: The educational excellence movement and state policymaking. Unpublished dissertation, University of Chicago.
105. Sunderman, G.L. & Kim, J. (2004a). Expansion of federal power in American education: Federal-state relationships under the No Child Left Behind Act, year one. Cambridge, MA: Civil Rights Project at Harvard University.
106. Sunderman, G.L. & Kim, J. (2004b). Increasing bureaucracy or increasing opportunities? School district experience with supplemental educational services. Cambridge, MA: Civil Rights Project at Harvard University.
107. Sunderman, G.L. & Kim, J.S. (2006). Implementing supplemental educational services: Implications for school districts and educational opportunity. In K. K. Wong & S. Rutledge (Eds.), System-wide efforts to improve student achievement (pp. 63-91). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
108. Sunderman, G.L. & Kim, J.S. (2007). The expansion of federal power and the politics of implementing the No Child Left Behind Act. Teachers College Record, 109(5), 1057-1085.
109. Sunderman, G.L. Kim, J.S. & Orfield, G. (2005). NCLB meets school realities: Lessons from the field. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
110. Sunderman, G.L. & Orfield, G. (2006). Domesticating a revolution: No Child Left Behind and state administrative response. Harvard Educational Review, 76(4), 526-556.
111. Superfine, B.M. & Goddard, R.D. (2009). The expanding role of the courts in educational policy: The preschool remedy and an adequate education. Teachers College Record, 111(7), 1796-1833.
112. Temkin, D. & Roellke, C. (2009). Federal educational control in No Child Left Behind: Implications of two court challenges. In J. King Rice & C. Roellke (Eds.), High stakes accountability: Implications for resources and capacity (pp. 225-249). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
113. Thomas, N.C. (1983). The development of federal activism in education: A contemporary perspective. Education and Urban Society, 15(3), 271-290.
114. Tyack, D. (2000). The one best system: A history of American urban education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
115. Tyack, D. & Hansot, E. (1982). Managers of virtue: Public school leadership in America, 1820-1980. New York: Basic Books.
116. U.S. Census Bureau. (2006). Statistical abstract of the United States. Washington, DC: Author.
117. U.S. President. (1964). Economic report of the president together with the annual report of the Council of Economic Advisors. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
118. Viteritti, J.P. (2004). From excellence to equity: Observations on politics, history, and policy. Peabody Journal of Education, 74(1), 64-86.
119. Walker, D. (1986). The nature and systemic impact of "creative federalism." In M. Kaplan & P. Cuciti (Eds.), The Great Society and its legacy: Twenty years of U.S. social policy. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
120. Walker, J.L. (1969). The diffusion of innovation among the American states. American Political Science Review, 63, 880-899.
121. Welner, K.G. (2010). Education rights and classroom-based litigation: Shifting the boundaries of evidence. Review of Research in Education, 34(1), 85-112.
122. Wirt, F.M. & Kirst, M.W. (1982). The politics of education: Schools in conflict. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
123. Wiseman, A.W. (2010). The uses of evidence for educational policymaking: Global contexts and international trends. Review of Research in Education, 34(1), 1-24.
124. Wong, K.K. (1999). Funding public schools: Politics and policies. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
125. Wong, K.K. Guthrie, J.W. & Harris, D.N. (2004). A Nation at Risk: A twenty-year reappraisal. Peabody Journal of Education, 79(1), 1-6.
126. Wong, K.K. & Nicotera, A.C. (2004). Educational quality and policy redesign: Reconsidering the NAR and federal Title I policy. Peabody Journal of Education, 79(1), 87-104.
127. Wong, K.K. Shen, F.X. Anagnostopoulos, D. & Rutledge, S. (2007). The education mayor: Improving America's schools. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
128. Wong, K.K. & Sunderman, G.L. (2000). Implementing districtwide reform in schools with Title I schoolwide programs: The first 2 years of Children Achieving in Philadelphia. Journal of Education for Students Placed At-Risk, 5(4), 355-381.
129. Wong, K.K. & Sunderman, G.L. (2007). Education accountability as a presidential priority: No Child Left Behind and the Bush presidency. Publius: The Journal of Federalism. doi:10.1093/publius/pjm1011.
130. Zimmer, R. Gill, B. Razquin, P. Booker, K. & Lockwood, J.R. (2007). State and local implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act: Volume I. Title I school choice, supplemental educational services, and student achievement. Washington, DC: RAND.