Lessons in Leveraging Implementation: Rulemaking, Growth Models, and Policy Dynamics Under NCLB

Educational Policy

Volumn 26, Issue 6, 2012, Pages 777-812

  Furgol, Katherine E ^a   Helms, Lelia B ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF IOWA   (United States)

Author keywords

federal and state governance; growth models; No Child Left Behind; policy dynamics; policy implementation; rulemaking; stakeholders

Indexed keywords

EID: 84869834870     PISSN: 08959048     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0895904811417588     Document Type: Article

References (78)

1. Biggs S.,Helms L. B.The practice of American public policymaking. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharp; 2007:.
2. Center for K-12 Assessment & Performance Management at ETS. (2011). Coming together to raise achievement: New assessments for the common core standards. Retrieved from http://k-12center.org/rsc/pdf/Assessments_for_the_Common_Core_Standards.pdf.
3. From the capital to the classroom: State and federal efforts to implement the no child left behind act. 2003;:.
4. Coburn C.The role of non-system actors in the relationship between policy and practice: The case of reading instruction in California.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 2005;27:23-53.
5. Coglienese C.Assessing consensus: The promise and performance of negotiated rulemaking.Duke Law Journal. 1997;46:1255-1349.
6. Congressional Research Service. (2004). Educational testing: Implementation of ESEA Title I-A requirements under the no child left behind act. Retrieved from http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs7369/m1/.
7. Council of Administrators of Special Education. (2002). Summary of NCLB and federal register notices and guidance letters. Retrieved from http://www.casecec.org/pdf/Summary_of_NCLB_and_Federal_Register_Notices.pdf.
8. The Council of Chief State School Officers, National Governors Association, & National Association of State Boards of Education. (2007). Joint statement on the reauthorization of the no child left behind act (NCLB). Retrieved from http://www.nga.org/Files/pdf/0704nclbstatement.pdf.
9. DeBray-Pelot E.,McGuinn P.The new politics of education: Analyzing the federal education policy landscape in the post-NCLB era.Educational Policy. 2009;23:15-42.
10. Education Commission of the States. (2004). ECS report to the nation: State implementation of the NCLB act: Respecting diversity among states. Retrieved from http://www.ecs.org/html/Special/NCLB/ReportToTheNation/docs/Report_to_the_Nation.pdf.
11. Elazar D.American federalism: A view from the states. 1984). American federalism: A view from the states (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Thomas Y. Crowell.New York, NY: Thomas Y. Crowell; 1984:.
12. Ellis R. J.American political cultures. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1993:.
13. Feuer M.Moderating the debate: Rationality and the promise of American education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 2006:.
14. Foster L.S.Political culture: A determinant of public regardingness among school board members.Urban Education. 1983;18 (1): 29-39.
15. Designing coherent education policy: Improving the system. Fuhrman S., ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 1993:.
16. Furlong S. R.,Kerwin C. M.Interest group participation in rulemaking: A decade of change.Journal of Public Administration and Research. 2005;15:353-370.
17. Gallagher C. W.,Ratzlaff S.The road less traveled.Educational leadership: Informative assessment. 2007 2008;65 (4): 48-53.
18. Garland P. H.,Martorana S. V.The interplay of political culture and participant behavior in political action to enact significant state community college legislation.Community College Review. 1988;16 (2): 30-43.
19. Grady D.,Simon K.Political restraints and bureaucratic discretion: The case of state government rule making.Policy and Politics. 2002;30:646-679.
20. Gray V.Innovation in the states: A diffusion study.American Political Science Review. 1973;67:1174-1185.
21. Harter P. J.Negotiating regulations: A cure for malaise.Georgia Law Review. 1982;171:75-91.
22. Haydu J.Reversals of fortune: Path dependency, problem solving and temporal cases.Theoretical Sociology. 2010;39:25-48.
23. Herzik E.The legal formal structuring of state politics: A cultural explanation.Political Research Quarterly. 1985;38:413-423.
24. Hirschland M. J.,Steinmo S.Correcting the record: Understanding the history of federal intervention and failure in securing U.S. educational reform.Educational Policy. 2003;17:343-364.
25. HofferT. B.HedbergE. C.BrownK. L.HalversonM. L.Reid-BrossardP.HoA. D.FurgolK. (2011). Final report on the evaluation of the growth model pilot project. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/disadv/growth-model-pilot/gmpp-final.pdf].
26. Holley-Walker D.The importance of negotiated rulemaking to the no child left behind act.Nebraska Law Review. 2006-2007;85:1015-1057.
27. Honig M.The new middle management: Intermediary organizations in education policy implementation.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 2004a;26 (1): 65-87.
28. Honig M.Where's the "up" in bottom-up reform?.Educational policy. 2004b;18:527-561.
29. Iowa Administrative Code. (2009). Retrieved from http://search.legis.state.ia.us/NXT/gateway.dll?f=templates&fn=default.htm.
30. Iowa Code. (2009). Retrieved from http://search.legis.state.ia.us/NXT/gateway.dll?f=templates&fn=default.htm.
31. Iowa Department of Education. (2002). Consolidated application. Retrieved from http://www.iowa.gov/educate/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=655&Itemid=1308.
32. Iowa Department of Education. (2006, January). From the director's desk: Do Iowa districts need content standards set by state law?School Leader Update. Retrieved from http://www.iowa.gov/educate/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=291.
33. Iowa Department of Education. (2007). No child left behind growth model pilot proposal. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/growthmodel/ia/index.html.
34. Iowa Department of Education. (2008). Iowa core curriculum: Implementation planning. Retrieved from http://www.iowa.gov/educate/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=674&Itemid=1249.
35. Iowa Department of Education. (2009a). Iowa core curriculum: Annual report. Retrieved from http://www.legis.state.ia.us/lsadocs/Docs_Filed/2009/DFJYD114.PDF.
36. Iowa Department of Education. (2009b). Legislative briefing: Iowa department of education data warehouse (EdInsight). Retrieved from http://www.iowa.gov/educate/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1529&Itemid=2348.
37. The Iowa Legislature. (2007, October10). Iowa administrative bulletin, 30(8). Retrieved from http://search.legis.state.ia.us/NXT/gateway.dll?f=templates&fn=default.htm.
38. Iowa Technical Adequacy Project. (2009). Retrieved from http://www.education.uiowa.edu/cea/itap/information/index.htm.
39. Iowa Testing Programs. (2009). Retrieved from http://www.education.uiowa.edu/itp/.
40. Johnston S.,Helms L.Policy development for advocates: Lessons from the Job Accommodation Network (JAN).Journal of Disability Policy Studies. 2008;20:1-11.
41. Kerwin C.How government agencies write law and make policy. 2003). How government agencies write law and make policy (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press; 2003:.
42. Levi M.Comparative politics: Rationality, culture, and structure. Lichback M. I.Zuckerman A. S., ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 1997:19-41.
43. Lieske J.Regional subcultures of the United States.Journal of Politics. 1993;55:888-913.
44. Louis K.,Thomas E.,Gordon M.,Febey K.State leadership for school improvement: An analysis of three states.Educational Administration Quarterly. 2008;44:562-592.
45. Malen B.,Croninger R.,Muncey D.,Redmond-Jones D.Reconstituting schools: "Testing" the "theory of action.".Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 2002;24:113-132.
46. Manna P.Control, persuasion, and educational accountability: Implementing the No Child Left Behind Act.Educational Policy. 2006;20:471-494.
47. Mathison S.The nature and limits of standards-based reform and assessment. Mathison S.Ross E. W., ed. New York, NY: Teachers College Press; 2004:3-14.
48. McDonnell L.Repositioning politics in education's circle of knowledge.Educational Researcher. 2009;38:417-427.
49. Mintrop H.,Sunderman G.Predictable failure of federal sanctions-driven accountability for school improvement-And why we may retain it anyway.Educational Researcher. 2009;38:353-264.
50. Naughton K.,Schmid C.,Yackee S.,Zhan X.Understanding commenter influence during agency rule development.Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 2009;28:258-277.
51. Olson L.,Hoff D. J.US to pilot new gauge of "growth": Ed. dept. to permit shifts in how states track gains.Education Week. 2005;:.
52. Pressman J.,Wildavsky A.Implementation. 1984) Implementation (3rd ed.). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Berkeley, CA: University of California Press; 1984:.
53. Public Law 89-10. (1965). Elementary and Secondary Education Act (79 STAT.; Date: 04/11/65). Text from: United States Public Laws. Retrieved from http://www.nctic1p.org/files/40646763.pdf.
54. Public Law 107-110: No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. (115 STAT. 1425; Date: 01/08/02) Text from: United States Public Laws. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107-110.pdf.
55. Ringquist E. J.,Worsham J.,Eisner M. S.Salience, complexity and the legislative direction of regulatory bureaucracies.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 2003;13:141-164.
56. RoschewskiP. (September2008). Keeping our focus, expanding our vision, finding the balance: Standards, assessments, and accountability: The transition years- 2008-2012. NCSA Today. Retrieved from http://www.education.ne.gov/assessment/documents/FOCUSVISIONBALANCE_001.pdf.
57. Rosenbloom D. H.Administrative law for public managers. Boulder, CO: Westview; 2003:.
58. Rudalevige A.No child left behind? The politics and practice of school accountability. Peterson P. E.West M. R., ed. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press; 2003:23-54.
59. Scott J.,Lubienski C.,DeBray-Pelot E.The politics of advocacy in education.Educational Policy. 2009;23:3-14.
60. Scribner J. D.,Fusarelli L.Rethinking the nexus between religion and political culture: Implications for educational policy.Education and Urban Society. 1996;28:279-292.
61. Sunderman G. L.The unraveling of no child left behind: How negotiated changes transform the law. Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University; 2006:.
62. Sunderman G. L.,Orfield G.Domesticating a revolution: No child left behind reforms and state administrative response.Harvard Educational Review. 2006;76:526-556.
63. Title I-Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged, 73 Fed. Reg. 79 (proposed April 23, 2008a; to be codified at 34 C.F.R. pt. 200).
64. Title I-Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged, 34 C.F.R. § 200 (2008b).
65. U. S. Department of Education. (2001a, June25). Iowa assessment letter. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/finalassess/iowa.html.
66. U. S. Department of Education. (2001b, October25). Iowa assessment letter 2. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/finalassess/iowa2.html.
67. U. S. Department of Education. (2005, November18). Secretary Spellings announces growth model pilot, addresses chief state school officers' annual policy forum in Richmond. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/growthmodel/proficiency.html.
68. U. S. Department of Education. (2007a, May24). Secretary Spellings approves additional growth model pilots for 2006-2007 school year. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2007/05/05242007.html.
69. U. S. Department of Education. (2007b, December7). Secretary Spellings invites eligible states to submit innovative models for expanded growth model pilot. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/growthmodel/proficiency.html.
70. U. S. Department of Education. (2009a, January9). Secretary Spellings approves additional growth model pilots for 2008-2009 school year. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2009/01/01082009a.html.
71. U. S. Department of Education. (2009b). Growth models: Non-regulatory guidance. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/growthmodel/index.html.
72. U. S. Government Accountability Office. (2006, July). No child left behind act: States face challenges measuring academic growth that education's initiatives may help address. (Publication No. GAO-06-661). Retrieved from http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06661.pdf.
73. West W.Administrative rule-making: An old and emerging literature.Public Administration Review. 2005;65:655-668.
74. Wildavsky A.Speaking truth to power. Boston, MA: Little Brown; 1979:.
75. Wirt F.,Mitchell D.,Marshall C.Culture and education policy: Analyzing values in state policy systems.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 1988;10:271-281.
76. Woods N.Political influence on agency rule making: Examining the effects of legislative and gubernatorial rule review powers.State and Local Government Review. 2004;36:170-181.
77. Woods N. D.Interest group influence on state administrative rule making: The impact of rule review.American Review of Public Administration. 2005;35:402-413.
78. Yackee S.Sweet-talking the fourth branch: Assessing the influence of interest group comments on federal agency rulemaking.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 2006;16:103-124.