Dismal Science: The Shortcomings of U.S. School Choice Research and How to Address Them

Pressing questions about the merits of market accountability in K-12 education have spawned a large scholarly literature. Unfortunately, much of that literature is of limited relevance, and some of it is misleading. The studies most widely cited in the United States used intense scrutiny of a few small-scale, restriction-laden U.S. programs -- and a handful of larger but still restriction-laden foreign school choice expansions -- to assert general conclusions about the effects of "choice," "competition," and "markets." The most intensely studied programs lack most or all of the key elements of market systems, including profit, price change, market entry, and product differentiation -- factors that are normally central to any discussion of market effects. In essence, researchers have drawn conclusions about apples by studying lemons. To address the need for credible evidence on the effects of genuine education markets, economists should look to simulation models, indirect evidence such as outcomes in similar industries, and school systems abroad that enjoy varying degrees of market accountability

Federal Involvement in Education Policy: An Analysis of Race To The Top

The purpose of this study is to trace federal involvement in public K-12 education policy and to determine its effectiveness. Specifically, I present a historical analysis of federal education policy leading to the passage of Race to the Top (RTTT) in 2009. My goal is to show that, although the federal government has grown more involved in education policy, especially from the late 1980s (following the 1983 publication of A Nation At Risk that showed the failings of the nation’s schools) until present, actually students in the K-12 public education system have not progressed as the federal government had hoped. The measurement of progress, Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), has not been met in many states as set forth in the legislation No Child Left Behind (NCLB), passed by the U.S. Congress in 2001 and signed by President George W. Bush in 2002, that set a goal of all students reaching proficiency or advanced in reading and mathematics by 2014. Because of the unrealistic expectations and no additional funding to reach the set goal, many scholars called the law an unfunded mandate and most educators grew weary of trying to meet the goal. As a result of the unfavorable education climate created by NCLB, the U.S. Congress offered relief in the form of RTTT, a grants reward program, passed by the U.S. Congress and signed into legislation by President Barack Obama in 2009. That program offered $4.35 billion to states whose applications were accepted over other states applications in order to provide funding for creative educational programming within their borders. But, my study shows that the additional funding helped improve AYP modestly or insignificantly as shown in particular by the District of Columbia, which is highlighted in this study. Finally, my study offers a survey of teachers and administrators in a prominent school district in St. Louis County, Missouri, that confirms that educators are against the notion of relying on an-end-of-the year state assessment to show evidence of student achievement and the notion of tying teachers’ and administrators’ salaries to student test scores, both of which are elements of RTTT

Federalism's Compromise: Inequity in Education from ESEA to ESSA

Thesis advisor: Michael HartneyThis thesis analyzes the sporadic and incoherent federal approaches to education policy over the last half century to reveal a theory of policymaking constraints that elucidates the tensions between political will for equity and implementation capacity that are intrinsic to federal education policy. I then apply this theory to the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). I find that consistent with my theory of policymaking constraints, a majority of states responded to the increased flexibility in ESSA by retreating from equity concerns. I then explore possible predictive factors for cross-state variation, presenting evidence that wealthy citizen satisfaction with local schools was associated with a decrease in attention to equity in state ESSA plans and that states that evaded accountability measures under No Child Left Behind continued to do so under the Every Student Succeeds Act. These results contribute to an important debate about the retreat from equity commitments under ESSA and furthermore, the theoretical framework that explains the policy zigzag in education policy since 1965.Thesis (BA) — Boston College, 2018.Submitted to: Boston College. College of Arts and Sciences.Discipline: Departmental Honors.Discipline: Political Science

Improving School Accountability in California

Proposes a value-added model for assessing schools that measures contributions to student learning based on whether average test scores are higher or lower than expected, given prior achievement and other characteristics. Outlines implementation issues

The Rise and Fall of School Vouchers: A Story of Religion, Race, and Politics

This Article examines why school vouchers have failed to garner the support that so many assumed would follow the Court\u27s decision in Zelman. The explanation, I suggest, concerns religion, race, and politics. The original rationale for vouchers was what I call the values claim -vouchers protected the right of parents to send their child to a school that reinforced their values. Originally promoted by Catholics, the values claim was adopted by evangelical Christians concerned about the secularization of public schools after the 1960s. Although the values claim was central for most of the history of the voucher movement, in the decade leading up to Zelman, voucher advocates replaced the values claim with what I call the racial-justice claim. This rationale emphasized vouchers as part of a civil rights struggle to obtain academically rigorous private education for low-income and minority parents. Redefining vouchers in this manner had political and legal advantages, and paved the way for the Court\u27s decision in Zelman upholding vouchers. Since Zelman, however, two trends have emerged that spell trouble for the future of the voucher movement. First, there are tensions between the values and racial-justice claims for vouchers, as the two claims lead to very different types of voucher programs that appeal to divergent political constituencies. Second, the voucher movement has been hurt by the rise of the accountability movement in education. No Child Left Behind was enacted the same year that Zelman was decided, meaning that the Court gave the green light to the voucher movement at exactly the same time that state and national education policy began to demand greater oversight of all schools, including private schools accepting vouchers. For schools today, accountability means less local control, more tests, and stricter government standards. Conservative Christians, who once led the voucher movement, reject these intrusions into school autonomy. As a result, they are less likely to support modern voucher programs. My approach in this Article is historical, predictive, and normative. It is historical in that I trace the development of the values and racial-justice claims for school vouchers, exploring the tensions between the two claims. It is predictive because I suggest that the future of this educational reform is much less rosy than voucher supporters thought when Zelman was decided. Thus, I predict that Zelman may end up mattering much less than so many had thought it would. Finally, my approach is normative for I argue that it would be unfortunate if I am right about the demise of vouchers. While voucher defenders have vastly overstated the racial-justice claim, there is some prospect that vouchers might improve educational outcomes for low-income African American children. I argue that vouchers should be permitted at least until they can be more thoroughly evaluated to determine their impact on a group so in need of better educational opportunities

Legislative Pursuits: An Analysis of the Effects of the Political Environment and Presidential Strategies on Domestic Policy Objectives during the George W. Bush Administration

The rise of the dynamic presidency represents a trademark of modern American politics. This thesis investigates the significance of presidential influence upon the legislative process by measuring the effects of political context and presidential agency on legislative outcomes, further exploring the cumulative effect of these components upon a president’s attempt to influence the legislative process. More specifically, public opinion and partisan balance in Congress operationalize the political environment while bargaining and campaigning function as strategies which help explain presidential behaviour. Together, they form the basis for an analysis of four case studies of domestic policy pursuits during the George W. Bush administration. Ultimately, this examination reveals that public opinion is a more influential variable in determining legislative outcomes than partisan balance in Congress and the president’s choice of strategies

Seizing Opportunity at the Top: How the U.S. Can Reach Every Student With an Excellent Teacher

Explains how to provide excellent teachers for every child every year by better identifying excellent teachers, removing policy barriers so they can teach more students for more pay, and catalyzing schools' and districts' will to put them in charge

The State Education Agency: At the Helm, Not the Oar

Never before has more been asked of State Education Agencies (SEAs), commonly known as state departments of education. In recent years, policymakers at the state and federal level have viewed the SEA as the default entity for implementing new and sweeping K -- 12 initiatives -- everything from Race to the Top grants and ESEA waivers to teacher evaluation reform and digital learning. But SEAs were designed -- and evolved over decades -- to address a relatively narrow set of tasks: distributing state and federal dollars, monitoring the use of these funds, and overseeing the implementation of federal and state education programs. They were not created -- nor have they developed the core competencies -- to drive crucial reforms. Accordingly, we argue that despite the best efforts of talented, energetic leaders, SEAs will never be able to deliver the reform results we need. But there is an alternative. We should view the SEA through the lens of Reinventing Government (1993), the path-breaking book by David Osborne and Ted Gaebler. In short, Osborne and Gaebler call for state agencies to "steer" more and "row" less. Here, we call for federal and state leaders to apply their thesis to SEAs, scaling back the tasks SEAs perform and empowering nongovernmental organizations to take up the slack. We offer the "4Cs" model (control, contract, cleave, and create) for rethinking state-level K -- 12 reform work. In practice, this means pursuing activities on two parallel tracks. On one, we should make the SEA a far leaner organization, able to execute a narrow set of activities. On the other, we should foster the growth of a new state-level reform ecosystem composed of a range of entities -- primarily independent public entities or nonprofits -- able to carry out key reforms