Domesticating a Revolution: No Child Left Behind Reforms and State Administrative Response

Abstract

In recognition of the increased demands facing state education departments in this accountability-focused era, Gail L. Sunderman and Gary Orfield present results from a study on the response of these agencies to the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). In this article, Sunderman and Orfield analyze issues of state capacity, compiling data from interviews, policy and program document analysis, and budget and staffing information. They find that state education departments, which are tasked with intervening in underperforming schools to ensure 100 percent proficiency for all students under NCLB, may not have the necessary human and financial resources or organizational capacity to adequately meet their increased responsibilities. In addition to issues of capacity, structural, functional, and political factors all limit the ability of state education departments to completely fulfill their new administrative roles. Sunderman and Orfield suggest that state education departments have shown good faith in their responses and suggest that the federal law turn its attention to necessary infrastructure improvement instead of further increased responsibilities.

Examining the Assumptions Underlying the NCLB Federal Accountability Policy on School Improvement

“…Public school choice, which is so rarely exercised that its impact on student learning may not be discernable, and SES, which may be associated with improved student achievement (Zimmer, Gill, Razquin, Booker, Lockwood, Vernez, et al, 2007), are strategies that separate students from schools rather than promote school improvement as a means of improving student achievement. Restructuring and the implementation of school improvement plans are meant to address school improvement directly, and there is some evidence that the direction of some additional resources to schools and districts may be associated with improved student outcomes (Mintrop & Trujullo, 2005;Sunderman & Orfield, 2006). On the whole, however, the evidence that improved student achievement are associated with these efforts is inconclusive.…”

“…It is this expanded SEA role that both intrigues and worries education policy analysts. Whereas the authority and responsibility of districts with regard to school support is traditional and relatively unquestioned, direct involvement of SEAs in schoollevel actions represents a significant shift from customary policy and practice customs (Hannaway & Woodroffe, 2003;Lusi, 1997;Sunderman & Orfield, 2006). Given the rapidly increasing numbers of schools in improvement across an increasing number of districts (U.S. Department of Education, 2009c) and the need for coherent, statewide, service-oriented assistance for school improvement efforts, as opposed to a focus on compliance with bureaucratic rules, this new role of the state seems to be warranted (Council of Chief State School Officers, 2006;Dwyer et al, 2005;Redding, 2007;Reville et al, 2005).…”

“…In addition to philosophical and sometimes legislative obstacles to expansions in the centrality, breadth, and sophistication of the SEA (Sunderman & Orfield, 2006), the NCLB vision of the SEA coincided with increasingly poor economic circumstances for many state governments that has led to staff downsizing and program reduction (Carlson Le Floch, Boyle, & Bowles Therriault, 2008aMinnici & Hill, 2007). Increases in accountability, assessment and data reporting requirements, as well as more direct involvement in school support, have required both expansion and transformation of the scope and type of work required of state-level educators.…”

Measuring Outcomes: Lessons From the World of Public Education

“…If a school fails adequate yearly progress for 5 straight years, it is mandated to restructure itself as a charter school, replace most of the school staff, or close. 19,25 Through public reporting, the authors of NCLB hoped that the public would pressure schools to meet performance targets. 26,27 NCLB introduced federal accountability at the local school level.…”

The Achilles' Heel of School Choice Policies: The Obstacles to Reporting School Accountability Results to Parents

“…Many state education agencies were unprepared for this unprecedented policy shift because offering school choice on the basis of the results of school accountability systems was a dramatic departure from state polices before NCLB (Sunderman & Orfield, 2006). …”