Search

This paper examines why state and local governments have implemented No Child Left Behind so quickly and completely even though they have significant reservations with the law. Its primary finding is that they have complied because of fears of losing federal education funding, even though the total funding at risk for noncompliance represents only between 2 and 8 percent of the total education funding in the United States. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper describes a study of formal state legislative and legal resistance to the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. The author estimates binary probit models of this resistance and finds that states with lower poverty rates, a larger Hispanic population, fewer highly qualified teachers, a less developed accountability system, and a larger number of Democratic legislatures are more likely to resist. The paper describes the implication of these results for predicting future formal challenges. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Examines whether school finance centralization lessens local educational control in some U.S. states. Implications of school finance reforms for state governments; Effects of finance reform proposals on local autonomy; Impact of school finance centralization on local control of education.

Implicit in many calls for fiscal decentralization is the assumption that it will revitalize the power and autonomy of lower levels of the federal system. The empirical strength of this relationship is an important factor in whether one can justify decentralization. The politics of public school finance reform offer an ideal venue to test it. This paper examines the effects of school finance centralization on local school board autonomy by undertaking case studies of 6 schools in Vermont. It concludes that centralization of school finance did not significantly curtail local autonomy, suggesting fiscal decentralization is not necessary to promote local government vitality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper uses state public opinion data to explore if and how attitudes about localism affects people’s evaluations of equity-minded school finance reform. The results show that people value localism for its ability to isolate their resources from the problems of poor school districts. Measured in this way, localism is a significant predictor of opposition to finance reform. Commitment to the democratic goods local government provides is not a significant predictor of such opposition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper asks whether the centralization of public school financing leads to the centralization of control over other areas of educational governance. The primary finding is that it does not; that is, that increasing the state share of the public school finance burden does not lead to a decrease in the ability of local schools and school districts to make meaningful decisions about educational governance. This finding undermines the argument that school finance reform proposals designed to achieve equity through centralization neccessarily diminish the power of local actors in education. More broadly, it also suggests that financing for government programs can be centralized to ensure equity without compromisng the ability of local governments to provide their unique democratic benefits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many scholars have found a consistent link between participation in high school extracurricular activities and rates of civic participation later in life. Because almost no one has examined how these activities function, scholars have not identified why they should have such positive outcomes, what parts of the experience are particularly valuable, and whether it might be possible to replicate their best parts in a manner that would involve more young people. In this paper the author presents results from field work conducted at the summer leadership workshops of state student council organizations in four states. Workshops provide the primary leadership education for thousands of student leaders nationwide, and advocates of student council cite them as the source of the guiding principles for councils in their schools. Results show that these camps strongly promote breaking down boundaries between social groups and team building, making them valuable promoters of bridging social capital. Each of the four state organizations also promotes patriotism, volunteerism, social entrepreneurship, though the amount of emphasis on each of these values varies in a way consistent with Elazar's classifications of state political culture. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Previous research has indicated states with larger Hispanic populations are more likely to pass legislation against NCLB. This paper describes how state officials and the Hispanic community have interacted in Colorado and Utah’s challenges. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper presents preliminary drafts of two chapters in a book manuscript examining the role of school finance centralization in eroding state and local control of public education. The first section develops a theoretical framework of the relationship between money and control. The second section examines to what extent the federal government has been able to compel states to comply with No Child Left Behind despite contributing a relatively small portion of the total K-12 school finance burden. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines which factors make states most likely to pass legislation or begin litigation opposing NCLB. It finds that states with larger Hispanic populations, less developped standardized testing systems prior to NCLB's enactment, and fewer residents living in poverty are more likely to resist NCLB ..PAT.-Conference Proceeding [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

I use multivariate regression analysis to determine whether centralization of public school finance at the state level is an important causal factor in determining whether states will adopt reforms that compromise local school board discretionary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The studies of intergovernmental relations and fiscal federalism have always been concerned with the link between which level of government funds a program and which level retains discretionary authority over it. The general assumption that runs through the literature is that this relationship functions like a jukebox: the level of government that provides the financial resources for a program will ultimately control its other parts. State and local governments receive a significant amount of their funding from higher levels of the federal system, so those concerned with their ability to make meaningful, independent decisions must take this link seriously. Few scholars, however, have attempted to empirically verify the link’s existence. In this paper I test whether this link holds in education, whether centralization of public education finance at the state level leads to greater state regulation in other areas of educational policy and, consequently, diminished discretionary authority for local school boards. Education policy is a particularly appropriate policy arena in which to test this link. Opponents of public school finance reform have resisted efforts to increase the state share of the school finance burden to ensure greater equity between districts on the grounds that it would compromise the United States’ traditional commitment to locally controlled public education. To test the strength of the link, I gather data on how regulatory a position each state takes towards local school boards in the form of popular state-level reforms such as curricular standards, class size legislation, and state takeovers of failing districts. I then use regression analysis to determine whether centralization of finance is an important causal factor in determining whether states will adopt reforms that compromise local autonomy and whether its importance rivals that of factors scholars have found influence a state’s policy choices, such as a state’s racial composition, political culture, and partisan leanings. If I can secure reliable and consistent data for these same variables, I also plan to use multivariate time series analysis to test whether the link functions over time. My results have important implications for scholars of both education policy and intergovernmental relations. If centralization of finance does lead to centralization of other areas of educational decision-making, it suggests that attempts to equalize per pupil spending across districts may come at the expense of maintaining a vital local presence in educational governance, a goal a majority of Americans endorse. If the link is weak or nonexistent, however, state governments can address equity concerns without necessarily taking power away from school boards to make important decisions. More generally, this study may help answer whether the efforts of higher levels of the federal system to redistribute money to poorer areas must necessarily diminish America’s commitment to small-scale participatory democracy. On the other hand, if money and control can be separated, we may be able to have our cake and eat it too, to have vital local governments in which rich and poor areas have enough resources to meet the needs of their citizens. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]