Mandatory education systems form a central pillar of modern social policy sectors. For two of the countries in North America, the expansion of mass public schooling followed similar trajectories. Despite surface-level similarities, there are important differences in the two countries that require explanation. Without national intervention, the Canadian provinces have instituted similar policies fashioning a de facto national education policy framework. State and local education policy, however, demonstrates major variations that Washington has been unable to smooth out. These outcomes confound conventional institutional or societal approaches. This article calls first for a synthesis of macro-level institutional and societal factors. To unravel the sector-specific attributes, the interactive effects of meso-level policy choices must be assessed. By dividing a sector into its individual dimensions, these effects can be appreciated and coupled with the institutional and societal forces outlined above to account for the distinctive features of Canadian and American mandatory education.
BantingK. (1995). The welfare state as statecraft: Territorial politics and Canadian social policy. In LeibfriedStephanPiersonPaul (Eds.), European social policy: Between fragmentation and integration (pp. 269-300). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
3.
BantingK. (1997). The social policy divide: The welfare state in Canada and the United States. In BantingKeithHobergGeorgeSimeonRichard (Eds.), Degrees of freedom: Canada and the United States in a changing world (pp. 267-309). Montreal, Canada: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
4.
BélandD.LecoursA. (2005). The politics of territorial solidarity: Nationalism and social policy reform in Canada, the United Kingdom, and Belgium. Comparative Political Studies, 38, 676-703.
5.
BoychukG. W. (2008). National health insurance in the United States and Canada: Race, territory, and the roots of difference. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
6.
BoydW. L. (1978). The Changing Politics of Curriculum Policy-Making for American Schools. Review of Educational Research, 48(4), 577-628.
7.
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
8.
CairnsA. (1977). The government and societies of Canadian federalism. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 10, 695-725.
9.
CampbellJ. (2003). Institutional change and globalization. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
10.
CarmichaelS. B.MartinoG.Porter-MageeK.WilsonW. S. (2010). The state of state standards—and the common core—in 2010. Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Institute.
DounayJ. (2002). State standards and curriculum frameworks for world history/geography. In State notes. Education Commission of the States. Retrieved from http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/39/42/3942.pdf
ErkJ. (2003). Wat we zelf doen, doen we beter: Belgian substate nationalisms, congruence and public policy. Journal of Public Policy, 23, 201-224.
15.
ErkJ.KoningE. (2010). New structuralism and institutional change: Federalism between centralization and decentralization. Comparative Political Studies, 43, 353-378.
GoertzM. (2006). State education policy in the new millennium. In Van HornCarl E. (Ed.), The state of the states (4th ed., pp. 144-166). Washington, DC: CQ Press.
18.
GriffithM. (2004, June). Taxation and spending policies. Education Commission of the States. Retrieved from www.ecs.org
19.
HeroR. E. (2003). Racial/ethnic diversity and states’ public policies: Social policies as context for welfare policies. In SchramSanford F.SossJoeFordingRichard C. (Eds.), Race and the politics of welfare reform (pp. 298-322). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
20.
HopkinJ. (2009). Party matters: Devolution and party politics in Britain and Spain. Party Politics, 15, 179-198.
21.
LawtonS. (1996). Financing Canadian education. Toronto: Canadian Education Association.
22.
LiebermanR. C. (2002). Ideas, institutions, and political order: Explaining political change. American Political Science Review, 96, 697-712.
23.
LivingstonW. S. (1952). A note on the nature of federalism. Political Science Quarterly, 67, 81-95.
24.
MannaP. (2006). School’s in: Federalism and the national education agenda. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
25.
ManzerR. (1994). Public schools and political ideas: Canadian educational policy in historical perspective. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
26.
MeuretD. (1995). Decision-making in 14 OECD education systems. Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
27.
MeyerJ. W.RamirezF.SoysalY. (1992). World expansion of mass education, 1870–1980. Sociology of Education, 65, 128-149.
28.
MeyerJ. W.TyackD.NagelJ.GordonA. (1979). Public education as nation-building in America: Enrollments and bureaucratization in the American states, 1870–1930. American Journal of Sociology, 85, 591-613.
29.
MinowMartha. (2010). In Brown’s wake: Legacies of America’s educational landmark. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
30.
National Advisory Committee on Education. (1931). Federal relations to education: Part 1 committee findings and recommendations. Washington, DC: National Advisory Committee on Education.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983, April). A nation at risk. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/risk.html
33.
NorthD. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
PiersonP. (1994). Dismantling the Welfare State? Reagan, Thatcher, and the Politics of Retrenchment. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
36.
PiersonP. (1995). Fragmented welfare states: Federal institutions and the development of social policy. Governance, 8, 449-478.
37.
PiersonP. (2000). Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics. American Political Science Review, 94, 251-267.
38.
PorterJ. (1965). The vertical mosaic: An analysis of social class and power in Canada. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
39.
RadinB.BoaseJ. P. (2000). Federalism, political structure, and public policy in the United States and Canada. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 2, 65-89.
40.
RikerW. (1969). Six books in search of a subject or does federalism exist and does it matter?Comparative Politics, 2, 135-146.
41.
SandifordP. (1918). Canada. In SandifordPeter (Ed.), Comparative education: Studies of the educational systems of six modern nations (pp. 364-383). London, UK: J.M. Dent.
42.
ScribnerJ. D. (1969). Impacts of federal programs on state departments of education. In FullerEdgarPearsonJim B. (Eds.), Education in the states: Nationwide development since 1900 (pp. 497-554). Washington, DC: National Education Association of the United States.
43.
ShellyB. (2008). Rebels and their causes: State resistance to No Child Left Behind. Publius, 38, 444-468.
44.
SimeonRichard. (2002). Political science and federalism: Seven decades of scholarly engagement. Kingston, Canada: Queen’s University and the Institute of Intergovernmental Relations.
45.
SkocpolTheda. (1995). African Americans in U.S. social policy. In PetersonPaul E. (Ed.), Classifying by race (pp. 129-155). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
46.
SmileyD.V. (1987). The Federal Condition in Canada. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson Limited.
47.
St. JohnJ. (1959). Spotlight on Canadian education: Background to the Canadian Conference on Education 1958. Toronto, Canada: W.J. Gage.
SteinmoS.WattsJ. (1995). It’s the institutions, stupid! Why comprehensive national health insurance always fails in America. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 20, 329-372.
50.
SundermanG. L. (2006). The unraveling of No Child Left Behind: How negotiated changes transform the law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, Civil Rights Project.
51.
US Census Bureau. (2006). Statistical Abstract of the United States. Washington, DC: Author.
52.
WallnerJ. (2010). Beyond national standards: Reconciling the tension between federalism and the welfare state. Publius, 40, 646-671.
53.
WongK. (2008). Accountability and innovation: New directions in education policy and management. In ConlanTimothy J.PosnerPaul L. (Eds.), Intergovernmental management for the twenty-first century (pp. 102-123). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
