As the variety of state education agency (SEA) responses to the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 demonstrates, different SEAs interpret the same federal educational policy differently. Nonetheless, little research has depicted how federal policies are changed by SEA-based policy intermediaries. Using an “ethnography of educational policy” approach, this article offers two illustrations of mediation processes at the SEA level: Maine’s and Puerto Rico’s initial attempts to implement the federal Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration program. Both attempts show that the mediation process is inevitable and that its general direction can be predicted: Policies will be adapted in ways that better correspond with local problem diagnoses, understandings, and habits of action. The study leaves intact McLaughlin’s assertion that local negotiation and reframing of policy can be a source of improvement or added value. Such improvement is more likely if an expectation of mediation is explicitly accounted for and if what counts as improvement reflects local mores.
Anstrom, K. (1995). New directions for Chapter 1/Title I. Directions in Language and Education, 1(7), 1-7.
2.
Bakhtin, M. (1993). Toward a philosophy of the act(V. Liapunov, Trans., V. Liapunov & M. Holquist, Eds.). Austin: University of Texas Press.
3.
Berends, M., Bodilly, S., & Kirby, S. N. (2002). Looking back over a decade of whole-school reform: The experience of New American Schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(2), 168-175.
4.
Berends, M., Kirby, S. N., Naftel, S., & McKelvey, C. J. (2001). Implementation and performance in New American Schools: Three years into scale-up. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
5.
Borman, G., Hewes, G., Overman, L., & Brown, S. (2003). Comprehensive school reform and achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 73(2), 125-230.
6.
Coady, M., Hamann, E., Harrington, M., Pacheco, M., Pho, S., & Yedin, J. (2003). Claiming opportunities: A handbook for improving education for English Language Learners through comprehensive school reform. Providence, RI: Education Alliance at Brown University.
7.
Coburn, C. (2001). Collective sensemaking about reading: Howteachers mediate reading policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(2), 145-170.
8.
Coburn, C. (2003). Rethinking scale: Moving beyond numbers to deep and lasting change. Educational Researcher, 32(6), 3-12.
9.
Cresswell, J. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
10.
Cuban, L. (1998). Howschools change reforms: Redefining reform success and failure. Teachers College Record, 99(3), 453-477.
11.
Datnow, A., Hubbard, L.,& Mehan, H. (2002). Extending education reform: From one school to many. London: RoutledgeFarmer.
12.
Desimone, L. (2002). How can comprehensive school reform models be successfully implemented?Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 433-479.
13.
Eisenhart, M. A. (2001). Changing conceptions of culture and ethnographic methodology: Recent thematic shifts and their implications for research on teaching. In V. Richardson (Ed.), The handbook of research on teaching(4th ed., pp. 209-225). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
14.
Eisenhart, M. A., & Howe, K. R. (1992). Validity in educational research. In M. LeCompte, W. Millroy,& J. Preissle (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research in education(pp. 643-680). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
15.
Elmore, R. F. (1980). Backward mapping: Implementation research and policy decision. Political Science Quarterly, 94(4), 601-609.
16.
Fisher, P. (2003). Democracy and equity in the classroom. In J. DiMartino, J. Clarke,& D. Wolk (Eds.), Personalized learning: Preparing high school students to create their futures(pp. 103-118). Lanham, MD: Scarecrow.
17.
Gigerenzer, G.,& Selton, R. (2001). Rethinking rationality. InG. Gigerenzer & R. Selton (Eds.), Bounded rationality: The adaptive toolbox(pp. 1-12). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
18.
Goggin, M. L., Bowman, A., Lester, J., & O’Toole, L. (1990). Implementation theory and practice: Toward a third generation. New York: HarperCollins.
19.
Hamann, E. (2003). The educational welcome of Latinos in the New South. Westport, CT: Praeger.
20.
Hamann, E.,& Lane, B. (2002, April).“We’re from the state and we’re here to help”: State-level innovations in support of high school improvement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
21.
Hamann, E., Lane, B., & Hudak, M. (2001). CSRD roll-out in Maine: Lessons from a statewide case study(rev. Web ed.). Providence, RI: Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Laboratory at Brown University.
22.
Hamann, E., Lane, B., & Johnson, S. (2001, April). School portfolios, critical collegiality, and comprehensive school reform. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
23.
Hamann, E., Lane, B., Smith, P.,& Piñeiro, O. (2001). Lessons and possibilities: Notes regardingCSRD in Puerto Rico(rev. Web ed.). Providence, RI: Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Laboratory at Brown University.
24.
Hicks, D. (1999, April). Self and other in Bakhtin’s early philosophical essays: Prelude to a theory of prose consciousness. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.
25.
Hill, H. C. (2001). Policy is not enough: Language and the interpretation of state standards. American Educational Research Journal, 38(2), 289-318.
26.
Honig, M. I. (2001, April). Managing from the middle: The role of intermediary organizations in the implementation of complex education policy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
27.
Irvine, P. D., & Larson, J. (2001). Literacy packages in practice: Constructing academic disadvantage. In J. Larson (Ed.), Literacy as snake oil: Beyond the quick fix(pp. 45-70). NewYork: Peter Lang.
28.
Johnson, F. (2001). Revenues and expenditures for public elementary and secondary education: School year 1998-99 (NCES 2001-321). Education Statistics Quarterly: Elementary and Secondary Education. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/quarterly/fall/q3-6.asp
29.
Lane, B.,& Hamann, E. (2000). Maine Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration program: Year one evaluation report. Providence, RI: Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Laboratory at Brown University.
30.
Lane, B.,& Hamann, E. (2001). Maine Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration program:Year two evaluation report. Providence, RI: The Education Alliance at Brown University.
31.
Lane, B., & Hamann, E. (2002a). Maine Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration program: Cohort I—Year three evaluation report. Providence, RI: The Education Alliance at Brown University.
32.
Lane, B., & Hamann, E. (2002b). Maine Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration program: Cohort II—Year one evaluation report. Providence, RI: The Education Alliance at Brown University.
33.
Leedom, D. (2001). Final report: Sense-making symposium. Vienna, VA: Commandand Control Research Program, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence.
34.
Levinson, B.,& Sutton M. (2001). Introduction: Policy as/in practice—A sociocultural approach to the study of educational policy. In M. Sutton & B. Levinson (Eds.), Policy as practice: Toward a comparative sociocultural analysis of educational policy(pp. 1-22). Westport, CT: Ablex.
35.
Lusi, S. F. (1997). The role of state departments of education in complex school reform. New York: Teachers College Press.
36.
Lytle, J. (2002). Whole-school reform from the inside. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(2), 164-167.
37.
Maine Commission on Secondary Education. (1998). Promising Futures: A call to improve learning for Maine’s secondary students. Augusta: Maine Department of Education.
38.
McLaughlin, M. W. (1987). Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9, 171-178.
39.
McQuillan, P. (1998). Educational opportunity in an urban American high school: A cultural analysis. Albany: State University of New York Press.
40.
Murphy, J., & Datnow, A. (2003). Leadership lessons from comprehensive school reforms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
41.
Nader, L. (1972). Up the anthropologist—Perspectives gained from studying up. In D. Hymes (Ed.), Reinventing anthropology(pp. 284-311). New York: Pantheon.
42.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2003, May). Overview of public elementary and secondary schools and districts: School year 2001-02.Retrieved August 28, 2003, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2003/overview03/
43.
Nieto, S. (2000). Puerto Rican students in U.S. Schools: Abrief history. In S. Nieto (Ed.), Puerto Rican students in U.S. schools(pp. 5-37). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
44.
No Child Left Behind Act, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 et seq.(2002).
45.
Ozga, J. (1999). Policy research in educational settings: Contested terrain. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
46.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods(2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
47.
Puerto Rico Department of Education. (1998). Education reform in Puerto Rico. San Juan: Author.
48.
Quality counts 2000: Who should teach? (2000, January 13). Education Week, 19.
49.
Resnick, M. C. (1993). ESL and language planning in Puerto Rican education. TESOL Quarterly, 27(2), 259-273.
50.
Ruff, D., Smith, D., & Miller, L. (2000). The view from Maine: Developing learner-centered accountability in a local control state. In B. L. Whitford & K. Jones (Eds.), Accountability, assessment, and teacher commitment: Lessons fromKentucky’s reform efforts(pp. 163-178). Albany: State University of New York Press.
51.
Rust, F., & Freidus, H. (Eds.). (2001). Guiding school change: The role and work of change agents. New York: Teachers College Press.
52.
Sack, J. L. (2002, January 30). Experts debate effect of whole-school reform. Education Week, 21, 6-6.
53.
Shore, C., & Wright, S. (1997). Policy: A new field of anthropology. In C. Shore & S. Wright (Eds.), Anthropology of policy: Critical perspectives on governance and power(pp. 3-39). London: Routledge.
54.
Spillane, J. (1998). State policy and the non-monolithic nature of the local school district: Organization and professional practice considerations. American Educational Research Journal, 35(1), 33-63.
55.
Spillane, J., Reiser, B., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing policy implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 387-431.
56.
Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
57.
Stringfield, S., Datnow, A., Ross, S. M., & Snively, F. (1998). Scaling up school restructuring in multicultural, multilingual contexts: Early observations from Sunland County. Education and Urban Society, 30(3), 326-357.
58.
Stringfield, S., Millsap, M. A., & Herman, R. (1997). Urban and suburban/rural special strategies for educating disadvantaged children: Findings and policy implications of a longitudinal study. Retrieved August 28, 2003, from http://www.csos.jhu.edu/Otherlinks/SpecialStrategies/title.htm
59.
Sutton, M., & Levinson, B. (Eds.). (2001). Policy as practice: Toward a comparative sociocultural analysis of educational policy. Westport, CT: Ablex.
60.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education. (1998). Archived information: FY 1998 allocations. Retrieved January 7, 2004, from http://www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/archives/compreform/table98.html
61.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Under Secretary, Planning and Evaluation Service. (2001). State education indicators with a focus on Title I. Retrieved August 28, 2003, from http://www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/PES/esed/2000_indicators/
62.
Viadero, D. (2001, November 7). Whole-school projects show mixed results. Education Week, 21, 24-25.
63.
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
64.
Whitehurst, G. (2003, April). The Institute of Educational Sciences: New wine in new bottles. Invited address presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
65.
Young, M. (1999). Multifocal educational policy research: Toward a method for enhancing traditional educational policy studies. American Educational Research Journal, 36, 677-714.
