This article examines early implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act's (NCLB) accountability provisions. Theoretically, the author explains how executing education policy in the United States requires federal officials to employ tactics designed to assert control over state implementers while persuading them to adopt federal priorities as their own. Empirically, the main objective is to reveal how control and persuasion have been integral to early federal efforts to keep NCLB on track. The data come from several sources describing state implementation of NCLB and federal efforts to influence state actions during 2002 to 2004. Overall, the author argues that understanding NCLB implementation as a series of control and persuasion challenges confronting federal officials will enable observers to better assess the law's performance.
Beam, D. R., & Conlan, T. J. (2002). Grants. In L. M. Salamon (Ed.), The tools of government: A guide to the new governance (pp. 340-380). New York: Oxford University Press.
2.
Becker, J., & Helderman, R. S. (2004, January 24). VA seeks to leave Bush law behind. Washington Post, p. A1-A1.
3.
Bendor, J. (1988). Formal models of bureaucracy. British Journal of Political Science, 18(3), 353-395.
4.
Bendor, J., Glazer, A., & Hammond, T. (2001). Theories of delegation. Annual Reviews of Political Science, 4, 235-269.
5.
Blum, J. (2001, January 25). Bush touts education plan at D.C. school. Retrieved February 15, 2001, from www.washingtonpost.com
6.
Broder, D. S. (2001, July 15). Salvaging real education reform. Washington Post, p. B7-B7.
7.
Brudney, J. L., O'Toole, L. J., Jr., & Rainey, H. G. (Eds.). (2000). Advancing public management: New developments in theory, methods, and practice. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
8.
Campaign Media Analysis Group. (2001, January). 2000 election: Most aired ad. The CMAG Eye, 48-48.
9.
Changing the Rules. (2004, April 7). Education Week, p. 29-29.
10.
Chubb, J. E. (1985). The political economy of federalism. American Political Science Review, 79(4), 994-1015.
11.
CNN. (2002, October 24). Education secretary pushes high standards. Retrieved October 25, 2002, from http://www.cnn.com/2002/EDUCATION/10/24/paige.letter.ap/index.html
12.
Cohen, M. (2002, Fall). Unruly crew: Lessons from the Clinton administration's attempts to cajole the states into complying with federal mandates for standards-based reform. Education Next, 2(3), 43-47.
13.
Cowell, R. (2002, Spring). Effective legislature-state board partnerships needed. State Education Standard, 3(2), 29-33.
14.
Erpenbach, W. J., Fast, E. F., & Potts, A. (2003, July). Statewide accountability under NCLB. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
15.
Fast, E. F., & Erpenbach, W. J. (2004, October). Revisiting statewide educational accountability under NCLB. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
16.
Heinrich, C. J., & Lynn, L. E., Jr. (Eds.). (2000). Governance and performance: New perspectives. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
17.
Hess, F. M. (2003). Refining or retreating? High-stakes accountability in the states. In P. E. Peterson & M. R. West (Eds.), No child left behind? The politics and practice of school accountability (pp. 55-79). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
18.
Hoff, D. J. (2004a, March 31). Chiefs sense a new attitude in meeting with Bush. Education Week, p. 24-24.
19.
Hoff, D. J. (2004b, February 11). Utah panel votes to quit No Child Left Behind Act. Education Week, p. 11-11.
20.
Jones, B. D. (2003). Bounded rationality and political science: Lessons from public administration and public policy. Unpublished manuscript.
21.
Manna, P. (2003, November 6-8). States as middle managers in the American policy system: Control, management, and the challenge of leaving no child behind. Paper presented at the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management 25th Annual Research Conference, Washington, DC.
22.
Miller, G. J. (1992). Managerial dilemmas: The political economy of hierarchy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
23.
Milward, H. B., & Provan, K. G. (2000). How networks are governed. In C. J. Heinrich & L. E. Lynn, Jr. (Eds.), Governance and performance: New perspectives. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
24.
Moe, T. M. (2003). Politics, control, and the future of school accountability. In P. E. Peterson & M. R. West (Eds.), No child left behind? The politics and practice of school accountability(pp. 80-106). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
25.
No Child Left Behind Act, Public Law 110, 107th Cong., 1st session. (2001).
26.
Olson, L. (2002a, January 16). States gear up for new federal law. Education Week, p. 1-1.
27.
Olson, L. (2002b, March 6). Testing rules would grant states leeway. Education Week, p. 1-1.
28.
Olson, L. (2002c, January 9). Testing systems in most states not ESEA-ready. Education Week, p. 1-1.
29.
Olson, L. (2003a, August 6). ‘Approved’ is relative term for Ed. Dept.Education Week, p. 1-1.
30.
Olson, L. (2003b, February 19). States’ plans likely to test ESEA pliancy. Education Week, p. 1-1.
31.
Olson, L. (2004, May 5). States seek federal ok for revisions. Education Week, p. 1-1.
32.
O'Toole, L. J., Jr. (2000). Different public managements? Implications of structural context in hierarchies and networks. In J. L. Brudney, L. J. O'Toole, Jr., & H. G. Rainey (Eds.), Advancing public management: New developments in theory, methods, and practice(pp. 19-32). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
33.
Paige, R. (2002, January 9). Remarks to meeting of chief state school officers. Retrieved January 14, 2004, from http://www.ed.gov/news/speeches/2002/01/20020109.html
34.
Pressman, J. L., & Wildavsky, A. (1984). Implementation (3rd ed., expanded). Berkeley: University of California Press.
35.
Ravitch, D. (2001, January 27). The history lesson in Bush's school plan. New York Times, p. A27-A27.
36.
Robelen, E. W. (2003, April 30). Some states slow to list districts as falling short. Education Week, p. 1-1.
37.
Robelen, E. W. (2004, March 24). Federal rules for teachers are relaxed. Education Week, p. 1-1.
38.
Salamon, L. M. (Ed.). (2002). The tools of government: A guide to the new governance. New York: Oxford University Press.
39.
Salzer, J. (2003, May 22). Feds yank funds over test delay. Atlanta Journal-Constitution, p. 1C-1C.
40.
Schemo, D. J. (2002a, October 15). Law overhauling school standards seen as skirted. Retrieved October 31, 2002, from www.nytimes.com
41.
Schemo, D. J. (2002b, October 24). States get federal warning on school standards. Retrieved October 25, 2002, from www.nytimes.com
42.
Schemo, D. J. (2003, February 5). Critics say money for schools falls short of promises. Retrieved February 26, 2003, from www.nytimes.com
43.
Schemo, D. J. (2004a, March 25). 14 states ask U.S. to revise some education law rules. Retrieved March 26, 2004, from www.nytimes.com
44.
Schemo, D. J. (2004b, August 18). Effort by Bush on education hits obstacles in the states. Retrieved August 19, 2004, from www.nytimes.com
45.
Taylor, W. L., & Piché, D. M. (2002, January 8). Will new school law really help? USA Today, p. 13A-13A.
46.
Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public school reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
47.
U. S. Department of Education. (2003). Consolidated state application accountability workbooks, final submissions. Retrieved August 11, 2003, from http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/stateplans03/index.html
48.
Walsh, J. (2003, August 2). State loses $120,000 in U.S. school funds. Minneapolis Star Tribune, p. 3B-3B.
49.
White House Office of the Press Secretary. (2002, January 8). President signs landmark education bill. Retrieved January 9, 2002, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020108-1.html
50.
White House Office of the Press Secretary. (2003, June 10). President highlights progress in education reform. Retrieved October 2, 2003, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/06/print/20030610-4.html
51.
Wilson, J. Q. (1989). Bureaucracy: What government agencies do and why they do it. New York: Basic Books.
