Graduation credit requirement reforms were expected to have a significant impact on the American educational landscape, but scholars have concluded that these reforms have exhibited less impact than expected on a wide range of educational outcomes. Drawing on Lipsky’s theory of street-level bureaucracy, we hypothesize that graduation requirement reforms have been relatively ineffective because of inconsistent implementation and enforcement at the local level. Using data from the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS:88) and the Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS:2002), we assess the viability of this hypothesized explanation. On the whole, the findings are consistent with our contention that inconsistent implementation and enforcement of graduation credit requirement policies contributes to the relative ineffectiveness of these policy reforms.
AiC.NortonE. C. (2003). Interaction terms in logit and probit models. Economics Letters, 80(1), 123-129.
2.
AlexanderK. L.PallasA. M. (1984). An evaluation of the “new basics.”American Journal of Education, 92, 391-420.
3.
AttewellP.LavinD.DominaT.LeveyT. (2006). New evidence on college remediation. Journal of Higher Education, 77, 886-924.
4.
BishopJ. H.ManeF. (2001). The impacts of minimum competency exam graduation requirements on high school graduation, college attendance, and early labor market success. Labour Economics, 8, 203-222.
5.
ChaneyB.BurgdorfK.AtashN. (1997). Influencing achievement through high school graduation requirements. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19, 229-244.
6.
CluneW. H. (with WhiteP.PattersonJ.). (1989). The implementation and effect of high school graduation requirements: First steps toward curricular reform. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University, Center for Policy Research in Education.
7.
CluneW.WhiteP. (1992). Education reform in the trenches: Increased academic course taking in high schools with lower achieving students in states with higher graduation requirements. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14(1), 2-20.
8.
FinnJ. D.GerberS. B.WangM. C. (2002). Course offerings, course requirements, and course taking in mathematics. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 17, 336-366.
9.
FuhrmanS. H.ElmoreR. F. (1990). Understanding local control in the wake of state education reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(1), 82-96.
10.
GoldschmidtP.WangJ. (1999). When can schools affect dropout behavior? A longitudinal multilevel analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 36, 715-738.
11.
HofferT. B. (1997). High school graduation requirements: Effects on dropping out and student achievement. Teachers College Record, 98, 584-607.
12.
ImazekiJ.ReschovskyA. (2006). Does No Child Left Behind place a fiscal burden on states? Evidence from Texas. Education Finance and Policy, 1, 217-246.
IngelsS. J.PrattD. J.WilsonD.BurnsL. J.CurrivanD.RogersJ. E.Hubbard-BednaszS. (2007). Education Longitudinal Study of 2002: Base-year to second follow-up data file documentation (NCES 2008-347). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
15.
LillardD. R.DeCiccaP. P. (2001). Higher standards, more dropouts? Evidence within and across time. Economics of Education Review, 20, 459-473.
16.
LipskyM. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
17.
MannD. (1986). Can we help dropouts: Thinking about the undoable?Teachers College Record, 87, 307-323.
18.
MannaP. (2006). School’s in: Federalism and the national education agenda. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
19.
McDillE. L.NatrielloG.PallasA. M. (1986). A population at risk: Potential consequences of tougher school standards for student dropouts. American Journal of Education, 94(2), 135-181.
20.
McLaughlinM. W. (1987). Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(2), 171-178.
21.
MedrichE. A.BrownC. L.HenkeR. R.RossL.McArthurE. (1992). Overview and Inventory of State Requirements for School Coursework and Attendance. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
22.
MeierK. J. (1993). Latinos and representative bureaucracy: Testing the Thompson and Henderson hypotheses. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 3, 393-414.
23.
MeierK. J.StewartJ. S. (1992). The impact of representative bureaucracies: Educational systems and public policies. American Review of Public Administration, 22(3), 157-171.
24.
MeierK. J.WrinkleR. D.PolinardJ. L. (1999). Representative bureaucracy and distributional equity: Addressing the hard question. Journal of Politics, 61, 1025-1039.
25.
NortonE. C.WangH.AiC. (2004). Computing interaction effects and standard errors in logit and probit models. Stata Journal, 4(2), 154-167.
26.
PittsD. W. (2007). Representative bureaucracy, ethnicity, and public schools: Examining the link between representation and performance. Administration & Society, 39, 497-526.
27.
PorterA. C. (1998). The effects of upgrading policies on high school mathematics and science. In RavitchD. (Ed.), Brookings papers on education policy 1998 (pp. 123-172). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
28.
PressmanJ. L.WildavskyA. (1984). Implementation (3rd ed.). Berkeley: University of California Press.
29.
ReschovskyA.ImazekiJ. (2003). Let no child be left behind: Determining the cost of improving student performance. Public Finance Review, 31, 263-290.
30.
RiccucciN. (2005). Street-level bureaucrats and intrastate variation in the implementation of temporary assistance for needy families policies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(1), 89-111.
31.
RoderickM. (1994). Grade retention and school dropout: Investigating the association. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 729-759.
32.
RossmanG.WilsonB. (1996). Context, courses, and the curriculum: Local responses to state policy reform. Educational Policy, 10, 399-421.
33.
RumbergerR. W.PalardyG. J. (2005). Test scores, dropout rates, and transfer rates as alternative indicators of high school performance. American Educational Research Journal, 42(1), 3-42.
34.
SchillerK. S.MullerC. (2003). Raising the bar and equity? Effects of state high school graduation requirements and accountability policies on students’ mathematics coursetaking. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25, 299-318.
35.
SebringP. A. (1987). Consequences of differential amounts of high school coursework: Will the new graduation requirements help?Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9, 258-273.
36.
SnyderT.D.DillowS.A. (2011). Digest of Education Statistics 2010 (NCES 2011-015). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC.
37.
TeitelbaumP. (2003). The influence of high school graduation requirement policy in mathematics and science on student coursetaking patterns and achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25, 31-58.
Twentieth Century Fund Task Force on Federal Elementary and Secondary Education Policy. (1983). Making the grade: Report of the Twentieth Century Fund Task Force on Federal Elementary and Secondary Education Policy. New York, NY: Author.
40.
TyackD.CubanL. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public school reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
41.
U.S. Department of Education, National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: Author.
42.
WeatherlyR.LipskyM. (1977). Street-level bureaucrats and institutional innovation: Implementing special education reform. Harvard Educational Review, 47(2), 171-197.
43.
WeissertC. S. (1994). Beyond the organization: The influence of community and personal values on street-level bureaucrats’ responsiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 4, 225-254.
