Through a case study that highlights the role of rulemaking in the evolution of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), this article provides strategies for educators who seek both to influence policy outcomes and to understand the dynamics of policymaking. This study examines the regulatory processes for NCLB, specifically related to the adoption of growth models, at both the federal and state levels, augmenting the slim body of literature on rulemaking in educational policy. It focuses on rulemaking processes as they define and redirect the substance of policy, create ongoing opportunities for stakeholder participation, and influence, and tailor policies to the state and local settings in which delivery occurs. This article describes policy as cumulative, increasingly complex and multileveled. It recommends that stakeholders monitor and target federal and state rulemaking venues so as to influence and adapt legislative mandates to the specific contexts and demands of practice.
Center on Education Policy. (2003). From the capital to the classroom: State and federal efforts to implement the no child left behind act. Retrieved from the ERIC database.
4.
CoburnC. (2005). The role of non-system actors in the relationship between policy and practice: The case of reading instruction in California. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27, 23-53.
5.
CoglieneseC. (1997). Assessing consensus: The promise and performance of negotiated rulemaking. Duke Law Journal, 46, 1255-1349.
The Council of Chief State School Officers, National Governors Association, & National Association of State Boards of Education. (2007). Joint statement on the reauthorization of the no child left behind act (NCLB). Retrieved from http://www.nga.org/Files/pdf/0704nclbstatement.pdf
9.
DeBray-PelotE.McGuinnP. (2009). The new politics of education: Analyzing the federal education policy landscape in the post-NCLB era. Educational Policy, 23, 15-42.
ElazarD. (1984). American federalism: A view from the states (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Thomas Y. Crowell.
12.
EllisR. J. (1993). American political cultures. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
13.
FeuerM. (2006). Moderating the debate: Rationality and the promise of American education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
14.
FosterL.S. (1983). Political culture: A determinant of public regardingness among school board members. Urban Education, 18(1), 29-39.
15.
FuhrmanS. (Ed.). (1993). Designing coherent education policy: Improving the system. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
16.
FurlongS. R.KerwinC. M. (2005). Interest group participation in rulemaking: A decade of change. Journal of Public Administration and Research, 15, 353-370.
17.
GallagherC. W.RatzlaffS. (December2007/January2008). The road less traveled. Educational leadership: Informative assessment, 65(4), 48-53.
18.
GarlandP. H.MartoranaS. V. (1988). The interplay of political culture and participant behavior in political action to enact significant state community college legislation. Community College Review, 16(2), 30-43.
19.
GradyD.SimonK. (2002). Political restraints and bureaucratic discretion: The case of state government rule making. Policy and Politics, 30, 646-679.
20.
GrayV. (1973, December). Innovation in the states: A diffusion study. American Political Science Review, 67, 1174-1185.
21.
HarterP. J. (1982). Negotiating regulations: A cure for malaise. Georgia Law Review, 171, 75-91.
22.
HayduJ. (2010). Reversals of fortune: Path dependency, problem solving and temporal cases. Theoretical Sociology, 39, 25-48.
23.
HerzikE. (1985). The legal formal structuring of state politics: A cultural explanation. Political Research Quarterly, 38, 413-423.
24.
HirschlandM. J.SteinmoS. (2003). Correcting the record: Understanding the history of federal intervention and failure in securing U.S. educational reform. Educational Policy, 17, 343-364.
Holley-WalkerD. (2006-2007). The importance of negotiated rulemaking to the no child left behind act. Nebraska Law Review, 85, 1015-1057.
27.
HonigM. (2004a). The new middle management: Intermediary organizations in education policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26(1), 65-87.
28.
HonigM. (2004b). Where’s the “up” in bottom-up reform?Educational policy, 18, 527-561.
JohnstonS.HelmsL. (2008). Policy development for advocates: Lessons from the Job Accommodation Network (JAN). Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 20, 1-11.
41.
KerwinC. (2003). How government agencies write law and make policy (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
42.
LeviM. (1997). A model, a method, and a map: Rational choice in comparative and historical analysis. In LichbackM. I.ZuckermanA. S. (Eds.), Comparative politics: Rationality, culture, and structure (pp. 19-41). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
43.
LieskeJ. (1993). Regional subcultures of the United States. Journal of Politics, 55, 888-913.
44.
LouisK.ThomasE.GordonM.FebeyK. (2008). State leadership for school improvement: An analysis of three states. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44, 562-592.
45.
MalenB.CroningerR.MunceyD.Redmond-JonesD. (2002). Reconstituting schools: “Testing” the “theory of action.”Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 113-132.
46.
MannaP. (2006). Control, persuasion, and educational accountability: Implementing the No Child Left Behind Act. Educational Policy, 20, 471-494.
47.
MathisonS. (2004). A short history of educational assessment and standards-based educational reform. In MathisonS.RossE. W. (Eds.), The nature and limits of standards-based reform and assessment (pp. 3-14). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
48.
McDonnellL. (2009). Repositioning politics in education’s circle of knowledge. Educational Researcher, 38, 417-427.
49.
MintropH.SundermanG. (2009). Predictable failure of federal sanctions-driven accountability for school improvement—And why we may retain it anyway. Educational Researcher, 38, 353-264.
50.
NaughtonK.SchmidC.YackeeS.ZhanX. (2009). Understanding commenter influence during agency rule development. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 28, 258-277.
51.
OlsonL.HoffD. J. (2005, November29). US to pilot new gauge of “growth”: Ed. dept. to permit shifts in how states track gains. Education Week. Retrieved from LexisNexis Academic database.
52.
PressmanJ.WildavskyA. (1984) Implementation (3rd ed.). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
53.
Public Law 89-10. (1965). Elementary and Secondary Education Act (79 STAT.; Date: 04/11/65). Text from: United States Public Laws. Retrieved from http://www.nctic1p.org/files/40646763.pdf
RingquistE. J.WorshamJ.EisnerM. S. (2003). Salience, complexity and the legislative direction of regulatory bureaucracies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 13, 141-164.
RosenbloomD. H. (2003). Administrative law for public managers. Boulder, CO: Westview.
58.
RudalevigeA. (2003). No child left behind: Forging a congressional compromise. In PetersonP. E.WestM. R. (Eds.), No child left behind? The politics and practice of school accountability (pp. 23-54). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
59.
ScottJ.LubienskiC.DeBray-PelotE. (2009). The politics of advocacy in education. Educational Policy, 23, 3-14.
60.
ScribnerJ. D.FusarelliL. (1996, May). Rethinking the nexus between religion and political culture: Implications for educational policy. Education and Urban Society, 28, 279-292.
61.
SundermanG. L. (2006). The unraveling of no child left behind: How negotiated changes transform the law. Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University.
62.
SundermanG. L.OrfieldG. (2006). Domesticating a revolution: No child left behind reforms and state administrative response. Harvard Educational Review, 76, 526-556.
63.
Title I—Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged, 73 Fed. Reg. 79 (proposed April23, 2008a; to be codified at 34 C.F.R. pt. 200).
64.
Title I—Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged, 34 C.F.R. § 200 (2008b).
U. S. Government Accountability Office. (2006, July). No child left behind act: States face challenges measuring academic growth that education’s initiatives may help address. (Publication No. GAO-06-661). Retrieved from http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06661.pdf
73.
WestW. (2005). Administrative rule-making: An old and emerging literature. Public Administration Review, 65, 655-668.
74.
WildavskyA. (1979). Speaking truth to power. Boston, MA: Little Brown.
75.
WirtF.MitchellD.MarshallC. (1988). Culture and education policy: Analyzing values in state policy systems. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 10, 271-281.
76.
WoodsN. (2004). Political influence on agency rule making: Examining the effects of legislative and gubernatorial rule review powers. State and Local Government Review, 36, 170-181.
77.
WoodsN. D. (2005). Interest group influence on state administrative rule making: The impact of rule review. American Review of Public Administration, 35, 402-413.
78.
YackeeS. (2006). Sweet-talking the fourth branch: Assessing the influence of interest group comments on federal agency rulemaking. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16, 103-124.
