The evolution of the federal role in education policy has entailed increasing activism in matters traditionally controlled by states and school districts. However, the expanding federal role has not resulted in a zero sum game for states and localities. Focusing on the policy-implementation process, this article examines recent state and local responses to federal activism in education policy. The study demonstrates how states and localities are able to protect their perceived interests by resisting and reshaping federal education policy.
BaumgartnerF. R.JonesB. D. (1993). Agendas and instability in American politics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
2.
BennettT. (2010). Letter to Mr. Nate Schnellenberger. April8. Indianapolis, IN: Indiana Department of Education.
3.
BowieL. (2010, December24). State is not backing away from teacher evaluation rule. Baltimore Sun. Retrieved June 1, 2011, from http://www.baltimoresun.com
4.
CarrollT. (2010, October20). SED goes too far regulating charter schools under Race to the Top. Albany, NY: New York Foundation for Education Reform and Accountability.
5.
CavanaghS. (2010). States press Race to the Top blueprints; action begins on overhauls, but some districts back out. Education Week, 30(14), 1, 23.
6.
CrossC. (2004). Political education: National policy comes of age. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
7.
DinanJ. (2008). The state of American federalism 2007-2008: Resurgent state influence in the national policy process and continued state policy innovation. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 38, 381-415.
8.
FuhrmanS. H. (2004). Less than meets the eye: Standards, testing, and fear of federal control. In EpsteinN. (Ed.), Who’s in charge here? The tangled web of school governance and policy (pp. 131-163). Washington, DC: Brookings.
9.
FusarelliB. C.CooperB. S. (2009). The rising state: How state power is transforming our nation’s schools. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
10.
FusarelliL. D. (2007). Restricted choices, limited options: Implementing choice and supplemental educational services in No Child Left Behind. Educational Policy, 21, 132-154.
11.
GrodzinsM. (1960). The federal system. In President’s Commission on National Goals, Goals for Americans (pp. 265-282). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
12.
HsiehJ. (2010, May8). Alaska opts out of Race to the Top school grants; too much change: state leery after failures of the No Child Left Behind Act. Anchorage Daily News. Retrieved June 1, 2011, from http://www.adn.com
13.
Indiana Department of Education. (2010, April22). IDOE halts Race to the Top efforts, focuses on implementing reform plans (Press release). Indianapolis, IN: Indiana Department of Education.
14.
MannaP. (2006). School’s in: Federalism and the national education agenda. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
15.
MazmanianD. A.SabatierP. A. (1983). Implementation and public policy. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
16.
McDonnellL. M. (2005). No Child Left Behind and the federal role in education: Evolution or revolution?Peabody Journal of Education, 80(2), 19-38.
17.
McDonnellR. F. (2010, May26). Letter to the Honorable Arne Duncan RE: Race to the Top program application. Richmond, VA: Office of the Governor.
18.
McGuinnP. J. (2006). No Child Left Behind and the transformation of federal education policy, 1965-2005. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.
19.
McLaughlinM. W. (1987). Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9, 171-178.
20.
McNeilM. (2011). Some states wary of new Race to Top cash. Education Week, 30(33), 18, 23.
21.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2009a). Mapping state proficiency standards onto NAEP scales: 2005-2007. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
22.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2009b). Table 172. Revenues for public elementary and secondary schools, by source of funds: Selected years, 1919-20 through 2006-07. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
23.
National Conference of State Legislatures. (2005). Delivering the promise: State recommendations for improving No Child Left Behind. Washington, DC: National Conference of State Legislatures.
24.
National Conference of State Legislatures. (2010). Education at a crossroads: A new direction for federal and state education policy. Washington, DC: National Conference of State Legislatures.
25.
National Governors Association. (2005). Graduation counts: A compact on state high school graduation data. Washington, DC: National Governors Association.
26.
National Governors Association. (2009). Implementing Graduation Counts: State progress to date, 2009. Washington, DC: National Governors Association.
27.
NugentJ.D. (2009). Safeguarding federalism: How states protect their interests in national policymaking. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.
28.
Office of the Federal Register. (2008). Title 1—Improving the academic achievement of the disadvantaged; final rule. Federal Register, 73, 64435-64513.
29.
Office of the Governor. (2010a, June1). Gov. Perry: Texas is a national leader in college—and career-readiness; will not apply for second round of federal Race to the Top funding (Press release). Austin, TX: Office of Governor Rick Perry.
30.
Office of the Governor. (2010b, January13). Gov. Perry: Texas knows best how to educate our students; Texas will not apply for federal Race to the Top funding (Press release). Austin, TX: Office of Governor Rick Perry.
31.
O’TooleL. J.Jr. (2007). American intergovernmental relations: Concluding thoughts. In O’TooleL. J.Jr. (Ed.), American intergovernmental relations: Foundations, perspectives, and issues (4th ed., pp. 357-360). Washington, DC: CQ.
32.
PosnerP. L.ConlanT. J. (2009). Conclusion: Managing complex problems in a compound republic. In ConlanT. J.PosnerP. L. (Eds.), Intergovernmental management for the 21st century (pp. 338-351). Washington, DC: Brookings.
33.
RadinB. A.HawleyW. D. (1988). The politics of federal reorganization: Creating the U.S. Department of Education. New York, NY: Pergamon.
34.
RathkeL. (2010, April26). Vermont will not seek federal education grant. Associated Press State & Local Wire.
35.
RivlinA. M. (1992). Reviving the American dream: The economy, the states, and the federal government. Washington, DC: Brookings.
36.
SchnellenbergerN. (2010a). Letter to Dr. Tony Bennett. April14. Indianapolis, IN: Indiana State Teachers Association.
37.
SchnellenbergerN. (2010b). Letter to Dr. Tony Bennett. April21. Indianapolis, IN: Indiana State Teachers Association.
38.
ShellyB. (2008). Rebels and their causes: State resistance to No Child Left Behind. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 38, 444-468.
39.
SundermanG. L. (2006). The unraveling of No Child Left Behind: How negotiated changes transform the law. Cambridge, MA: Civil Rights Project at Harvard University.
40.
SuperfineB. M. (2005). The politics of accountability: The rise and fall of Goals 2000. American Journal of Education, 112(1), 10-43.
41.
U.S. Department of Education. (2007). An OIG perspective on the unsafe school choice option. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
42.
U.S. Department of Education. (2009). Race to the Top program: Executive summary. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
43.
U.S. Department of Education. (2010a). The federal role in education. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
44.
U.S. Department of Education. (2010b, August24). Nine states and the District of Columbia win second round Race to the Top grants (Press release). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
45.
U.S. Department of Education. (2010c). Open government plan. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
46.
U.S. Department of Education. (2010d). The U.S. Department of Education’s report to Congress on waivers granted under section 9401 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act during calendar year 2009. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
47.
U.S. Department of Education. (2011a). About ED overview. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
48.
U.S. Department of Education. (2011b). Amendments-Decision letters. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
49.
VergariS. (2007). Federalism and market-based education policy: The supplemental educational services mandate. American Journal of Education, 113, 311-339.
50.
VergariS. (2010). Safeguarding federalism in education policy in Canada and the United States. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 40, 534-557.
51.
WeissS. (2010). The race is on. State Legislatures, 36(4), 14-17.
52.
Weiss-TismanH. (2010, April27). State won’t seek federal ed money. Brattleboro Reformer. Retrieved June 1, 2011, from http://www.reformer.com
53.
WongK. K. (2008). Accountability and innovation: New directions in education policy and management. In ConlanT. J.PosnerP. L. (Eds.), Intergovernmental management for the 21st century (pp. 102-123). Washington, DC: Brookings.
54.
WongK.SundermanG. (2007). Education accountability as a presidential priority: No Child Left Behind and the Bush presidency. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 37, 333-350.
55.
ZaisM. (2011). Race to the Top is penny-wise and pound-foolish. Columbia, SC: South Carolina State Department of Education.
