The federal government promised that it would limit waiver grants to states for the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). It largely kept that promise, but states did gain significant flexibility through amendments to accountability plans. OLS model estimates showed that larger, more affluent, and more Republican states submitted more amendment requests and the federal Department of Education approved the amendments of states that received more federal funding, had a more developed standardized testing system in place prior to NCLB, and voted Republican. These findings suggested new avenues of exploration for scholars of executive federalism.
AgranoffR.McGuireM. (2004). Another Look at bargaining and negotiating in intergovernmental management. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14(4), 495-512.
2.
American Association of School Administrators. (2002). ESEA-NCLB/Title 1. 2006.
3.
CarnoyM.LoebS. (2002). Does external accountability affect student outcomes? A cross-state analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(4), 305-331.
4.
ClarkeM. (2007). State responses to the No Child Left Behind Act: The uncertain link between implementation and “proficiency for all.” In KaestleC. F.LodewickA. E. (Eds.), To educate a nation: Federal and national strategies of school reform (pp. 144-174). Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
5.
DaviesG.DerthickM. (1997). Race and social welfare policy: The Social Security Act of 1935. Political Science Quarterly, 112(2), 217-235.
6.
ErpenbachW. J.ForteE. (2005). Statewide educational accountability under the No Child Left Behind Act—a report on 2005 amendments to state plans. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
7.
ErpenbachW. J.ForteE. (2006). Statewide educational accountability under the No Child Left Behind Act—a report on 2006 amendments to state plans. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
8.
ErpenbachW. J.ForteE. (2007). Statewide educational accountability under the No Child Left Behind Act—a report on 2007 amendments to state plans. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
9.
GaisT.FossettJ. (2005). Federalism and the executive branch. In AberbachJ. D.PetersonM. A. (Eds.), The executive branch (p. xxxviii). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
10.
GoertzM. E. (2005). The state context for implementing the No Child Left Behind Act. In The challenge of education reform: Standards, accountability, resources and policy (pp. 53-59). Cancun, Mexico: The Aspen Institute.
11.
GormleyW. T. (2006). Money and mandates: The politics of intergovernmental conflict. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 36(4), 523-540.
12.
GroganC. (1999). The influence of federal mandates on state Medicaid and AFDC decision-making. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 29(3), 1-23.
KimJ. (2003). The initial response to the accountability requirements in the No Child Left Behind Act: A case study of Virginia and Georgia. Annual meeting on April 21-25, 2003, of the American Education Research Association. Chicago, IL.
15.
KraneD. (2004). The state of American federalism, 2003-2004: Polarized politics and federalist principles. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 34(3), 1-53.
16.
KraneD. (2007). The middle tier in American Federalism: State government policy activism during the Bush presidency. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 37(3), 453-477.
MannaP. (2006). School’s in : Federalism and the national education agenda. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
19.
McDermottK. A.JensenL. S. (2005). Dubious sovereignty: Federal conditions on aid and the No Child Left Behind Act. Peabody Journal of Education, 80(2), 39-56.
20.
McGuinnP. J. (2006). No Child Left Behind and the transformation of federal education policy: 1965-2005 studies in government and public policy. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
21.
MintromM.VergariS. (1998). Policy networks and innovation diffusion: The case of state education reforms. The Journal of Politics, 60(1), 126-148.
22.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2003). Digest of education statistics 2003. Washington, DC: Author.
23.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2005a). 1999-2000 Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) and 2000-01 Teacher Follow-Up Survey (TFS) CD-Rom: Public-use data with electronic codebook. Washington, DC: Author.
24.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2005b). Digest of education statistics 2005. Washington, DC: Author.
25.
National Education Association. (2007). NCLB/ESEA it’s time for a change: Voices from America’s classrooms. Washington, DC: Author.
PosnerP. (2007). The politics of coercive federalism in the Bush era. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 1-23.
28.
ReevesC. (2003). Implementing the No Child Left Behind Act: Implications for rural schools and districts. Chicago, IL: Learning Point Associates.
29.
SchneiderS. K. (1997). Medicaid Section 1115 Waivers: Shifting health care reform to the states. Publius, 27(2), 89-109.
30.
ShellyB. (2009). Rebels and their causes: State resistance to No Child Left Behind. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 38(2), 444-468.
31.
ShellyB. (2011). Money, mandates, and local control in American public education. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
32.
SteelmanL. C.PowellB.CariniR. M. (2000). Do teachers unions hinder educational performance? Lesson learned from state SAT and ACT scores. Harvard Educational Review, 70(4), 437-477.
33.
SundermanG. (2006). The unraveling of No Child Left Behind: How negotiated changes transform the law (ED490859). Washington, DC: Harvard Education Publishing Group.
34.
ThompsonF. J.BurkeC. (2007). Executive federalism and Medicaid demonstration waivers: Implications for policy and democratic process. Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law, 32(6), 971-1004.
35.
ThompsonF. J.BurkeC. (2009). Federalism by waiver: MEDICAID and the transformation of long-term care. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 39(1), 22-46.
36.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). United States Census 2000. Washington, DC: Author.
