In 2009, a seldom-used policy lever emerged in the form of a competitive grant program, Race to the Top (RTTT), and sparked a flurry of state-led initiatives as states vied for federal dollars. The current study examines the policymaking context that surrounded these events and propelled Tennessee to the top of the race among the states. Through interviews with legislators and bureaucrats, I analyze the state-level processes instigated by a federal program in which all but four states participated, but fewer than half were winners. My examination details the parallels between the RTTT guidelines, Tennessee’s efforts, including the Special Session in the General Assembly, and the state’s plan for improving education in the state as outlined in their RTTT application.
BaumgartnerF. R.JonesB. D. (1991). Agenda dynamics and policy subsystems. American Politics Research, 29, 221-245.
3.
BaumgartnerF. R.JonesB. D. (1993). Agendas and instability in the American politics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
4.
BradyK. P. (2009). State power and equity. In FusarelliB. C.CooperB. S. (Eds.), The rising state: How state power is transforming our nation’s schools (pp. 177-191). Albany: State University of New York.
5.
BrillS. (2011). Class warfare. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
6.
CibulkaJ. (2001). The changing role of interest groups in education: Nationalization and the new politics of education productivity. Educational Policy, 15, 12-40.
7.
CurtisK. A. (2011). The politics of non-incremental school finance reform: A case study analysis of Vermont’s Act 60 as a test of Mazzoni’s arena model. University of Maryland College Park. Retrieved from http://gradworks.umi.com/34/95/3495372.html
8.
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.
ErlandsonD.HarrisE.SkipperB.AllenS. (1993). Doing naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
13.
FinchM. A. (2012). Precursors to policy innovation: How Tennessee entered Race to the Top. Peabody Journal of Education, 87, 576-592.
14.
FirestoneW. A.FuhrmanS. H.KirstM. (1991). State educational reform since 1983: Appraisal and future. Educational Policy, 5, 233-250.
15.
FowlerF. C. (1994). Education reform comes to Ohio: An application of Mazzoni’s arena models. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 16, 335-350.
16.
FowlerF. C. (2006). Struggling with theory: A beginning scholar’s experience with Mazzoni’s arena models. In AnfaraV. A.Jr.MertzN. T. (Eds.), Theoretical frameworks in qualitative research (pp. 39-58). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
17.
FreedmanH. E.HughesA. L. (1998). The development of educational policy in Connecticut. In American Educational Research Association. San Diego, CA: Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED422649.pdf
18.
FromanL. A.RipleyR. (1965). Conditions for party leadership: The case of the House Democrats. American Political Science Review, 59(1), 52-63.
19.
FuhrmanS. H. (1987). Education policy: A new context for governance. Publius, 17(3), 131-143.
20.
FuhrmanS. H.ElmoreR. (1994). Governors and education policy in the 1990s. In ElmoreR. F.FuhrmanS. F. (Eds.), The governance of curriculum: 1984 yearbook for the Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development (pp. 56-75). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
21.
FusarelliL. D. (2005). Education Reform Gubernatorial Reactions to No Child Left Behind: Politics, Pressure, and Education Reform. Peabody Journal of Education, 80(2), 120-136.
22.
Gates Foundation. (2009). Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s race to the top support to states. Retrieved from http://education.foundationcenter.org/ (accessed 5 June 2011).
23.
GittellM.McKennaL. (1999). Redefining education regimes and reforms: The political role of governors. Urban Education, 34, 268-291.
24.
GoertzM. E. (2005). Implementing the No Child Left Behind Act: Challenges for the States. Peabody Journal of Education, 80(2), 73-89.
25.
HaticH.LaBrecuqueR. (1989). State education reform: Crisis and consensus. Educational Policy, 3, 217-231.
26.
HochschildJ. T. (2004). Three puzzles in search of an answer from political scientists (with apologies to Pirandello). Political Science & Politics, 37, 225-229.
27.
KarperJ. H.BoydW. L. (1988). Interest groups and the changing environment of state educational policymaking: Developments in Pennsylvania. Educational Administration Quarterly, 24, 21-54.
28.
KingdonJ. W. (1984). Agendas, alternatives and public policies. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
29.
KirstM. (1988). Recent state education reform in the United States: Looking backward and forward. Educational Administration Quarterly, 24, 319-328.
30.
KousserT.PhillipsJ. H. (2012). The power of American governors. Cambridge, CA: Cambridge University Press.
31.
LipskyM. (1976). Toward a theory of street level bureaucracy. In HawleyW. D. (Ed.), Theoretical perspectives on urban politics (pp. 196-213). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
32.
LoweJ. A. (2013). Reforming education: A sociopolitical leverage framework for understanding influences on policy. Journal of Education Policy, Planning, and Administration, 3(1), 26-43.
33.
MannaP. (2006). Control, persuasion, and educational accountability: Implementing the No Child Left Behind Act. Educational Policy, 20, 471-494.
MannaP.RyanL. L. (2011). Competitive grants and education federalism. Publius, 41, 522-546.
36.
MazzoniT. L. (1989). Governors as policy leaders for education: A Minnesota comparison. Educational Policy, 3, 79-90.
37.
MazzoniT. L. (1991). Analyzing state school policymaking: An arena model. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 13, 115-138.
38.
McDermottK. (2009). Growing state intervention in low-performing schools: Law and regulation in three waves of reform. In WongK.RothmanR. (Eds.), Clio at the table: Using history to inform and improve education policy (pp. 91-108). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
39.
McDonnellL.ElmoreR. (1987). Getting the job done: Alternative policy instruments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9, 133-152. Retrieved from http://epa.sagepub.com/content/9/2/133.short
40.
McGuinnP. (2012). Stimulating reform: Race to the Top, competitive grants and the Obama education agenda. Educational Policy, 26, 136-159.
41.
McLendonM. K.Cohen-VogelL. (2008). Understanding education policy change in the American states: Lessons from political science. In CooperB. S.CibulkaJ. G.FusarelliL. D. (Eds.), Handbook of education politics and policies (pp. 30-51). New York, NY: Routledge.
42.
PiphoC. (1986). Kappan special report: States move closer to reality. Phi Delta Kappan, 68(4), K1-K8.
43.
SabatierP. A. (2007). The need for better theories. In SabatierP. A. (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 3-20). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
44.
ShentonA. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22, 63-75.
45.
SpringJ. (2011). The politics of American education. New York, NY: Routledge.
46.
SundermanG. (2009). Examining the federal role in education: From Reagan’s excellence movement to Bush and No Child Left Behind. In WongK.RothmanR. (Eds.), Clio at the table: Using history to inform and improve education policy (pp. 181-197). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
47.
U.S. Department of Education. (2009). Race to the top executive summary. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
48.
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, & National Center for Education Statistics. (n.d.). National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) State Comparisons. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/states
49.
WongK.SundermanG. (2007). Education Accountability as a Presidential Priority: No Child Left Behind and the Bush Presidency. Publius, 37, 333-350.
