Teacher Evaluation Reform: A Convergence of Federal and Local Forces

Abstract

This article employs event history analysis to explore the factors that were associated with the rapid uptake of teacher evaluation reform. We investigate three hypotheses for this rapid adoption: (a) downward diffusion from the federal government through Race to the Top (RTTT), (b) upward diffusion from large school district policies, and (c) the influence of intermediary organizations. Although RTTT clearly played a role in state adoption, our analysis suggests that having a large district implement teacher evaluation reform is the most consistent predictor of state adoption. Intermediary organizations appeared to play a role in the process as well.

Keywords

teacher evaluation policy implementation federal policy school districts policy innovation and diffusion state policies bottom-up reform education reform

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bailey

(2013). 11 “developing” teachers face possible removal. New Haven Independent. Retrieved from https://www.newhavenindependent.org/index.php/archives/entry/teacher_evaluations

Berry

F. S.

(1994). Sizing up state policy innovation research. Policy Studies Journal, 22, 442-456.

Berry

F. S.

Berry

W. D.

(1990). State lottery adoptions as policy innovations: An event history analysis. American Political Science Review, 84, 395-415.

Bowen

Greene

(2016). Legislative professionalism component scores, V1.1. Harvard Dataverse. Retrieved from https://doi.org/doi/10.7910/DVN/27595

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2017). Civilian Labor Force (seasonally adjusted). Current Population Survey. Available from www.data.bls.gov

Brown

(2015, December). Days from leaving office, education secretary Arne Duncan talks about successes, failures. Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/education/wp/2015/12/17/days-from-leaving-office-education-secretary-arne-duncan-talks-about-successes-failures

Cohen

. (2010). Teacher layoffs: Rethinking “last-hired, first-fired” policies. Washington, DC: National Council on Teacher Quality. Retrieved from https://www.nctq.org/publications/Teacher-Layoffs:-Rethinking-Last–Hired,-First–Fired-Policies

Dimaggio

P. J.

Powell

W. W.

(1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147-160.

Doyle

W. R.

(2006). Adoption of merit-based student grant programs: An event history analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28, 259-285.

10.

Gais

Fossett

(2005). Federalism and the executive branch. In Aderbach

Peterson

(Eds.), The executive Branch (pp. 486-524). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

11.

Gates Foundation. (2017). Awarded grants. Retrieved from http://www.gatesfoundation.org/How-We-Work/Quick-Links/Grants-Database

12.

Graham

Parmer

Strizek

Thomas

(2014). Documentation for the 2011–12 Schools and Staffing Survey (NCES 2014-108). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

13.

Hassel

B. C.

(1999). The Charter school challenge: Avoiding the pitfalls, fulfilling the promise. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

14.

Henderson

M. B.

Peterson

P. E.

West

M. R.

(2016). The 2015 EdNext Poll on school reform. Education Next, 16(1), 9-20.

15.

Henig

J. R.

(2013). The end of Exceptionalism in American education: The changing politics of school reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

16.

Howell

W. G.

(2015). Results of President Obama’s race to the top: Win or lose, states enacted education reforms. Education Next, 15(4), 58-66.

17.

Howell

W. G.

Magazinnik

(2017). Presidential prescriptions for state policy: Obama’s race to the top initiative. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 36, 502-531. doi:10.1002/pam.21986

18.

Kingdon

J. W.

(2002). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.

19.

Kraft

M. A.

Gilmour

A. F.

(2017). Revisiting the widget effect: Teacher evaluation reforms and the distribution of teacher effectiveness. Educational Researcher, 46(5), 234-249.

20.

LaVenia

Cohen-Vogel

Lang

L. B.

(2015). The Common Core State Standards Initiative: An event history analysis of state adoption. American Journal of Education, 121, 145-182. doi:10.1086/679389

21.

LeClaire

(2011). Will EVAAS make wake schools better? Part one. Raleigh Public Record.

22.

Manna

(2006). School’s in: Federalism and the national education agenda. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

23.

Manna

Ryan

L. L.

(2011). Competitive grants and educational federalism: President Obama’s race to the top program in theory and practice. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 41, 522-546. doi:10.1093/publius/pjr021

24.

Marsh

J. A.

Wohlstetter

(2013, June). Recent trends in intergovernmental relations: The resurgence of local actors in education policy. Educational Researcher, 42(5), 276-283.

25.

McGlynn

A. J.

(2010). Identifying the causes of mayoral control in urban public school systems. Urban Education, 45, 661-686.

26.

McGuinn

(2012). Stimulating reform race to the top, competitive grants and the Obama education agenda. Educational Policy, 26, 136-159.

27.

McGuinn

(2016). From No Child Left behind to the Every Student Succeeds Act: Federalism and the education legacy of the Obama administration. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 46, 392-415.

28.

McGuinn

Berger

Stevenson

Hess

F. M.

Kelly

A. P.

(2012). Incentives, Information, and Infrastructure: The Federal Role in Education Incentives. In Hess

Kelly

(Eds.), Carrots, sticks, and the bully pulpit: Lessons from a half-century of federal efforts to improve America’s schools (pp. 125-154). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

29.

Meredith

J. K.

(2013). State policy diffusion and race to the top: The impact of federal competitive grants on state policymaking (Unpublished manuscript). University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.

30.

Mintrom

(1997). Policy entrepreneurs and the diffusion of innovation. American Journal of Political Science, 41, 738-770. doi:10.2307/2111674

31.

Mintrom

Vergari

(1998). Policy networks and innovation diffusion: The case of state education reforms. The Journal of Politics, 60, 126-148.

32.

Moe

T. M.

(2011). Special interest: Teachers unions and America’s public schools. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

33.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2014). Common core of data. Available from nces.ed.gov/ccd/

34.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2015). Table 105.40. Number of teachers in elementary and secondary schools, and faculty in degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by control of institution: Selected years, Fall 1970 through Fall 2025. Digest of Education Statistics. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d15/tables/dt15_105.40.asp?current=yeshttps://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet?request_action=wh&graph_name=LN_cpsbref1

35.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2016). The Nation’s Report Card. Retrieved from nces.ed.gov/ccd/

36.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2017). State Nonfiscal Public Elementary/Secondary Education Survey. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/stfis.asp

37.

National Council on Teacher Quality (2016a). Teacher Contract Database. Retrieved from https://www.nctq.org/contract-database/home

38.

National Council on Teacher Quality. (2016b). State Policy Yearbook Database. Retrieved from https://www.nctq.org/yearbook/home

39.

National Governors Association. (2017). National Governors Association Committee membership. Available from Nga.org

40.

North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. (2015). North Carolina teacher evaluation process. Retrieved from http://www.ncpublicschools.org/docs/effectiveness-model/ncees/instruments/teach-eval-manual.pdf

41.

Pressman

J. L.

Wildavsky

(1984). Implementation: How great expectations in Washington are dashed in Oakland; or, why it’s amazing that federal programs work at all, this being a saga of the economic development administration as told by two sympathetic observers who seek to build morals. Berkeley: University of California Press.

42.

Purdue

(2010). Race to the top application: State of North Carolina. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/phase1-applications/north-carolina.pdf

43.

Reckhow

(2012). Follow the money: How foundation dollars change public school politics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

44.

Reckhow

Snyder

J. W.

(2014). The expanding role of philanthropy in education politics. Educational Researcher, 43, 186-195.

45.

Renzulli

L. A.

Roscigno

V. J.

(2005). Charter school policy, implementation, and diffusion across the United States. Sociology of Education, 78, 344-366.

46.

Rogers

E. M.

(2010). Diffusion of innovations. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

47.

Saultz

Fusarelli

L. D.

McEachin

(2017). The Every Student Succeeds Act, the decline of the federal role in education policy, and the curbing of executive authority. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 47, 426-444.

48.

Schwartz

R. B.

Robinson

M. A.

(2000). Goals 2000 and the standards movement. Brookings Papers on Education Policy, 2000, 173-206.

49.

Severns

(2015, December). How Congress finally killed No Child Left Behind. Politico.

50.

Shipan

C. R.

Volden

(2006). Bottom-up Federalism: The diffusion of antismoking policies from US cities to states. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 825-843.

51.

Shipan

C. R.

Volden

(2008). The mechanisms of policy diffusion. American Journal of Political Science, 52, 840-857.

52.

Shipan

C. R

Volden

(2012). Policy diffusion: Seven lessons for scholars and practitioners. Public Administration Review, 72, 788–796.

53.

Springer

M. G.

Gardner

C. D.

(2010). Teacher pay for performance: Context, status, and direction. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(8), 8-15.

54.

Steinberg

M. P.

Donaldson

M. L.

(2016). The new educational accountability: Understanding the landscape of teacher evaluation in the post-NCLB era. Education Finance and Policy, 11(3), 340-359.

55.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2016). Union membership and earnings data. Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/spotlight/2016/union-membership-in-the-united-states/home.htm

56.

U.S. Census. (2015). Public education finances. G-15-ASPEF. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

57.

U.S. Department of Education. (2009). Race to the top: Executive summary. Washington, DC: Author.

58.

U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2011). Race to the top: Reform efforts are under way and information sharing could be improved. Washington, DC: Author.

59.

Wall

. (2015). The Book of the States. Lexington, KY: The Council of State Governments.

60.

Weisberg

Sexton

Mulhern

Keeling

Schunck

Palcisco

Morgan

(2009). The widget effect: Our national failure to acknowledge and act on differences in teacher effectiveness (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: New Teacher Project.

61.

Weiss

McGuinn

(2016). States as change agents under ESSA. Phi Delta Kappan, 97(8), 28-33.

62.

Winkler

A. M.

Scull

Zeehandelaar

(2012, December). How strong are US teacher unions? A state-by-state comparison. Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Institute.

63.

Wong

K. K.

(2015). Federal ESEA waivers as reform leverage: Politics and variation in state implementation. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 45, 405-426.

64.

Wong

K. K.

Langevin

W. E.

(2006). Policy expansion of school choice in the American states. Peabody Journal of Education, 82, 440-472.

65.

Wong

K. K.

Shen

F. X.

(2002). Politics of state-led reform in education: Market competition and electoral dynamics. Educational Policy, 16, 161-192.

66.

Zhang

Yang

(2008). What drives Charter school diffusion at the local level: Educational needs or political and institutional forces? Policy Studies Journal, 36, 571-591.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.14 MB