SUP-449 - Harvard University

SUP-449 - Harvard University

A-024 [SUP-449]: Politics and Education Policy in the U.S. Mondays and Wednesdays (10:10am-Noon), Larsen G08 Professor: Martin West Harvard Graduate ...

294KB Sizes 0 Downloads 6 Views

A-024 [SUP-449]: Politics and Education Policy in the U.S. Mondays and Wednesdays (10:10am-Noon), Larsen G08

Professor: Martin West Harvard Graduate School of Education Gutman Library 454, 6 Appian Way Cambridge, MA 02138

Phone: 617-496-4803 Email: [email protected] Office hours: Tuesdays 3-5pm http://west-office-hours.wikispaces.com/

“It is impossible to talk about education apart from a conception of the good life; people will inevitably differ in their conceptions of the good life, and hence they will inevitably differ on matters of education; therefore the discussion of education falls squarely within the domain of politics.” - Aristotle’s Politics 1. Course Description Education is inherently political. The experience of schooling contributes to the socialization of citizens, and curricular choices inevitably legitimate some forms of knowledge while excluding others. Educational attainment is a key determinant of the economic success, and therefore the political influence, of individuals and social groups. The public school system is among the largest employers in the national economy, and public education typically commands a substantial share of state and local government budgets. It is no surprise, then, that education policy debates are often contentious. This course examines the politics of education policy in the United States. It introduces the key institutions (e.g., school districts, states education agencies, Congress, the executive branch, and the courts) and actors (e.g., elected officials, teachers unions, the business community, parents, and the general public) shaping American K-12 education in order to shed light on current policy debates and their implications for students. We survey past conflicts over education governance, recent policy changes, and the successes and challenges facing ongoing reform efforts. Throughout the semester we draw on concepts from political science to understand the development of the American education system while using education policy as a case study to learn about the American political process and the nature of political action generally. The course is strongly recommended for students in the Education Policy and Management program as a broad overview of education politics and policy in the United States. It should also be useful for Ph.D. in Education and Ed.L.D. students and for doctoral students in other programs with an interest in applied political analysis. The course is open to advanced undergraduates with a strong interest in education policy. A basic familiarity with the American political system is helpful, but there are no formal prerequisites or caps on enrollment.

1

2. Course Structure The course is organized by substantive topic, with topics introduced in a loosely chronological manner. Often, however, we follow a topic’s development to the present day when it is first introduced. Theoretical readings from political science and related disciplines are included throughout the semester to provide conceptual frameworks useful for understanding the development and implementation of specific policies. The focus of the course is the politics of American elementary and secondary education from 1954 to the present. This broad span is divided into two periods characterized by the dominant thrust of efforts to reform the governance and performance of American schools: 1) Democratic Reforms (1954-1983); and 2) Excellence Reforms (1983-2016). Individual class meetings are devoted either to interactive lectures or to structured smalland large-group discussions. Classes of each type are identified with an “L” or a “D” on the schedule below. Discussion classes often focus on a political or legal case, providing an opportunity for students to apply their knowledge to a concrete issue, problem, or decision. 3. Expectations and Evaluation Attendance and preparation: The first and most important expectation for this course is regular and prepared attendance. If you must miss a class, you should contact a Teaching Fellow as soon as possible (with a full week’s notice strongly encouraged). You are also expected to watch a video of the class you miss and submit a 500-word response to the assigned readings and the video within one week. All required readings should be completed prior to the class for which they are assigned. In addition, you should plan to spend time reflecting on and drawing connections between the readings, guided in part by guides posted on the course website. Laptop policy: A growing body of evidence indicates that the use of laptops and other electronic devices, even when used only for note-taking, can hinder engagement and learning. Furthermore, laptop use for other purposes (e.g., email, social media, etc.) can be a source of distraction for other students. The use of laptops is therefore prohibited in sessions identified with an “L” on the syllabus. Laptops are permitted in classes identified with a “D” on the syllabus in order to permit access to electronic versions of the readings, but their wireless capabilities should be disabled for the duration of all class meetings. If you would like to request an exemption from this policy for any reason (e.g., a disability or other educational need), please email me prior to our second class meeting on September 6. Discussion groups: To foster engagement with the course readings, each student will be assigned to a weekly discussion group. Students are strongly encouraged to sign up for a group that meets in person but also have the option of signing up for a group that meets online. Each group is required to post a brief summary of their discussion of the assigned readings by 10pm on the evening before each course meeting marked on the syllabus 2

with an “L.” For groups that meet online, each individual student should instead post a brief comment. Repeated non-participation (or cursory participation) in your discussion group will be reflected in the participation component of your final course grade. Discussion groups will be reshuffled at least once during the semester. The first group postings are due prior to our third scheduled course meeting on September 11 (i.e., by 10pm on September 10). Tracking current events: All students are expected to follow coverage of education issues in at least one national newspaper (e.g., New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, and USA Today) and in education-specific news sources (e.g., Education Week and Chalkbeat) on a regular basis. I will often bring relevant articles and commentary to your attention, and I encourage you to let me know when you come across material of interest. Commenting on the relationship between media articles and assigned readings is also a valued form of discussion group participation. Written assignments: The written assignments for the course comprise two short papers (with an option to write a third) and a take-home exam. The short papers take the form of 1,000-word policy memos or 1,500-word analysis papers; students are required to write two papers in total, at least one of which must be a policy memo. Students may choose to write a third paper of either type, in which case we will drop the lowest of their three short paper grades. Paper prompts are distributed at each of the 12 class meetings marked on the syllabus with a “D.” Students choosing to write in response to one of those prompts must submit their paper via the course website by the following Friday. Students must submit their first paper by October 20. The take-home exam is distributed at 9am on December 6 and due by 5pm on December 8. It will require you to answer short-response questions and to draft a policy memo similar to those assigned during the semester, but on a topic that requires the synthesis of material across topics. The exam is open-book and open-note but must be completed independently. Doctoral candidates and others who expect to pursue research on the politics of education have the option to write a research paper proposal of roughly 3,500 words in lieu of completing the final exam. Detailed expectations for each written assignment will be discussed in class and posted on the course website. Collaboration on written assignments: Discussion and the exchange of ideas are essential to both academic and policy work. For all assignments in this course other than the final exam (which should be completed independently), you are encouraged to discuss the topic on which you choose to write with your discussion group, other students, and the teaching staff. However, you should ensure that the work you submit for evaluation is the result of your own writing and reflects your own approach to the topic. You should also adhere to course policies with respect to the citation of course materials and outside sources. If you receive specific help with your writing (e.g., feedback on

3

drafts), you should acknowledge this assistance. Whether or not you have received such assistance will not influence the evaluation of your work. Evaluation: Course grades will be calculated as follows: Attendance and Participation: 15% Short Papers: 50% Final Exam/Paper: 35%

4. Required Texts and Reading Materials The following required texts are available for purchase from numerous online vendors: Gareth Davies, See Government Grow: Education Politics from Johnson to Reagan (University Press of Kansas, 2007). Gerald Grant, The World We Created at Hamilton High (Harvard University Press, 1988). The remaining readings are available in the course iPa© or via links provided on the course website. Readings listed as “Additional Resources” are not required but available as a reference to students interested in additional perspectives or evidence on the relevant topics; they may also be a useful starting point for final paper research. Syllabus Codes: L: Lecture-based class D: Discussion-based class RT: Required Text IP: iPa© Web: Link provided on course website

4

5. Topics and Readings Aug. 30: The Origins and Expansion of Mass Education in the U.S. (L) Carl Kaestle, Pillars of the Republic: Common Schools and American Society, 1780-1860 (Hill and Wang, 1983), pp. 3-29. [IP] Charles Glenn, Myth of the Common School (Institute for Contemporary Studies, 2002), pp. 63-83 (skim for main argument); 84-85 (read carefully). [IP] Michael W. Kirst, “Turning Points: A History of American School Governance,” in Noel Epstein, ed., Who’s in Charge Here? The Tangled Web of School Governance and Policy (Brookings Institution Press, 2004), pp. 14-22 (read carefully); 22-41 (skim for main argument). [IP] Claudia Goldin, “The Human Capital Century,” Education Next, Vol. 3, no. 1 (2003), pp. 73-78. [Web] Gloria Ladson-Billings, “From the Achievement Gap to the Education Debt: Understanding Achievement in U.S. Schools,” Educational Researcher, Vol. 35, no. 7, pp. 3-12. [Web (and orientation sourcebook for EPM students)] Additional resources: Christopher R. Berry and Martin R. West, “Growing Pains: The School Consolidation Movement and Student Outcomes,” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Vol. 26, no. 1 (2010), pp. 1-29. [Web] Claudia Goldin and Lawrence F. Katz, The Race between Education and Technology (Harvard University Press, 2008), pp. 129-162. [IP] David Tyack, One Best System: A History of Urban Education (Harvard University Press, 1974). Part I: The Democratic Reforms: Expanding Access to Educational Opportunity (1954-1983) Sept. 6: The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) (L) The Federalist Papers, No. 51. [Web] Frank R. Baumgartner and Brian D. Jones, Agendas and Instability in American Politics, 2nd edition, pp. 3-38. [IP] Christopher Cross, Political Education: National Policy Comes of Age (Teachers College Press, 2003), pp. xiii-xv. [IP] 5

Gareth Davies, See Government Grow (University Press of Kansas, 2007), pp. 9-46. [RT] Lauren Camera and Lindsey Cook, “Title I: Rich School Districts Get Millions Meant for Poor Kids,” US News & World Report (2016) [Web] Additional Resources: Elizabeth U. Cascio, Nora E. Gordon, and Sarah J. Reber, “Federal Aid and Equality of Educational Opportunity: Evidence from the Introduction of Title I in the South,” American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, vol. 5, no. 3 (2013), pp. 126-159. [Web] Nora Gordon and Sarah Reber, “The Quest for a Targeted and Effective Title I ESEA: Challenges in Designing and Implementing Fiscal Compliance Rules,” RSF: Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, vol. 1. No. 3 (2015), 129-147. [Web] Jon Fullerton and Dalia Hochman, “The Consequences of Distrust: Why the Fiscal Requirements of Federal Education Policy Hinder Effective District Management and What to do about It,” Center for American Progress (2012). [Web] Sept. 11: School Desegregation (L) The Federalist Papers, No. 78. [Web] Gerald Rosenberg, The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring About Social Change? (University of Chicago Press, 1991), pp. 9-36 (read carefully); 42-106 (skim for main argument); 157-169 (read carefully). [IP] James E. Ryan, “The Real Lessons of School Desegregation,” in Joshua M. Dunn and Martin R. West, eds., From Schoolhouse to Courthouse: The Judiciary’s Role in American Education (Brookings Institution Press, 2009), pp. 73-95. [IP] Steven Rivkin, “Desegregation since the Coleman Report: Racial composition of schools and student learning,” Education Next, vol. 16, no. 2 (2016), 28-37. Read or listen to at least one of the following two sources: Linda C. Tillman, “(Un) intended consequences? The impact of the Brown v. Board of Education decision on the employment status of black educators.” Education and Urban Society, vol. 36, no. 3 (2004), pp. 280-303. Malcolm Gladwell, “Miss Buchanan’s Period of Adjustment,” Revisionist History Podcast, Season 2, Episode 3. http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/13-miss-buchanansperiod-of-adjustment. Additional Resources: 6

Brown v. Board of Education (1954) [Web] Milliken v. Bradley (1973) [Web] Davies, See Government Grow, 104-142 [RT] Charles Clotfelter, After Brown: The Rise and Retreat of School Desegregation (Princeton University Press, 2005), pp. 44-74. [IP] Elizabeth Cascio, Nora Gordon, Ethan Lewis, and Sarah Reber, “Paying for Progress: Conditional Grants and the Desegregation of Southern Schools,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 125, no. 1 (2010), pp. 445-482. [Web] Jonathan Guryan, “Desegregation and Black Dropout Rates,” American Economic Review, vol. 94, no. 4 (2004), pp. 919-943. Rucker C. Johnson, “Long-run Impacts of School Desegregation and School Quality on Adult Attainments,” NBER Working Paper 16664, National Bureau of Economic Research (2015). Charles Clotfelter, After Brown: The Rise and Retreat of School Desegregation (Princeton University Press, 2005), pp. 44-74. [IP] Jeremy Fiel, “Decomposing School Resegregation: Social Closure, Racial Imbalance, and Racial Isolation,” American Sociological Review, vol. 78, no. 5 (2013), pp. 228-248. [Web] Sept. 13: Race-based School Assignment: Parents Involved in Community Schools (D) Orin S. Kerr, “How to Read a Legal Opinion: A Guide for New Law Students,” vol. 11, no. 1 (2007), pp. 51-63. [Web] Selected opinions from Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 (2007): Roberts, Kennedy, and Stevens. [Web] Robert L. Linn and Kevin G. Welner, eds., “Race-Conscious Policies for Assigning Students to Schools: Social Science Research and the Supreme Court Cases,” Committee on Social Science Research Evidence on Racial Diversity in Schools, National Academy of Education (2007), pp. 1-3 (executive summary). [Web] Additional Resources: Hugh Macartney and John D. Singleton, “School Boards and Student Segregation,” NBER Working Paper No. 23619, National Bureau of Economic Research (2017). [Web] 7

Amy S. Wells, “How Racially Diverse Schools and Classrooms can Benefit All Students,” Twentieth Century Fund (2016). [Web] Sept. 18: Student Rights and Judicial Oversight of School Discipline (L) Richard Arum, Judging School Discipline: The Crisis of Moral Authority (Harvard University Press, 2003), pp 1-37. [IP] Gerald Grant, The World We Created at Hamilton High (Harvard University Press, 1988), pp. 1-76. [RT] Additional resources: Joshua M. Dunn, “Talking about Religion: Separation, Freedom of Speech, and Student Rights,” in Dunn and West, From Schoolhouse to Courthouse, pp. 189-212. Richard Arum and Doreet Preiss, “Still Judging School Discipline,” in Dunn and West, From Schoolhouse to Courthouse, pp. 238-260. Sept. 20: Student Speech Rights: The “BONG HiTS 4 JESUS” Case (D) Selected opinions from Morse v. Frederick (2007): Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Stevens. [Web] Sept. 25: Access for Students with Disabilities and English Language Learners (L) The Federalist Papers, No. 10 [Web] Davies, See Government Grow, pp. 143-93. [RT] Selected media coverage of Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District (2017). [Web] Grant, Hamilton High, pp. 77-113. Start reading now; finish before Wednesday’s class [RT] Additional resources: Paul L. Morgan, et al., “Minorities Are Disproportionately Underrepresented in Special Education: Longitudinal Evidence Across Five Disability Conditions,” Educational Researcher, vol. 44, no. 5 (2015), pp. 278-292. [Web] Samuel Bagenstos, “The Judiciary’s Now-limited Role in Special Education,” in Dunn and West, From Schoolhouse to Courthouse, pp. 121-141. [IP]

8

Sept. 27: Hamilton High and School Discipline Reform (D) Richard Weatherly and Michael Lipsky, “Street-Level Bureaucrats and Institutional Innovation: Implementing Special-Education Reform,” Harvard Educational Review, vol. 17, no. 2 (1977), pp. 171-197. [Web] Grant, Hamilton High, pp. 77-113. [RT] Selected resources from the U.S. Department of Education’s “School Climate and Discipline Guidance Package”: “Dear Colleague Letter” and the “Overview of the Successful School Discipline Initiative.” [Web] Richard A. Epstein, “Civil Rights Enforcement Goes Haywire,” Education Next, vol. 14, no. 4 (2014), pp. 29-33. [Web] Constance A. Lindsay and Cassandra M. D. Hart, “Teacher Race and School Discipline,” Education Next, vol. 17, no. 1 (2017), pp. 72-78. [Web] Matthew P. Steinberg and Johanna Lacoe, “What do we Know About School Discipline Reform?” Education Next, vol. 17, no. 1 (2017), pp. 44-52. Additional resources: Richard Elmore, “Backward Mapping: Implementation Research and Policy Decisions,” Political Science Quarterly, vol. 94, no. 4 (1979), pp. 601-616. [Web] Daniel J. Losen and Jonathan Gillespie, “Opportunities Suspended: The Disparate Impact of Disciplinary Exclusion from School,” The Civil Rights Project at UCLA (2012). [Web] Susan Dominus, “An Effective but Exhausting Alternative to High School Suspensions,” New York Times Magazine, September 16, 2016. [Web] This American Life (2014), Episode 538: Is This Working? [Web] Oct. 2: The Rise of Teachers Unions (L) Richard D. Kahlenberg, “The History of Collective Bargaining among Teachers,” in Jane Hannaway and Andrew J. Rotherham, eds., Collective Bargaining in Education (Harvard Education Press, 2006), pp. 7-25. [IP] Terry M. Moe, Special Interest: Teachers Unions and America’s Public Schools (Brookings Institution Press, 2011), pp. 26-111. [IP] Additional resources:

9

Leo Casey, “The Educational Value of Democratic Voice: A defense of collective bargaining in American education,” in Jane Hannaway and Andrew J. Rotherham, eds., Collective Bargaining in Education (Harvard Education Press, 2006), pp. 181-201. [IP] Charles Kerchner and Julia Koppich, “Negotiating What Matters Most: Collective Bargaining and Student Achievement,” American Journal of Education, vol. 113, no. 3 (2007), pp. 349-365. [Web] Oct. 4: School Boards and Urban School Politics (L) Frederick M. Hess and David Leal, “School house politics” in William G. Howell, ed., Besieged: School Boards and the Future of Education Politics (Brookings Institution Press, 2004), pp. 228-253. [IP] Terry M. Moe, “Political control and the power of the agent.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, vol. 22, no. 1 (2006), pp. 1-29. [Web] Clarence Stone et al, Building Civic Capacity: The Politics of Reforming Urban Schools (University of Kansas Press, 2001), pp. 10-19; 74-99. [IP] Charles M. Payne, So Much Reform, So Little Change: The Persistence of Failure in Urban Schools (Harvard Education Press, 2008), pp. 121-152. [IP] Additional resources: Kenneth Wong et al, The Education Mayor: Improving America’s Schools (Georgetown University Press, 2007), pp. 11-27. [IP] Jeffrey R. Henig, “Mayors, Governors, and Presidents: The New Education Executives and the End of Educational Exceptionalism,” Peabody Journal of Education, vol. 84, no. 3 (2009), pp. 283-299. [Web] Oct. 11: Debating Agency Fees (D) Paul DiMaggio and Walter Powell, “The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields,” American Sociological Review, vol. 48, no. 2 (1983), pp. 147-160. [Web] Mike Antonucci, “Teachers Unions at Risk of Losing ‘Agency Fees’,” Education Next (in press). [Web] Selected briefs from Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (2016): Social Scientists; School Districts; Daniel DiSalvo; and Gloria Romero et al.

10

Part II: The Excellence Reforms: From A Nation at Risk to NCLB (1983-2015) Oct. 16: “A Nation at Risk” and the Politics of Test-based Accountability (L) The National Commission on Excellence in Education, “A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Education Reform,” (Government Printing Office, 1983). [Web] James Q. Wilson, Bureaucracy: What Government Agencies Do and Why they Do It (Basic Books, 1989), pp. 154-175. Frederick M. Hess, “Refining or Retreating? High-Stakes Accountability in the States” in Paul E. Peterson and Martin R. West, eds. No Child Left Behind? The Politics and Practice of School Accountability (Brookings Institution Press, 2003), pp. 55-79. [IP] Jesse H. Rhodes, “Progressive Policy Making in a Conservative Age? Civil Rights and the Politics of Federal Education Standards, Testing, and Accountability,” Perspectives on Politics, vol. 9, no. 3 (2011), pp. 519-544. [Web] Additional resources: Andrew Rudalevige, “No Child Left Behind: Forging a Congressional Compromise,” in Paul E. Peterson and Martin R. West, eds., No Child Left Behind? The Politics and Practice of School Accountability (Brookings Institution Press, 2003), pp. 23-54. [IP] Richard F. Elmore, Charles H. Abelmann, and Susan Fuhrmann. “The New Accountability in State Education Reform: From Process to Performance,” in Helen F. Ladd, ed., Holding Schools Accountable: Performance-Based Reform in Education (Brookings Institution Press, 1996), pp. 65-98. [IP] Christopher R. Berry and William G. Howell, “Accountability and Local Elections: Rethinking Retrospective Voting,” Journal of Politics, vol. 69, no. 3 (2007), pp. 844-858. [Web] Davies, See Government Grow, 246-276. [RT] Oct. 18: Debating Test-based Accountability and the Impact of NCLB (D) Note: The first two readings are abridged versions of articles by the same authors listed as additional resources; the full articles are well-worth reading if you have time. Thomas S. Dee and Brian A. Jacob, “Evaluating NCLB.” Education Next, vol. 10, no. 3 (2010), pp. 54-61. [Web] Jonathan Supovitz, “Is high-stakes testing working?” A Review of Research, vol. 7, no. 2 (2010). [Web]

11

Daniel Koretz, Measuring Up: What Educational Testing Really Tells Us (Harvard University Press, 2008), pp. 235-259. Morgan S. Polikoff, Jay P. Greene, and Kevin Huffman, “Is Test-Based Accountability Dead?” Education Next, vol. 17, no. 3 (2017), pp. 50-58. Additional resources: Thomas S. Dee and Brian A. Jacob, “The Impact of No Child Left Behind on Student Achievement,” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, vol. 30, no. 1 (2011), pp. 418-446. [Web] Jonathan Supovitz, “Can high stakes testing leverage educational improvement? Prospects from the last decade of testing and accountability reform.” Journal of Educational Change, vol. 10, nos. 2-3 (2009), pp. 211-227. [Web] Randall Reback, Jonah Rockoff, Heather L Schwartz, “Under Pressure: Job Security, Resource Allocation, and Productivity in Schools under NCLB,” American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, vol. 6, no. 3 (2014), pp. 207-241. [Web] Manyee Wong, Thomas D. Cook & Peter M. Steiner, “Adding Design Elements to Improve Time Series Designs: No Child Left Behind as an Example of Causal PatternMatching,” Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, vol. 8, no. 2 (2015), pp. 245-279. [Web] Oct. 23: School Finance Litigation (L) Davies, See Government Grow, 194-217. [RT] John Dinan, “School Finance Litigation: The Third Wave Recedes,” in Dunn and West, From Schoolhouse to Courthouse, pp. 96-112. [IP] C. Kirabo Jackson, Rucker Johnson, and Claudia Persico, “Boosting Educational Attainment and Earnings: Does Money Matter After All?” Education Next, vol. 15, no. 4 (2105), pp. 69-76 [Web]. Please also read this critique of the Jackson et al. study and the authors’ response. Additional resources: San Antonio v. Rodriguez (1973) [Web] Eric Plutzer and Michael Berkman, “The Graying of America and Support for Funding the Nation’s Schools,” Public Opinion Quarterly, vol. 69, no. 1 (2005), pp. 66-86. Note: skim for main argument. [Web]

12

Eric A. Hanushek, (2003). “The Failure of Input-based Schooling Policies,” The Economic Journal, Vol. 113, no. 1, pp. F64-F98. [Web] Michael Rebell, “Ensuring Successful Remedies in Education Adequacy Litigations: A Comparative Institutional Perspective,” Paper prepared for the Symposium on “Equal Educational Opportunity: What Now?” Teachers College, Columbia University, November 12-13, 2007. [Web] C. Kirabo Jackson, Rucker Johnson, and Claudia Persico, “The Effect of School Finance Reform on the Distribution of Spending, Academic Achievement, and Adult Outcomes,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 131, no. 1 (2016), pp. 157-218. [Web] Oct. 25: Rethinking Rodriguez? Understanding and Addressing Inequality in School Spending (D) Inequality Between States: Goodwin Liu, “National Citizenship and the Promise of Equal Educational Opportunity,” Yale Law Journal Pocket Part, vol. 116 (2006). [Web] Inequality Between Districts: Matthew M. Chingos and Kristen Blagg, “Do Poor Kids Get Their Fair Share of School Funding?” Urban Institute (2017). In addition to reading the brief, please explore the related data visualization tool at http://apps.urban.org/features/school-funding-do-poor-kids-get-fair-share/. [Web] Inequality Within Districts: Saba Bireda and Raegen Miller, “Walking the Talk: Closing the Loophole in the Comparability Requirement of ESEA, Title I,” Center for American Progress (2010). [Web] Nora E. Gordon and Martin R. West, “Federal school finance policy,” in Michael Hansen & Jon Valant, eds., Memos to the President on the Future of U.S. Education Policy. (Brookings Institution, 2016). [Web] Additional resources: Goodwin Liu, “Education, Equality, and National Citizenship,” Yale Law Journal, vol. 116 (2006), pp. 330-411. [Web] Oct. 30: Improving Teacher Quality and Diversity (L) Andrew Rotherham and Sara Mead, “Back to the Future: The History and Politics of State Teacher Licensure and Certification,” in Frederick M. Hess, et al., A Qualified Teacher in Every Classroom? Appraising Old Answers and New Ideas (Harvard Education Press: 2004), pp. 11-47. [IP]

13

Andrew J. Rotherham and Ashley LiBetti Mitchel, “Genuine Progress, Greater Challenges: A Decade of Teacher Effectiveness Reforms.” Bellwether Education Partners (2014). [Web] Frederick M. Hess and Juliet Squire, “‘But the pension fund was just sitting there…’ The politics of teacher retirement plans,” Education Finance and Policy, vol. 5, no. 4 (2009), pp. 587-616. [Web] Saba Bireda and Robin Chait, “Increasing Teacher Diversity: Strategies to Improve the Teacher Workforce,” Center for American Progress (2011) [Web] http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED535654.pdf Additional resources: Dan Goldhaber, “Teacher Pay Reforms: The Political Implications of Recent Research.” Center for American Progress (2009). [Web] Dan Goldhaber, “Lessons from Abroad: Exploring Cross-Country Differences in Teacher Development Systems and What They Mean for U.S. Policy,” in Dan Goldhaber and Jane Hannaway, eds., Creating a New Teaching Profession (Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute Press, 2009), pp. 81-111. [IP] Daniel Weisberg et al., “The Widget Effect: Our National Failure to Acknowledge and Act on Difference in Teacher Effectiveness,” The New Teacher Project (2009). [Web] Richard J. Murnane and David K. Cohen, “Merit Pay and the Evaluation Problem: Why Most Merit Pay Plans Fail and a Few Survive,” Harvard Educational Review, vol. 56, no. 1 (1986), pp. 1-17. [Web] Nov. 1: Teacher Evaluation Reform (D) Dan Goldhaber “Exploring the potential of value-added performance measures to affect the quality of the teacher workforce,” Educational Researcher, vol. 44, no. 2 (2015), pp. 87-95. [Web] Thomas Toch, “Hot for Teachers,” Washington Monthly, June/July/August, 2017). [Web] National Council on Teacher Quality, “Backing the Wrong Horse: The Story of One State’s Ambitious but Disheartening Foray into Performance Pay,” Author (2017). [Web] Mathew A. Kraft and Alison F. Gilmour, “Revisiting the widget effect: Teacher evaluation reforms and the distribution of teacher effectiveness,” Educational Researcher, vol. 46, no. 5 (2017), pp. 234-249. [Web] Chad Aldeman, “The Teacher Evaluation Revamp, In Hindsight,” Education Next, vol. 17, no. 2 (2017), pp. 60-68. 14

Nov. 6: School Choice: Theory and Politics (L) Albert O. Hirschman, Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Response to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States (Harvard University Press, 1970), pp. 1-20, 120-126. [IP] John E. Chubb, and Terry M. Moe, Politics, Markets, and America’s Schools. (Brookings Institution Press, 1990), pp. 26-68. [IP] Paul E. Peterson, Saving Schools: From Horace Mann to Virtual Learning (Harvard University Press, 2010), pp. 183-228. [IP] Additional resources: Martin R. West, “School Choice Litigation after Zelman,” in Dunn and West, From Schoolhouse to Courthouse, pp. 167-88. “National Charter School Study 2013,” Center for Research on Education Outcomes, Stanford University (2013). [Web] Nov. 8: A Tale of Two Takeovers: New Orleans and Lawrence (D) Douglas N. Harris, “Good News for New Orleans,” Education Next, vol. 15, no. 4 (2015), pp. 8-15 (2015). [Web] Hurriya Jabbar, “‘Drenched in the Past:’ The Evolution of Market-Driven Reforms in New Orleans,” Journal of Education Policy, vol. 30, no. 6 (2015), pp. 751-772. [Web] Christian Buerger and Douglas Harris, “How Can Decentralized Systems Solve SystemLevel Problems? An Analysis of Market-Driven New Orleans Reforms,” American Behavioral Scientist, vol. 59, no. 10 (2015), pp. 1246-1262. [Web] Beth E. Schueler, Joshua S. Goodman, and David J. Deming, “Turning the Tide: Evidence on State Takeover and District Turnaround from Lawrence, Massachusetts,” Rappaport Institute for Greater Boston Policy Brief, Harvard Kennedy School (2016). [Web] Beth E. Schueler, “A Third Way: The Politics of School District Takeover and Turnaround in Lawrence, Massachusetts,” Manuscript, Harvard Kennedy School (2016). [Web]

15

Nov. 13: Federal Education Policy under President Obama: Competitive Grants, Waivers, and the Common Core [L] Patrick McGuinn, “Stimulating Reform: Race to the Top, Competitive Grants, and the Obama Education Agenda,” Educational Policy vol. 26, no. 1 (2012), pp. 136-159. [Web] Martha Derthick and Andrew Rotherham, “Obama’s Education Waivers,” Education Next, vol. 12, no. 2 (2012), pp. 56-61. [Web] David Whitman, “The Surprising Roots of the Common Core: How Conservatives Gave Rise to ‘Obamacore,’” Brookings Institution (2015). [Web] Ashley Jochim & Patrick McGuinn, “The Politics of the Common Core Assessments,” Education Next, vol. 16, no. 4 (2016), pp. 44-52. [Web] Scott Levy and Johan Edelman, “Making Sense of the Opt-out Movement,” Education Next, vol. 16, no. 4 (2016), pp. 54-64. [Web] Robert Pondiscio, “Louisiana Threads the Needle on Ed Reform: Launching a Coherent Curriculum in a Local Control State,” Education Next, vol. 17, no. 4. [Web] Additional resources: William G. Howell and Asya Magazinnik. “Presidential Prescriptions for State Policy: Obama's Race to the Top Initiative,” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, vol. 36, no. 3 (2017), pp. 502-531. [Web] Jal Mehta and Steven Teles, “Jurisdictional Politics: The Emergence of a New Federal Role in Education,” in Frederick M. Hess and Andrew P. Kelly, eds. Carrots, Sticks, and the Bully Pulpit: Lessons from a Half-Century of Federal Efforts to Improve America’s Schools (Harvard Education Press, 2011), pp. 197-216. [IP] Lisa Dragoset, et al., “Race to the Top: Implementation and Relationship to Student Outcomes,” U.S. Department of Education (2016). [Web] Martin R. West, “Preserving the federal role in encouraging and evaluating education innovation,” Brookings Institution (2015). [Web] Nov. 15: The Politics of Curriculum: Ethnic Studies in Tucson, Arizona [D] Meira Levinson “Diversity and Civic Education,” in David E. Campbell, Meira Levinson, and Frederick M. Hess, eds., Making Civics Count: Citizenship Education for a New Generation (Harvard University Press, 2012), pp. 89-114. [Web]

16

Ari Luis Palos and Eren Isabel McGinnis, “Precious Knowledge,” Independent Lens Films, May 17, 2012. [Web] Dee, Thomas S., and Emily K. Penner, “The causal effects of cultural relevance: Evidence from an ethnic studies curriculum,” American Educational Research Journal, vol. 54, no. 1 (2017), pp. 127-166. [Web] Julie Depenbrock, “Ethnic Studies: A Movement Born of a Ban,” NPR, August 13, 2017. [Web] Nov. 20: Debating the Every Student Succeeds Act (L/D) Cynthia G. Brown, et al., “State education agencies as agents of change,” Center for American Progress (2011). Note: skim for main argument. [Web] Alyson Klein, “How ESSA Passed: The Inside Scoop,” in Frederick M. Hess and Max Eden, eds., The Every Student Succeeds Act (Harvard Education Press, 2017), pp. 43-57. Martin R. West, “The Case for ESSA: A Proper Balance,” in Hess and Eden, eds., The Every Student Succeeds Act (Harvard Education Press, 2017), pp. 75-90. Chad Aldeman, “The Case against ESSA: A Very Limited Law,” in Hess and Eden, eds., The Every Student Succeeds Act (Harvard Education Press, 2017), pp. 91-105. Nov. 27: Designing an ESSA-compliant Accountability System (D) Christopher Jencks, “Whom must we treat equally for educational opportunity to be equal?” Ethics, vol. 98, no. 3 (1988), pp. 518-533. [Web] Brian P. Gill, Jennifer S. Lerner, and Paul Meosky, “Re-imagining Accountability in K12 Education,” Behavioral Science & Policy, vol. 2, no. 1 (2016), pp. 57-70. [Web] Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach, Lauren Bauer, and Megan Mumford, “Lessons for Broadening Accountability under the Every Student Succeeds Act,” The Hamilton Project (2016). [Web] Selections from Bellwether Education Partners ESSA State Plan Review Project. Additional resource: Angela L. Duckworth and David Scott Yeager, “Measurement Matters: Assessing Personal Qualities other than Cognitive Ability for Educational Purposes,” Educational Researcher, vol. 44, no. 4 (2015), pp. 237-251. [Web]

17

Nov. 29: Public Opinion, Politics, and the Future of American Education Policy (D) Martin R. West, et al. “The 2017 EdNext Poll on School Reform,” Education Next, vol. 18, no. 1 (2018). [Web] David K. Cohen and Jal D. Mehta, “Why Reform Sometimes Succeeds: Understanding the Conditions that Produce Reforms that Last,” American Educational Research Journal, vol. 54, no. 4 (2017), pp. 644-690. Mark R. Warren, “Transforming Public Education: The Need for an Educational Justice Movement,” New England Journal of Public Policy, vol. 26, no. 1 (2014), pp. 1-16. [Web] Andrew P. Kelly, “Turning Lightning into Electricity: Organizing Parents for Education Reform,” American Enterprise Institute (2014). [Web] Additional resources: Eric Patashnik, “After the Public Interest Prevails: The Political Sustainability of Policy Reform,” Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, vol. 16, no. 2 (2003), pp. 203-234. [Web]

18