A Study of the Role of Epistemic Communities in the Making of the No Child Left Behind Act
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
WHO KNOWS WHAT?: A STUDY OF THE ROLE OF EPISTEMIC COMMUNITIES IN THE MAKING OF THE NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT A dissertation submitted To Kent State University in partial Fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy By Lisa J. Dotterweich May, 2009 Dissertation written by Lisa J. Dotterweich B.A., Walsh University, 2000 M.A., Kent State University, 2005 Ph.D., Kent State University, 2009 Approved by Dr. Tom Hensley , Chair, Doctoral Dissertation Committee Dr. James Hendersen________, Members, Doctoral Dissertation Committee Dr. Jennifer Maxwell________, Dr. Frank Ryan____________ , Accepted by Dr. Steven Hook ___________, Chair, Department of Political Science Dr. John Stalvey ___________, Dean, College of Arts and Sciences ii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES………………………………………………………………………iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ………………………………………………...…...………...v Chapter I. Introduction ..................................................................................................1 II. Evolution of Epistemic Community Theory……………………………..24 III. Review of Literature on Epistemic Communities .......................................47 IV. Review of Literature Regarding the NCLB Act………………………….74 V. Research Design and Methodology .........................................................105 VI. Epistemic Communities Involved in the Policymaking of the NCLB Act …………………………………………………………………………..120 VII. Conclusion……………………………………………………………...192 Appendices .......................................................................................................................207 REFERENCE LIST .........................................................................................................213 iii LIST OF TABLES Table Page 6.1 Peter Haas‟s Model of Epistemic Communities……………………………………121 6.2 Andreas Antoniades‟s Model of Epistemic Communities………………………….122 6.3 Policy Goals Advanced by the NCLB Act……………………………… ………...161 6.4 Summary of Support for Antoniades‟s Model of Epistemic Communities..…...…..181 6.5 Support for Hypotheses……………………………………………………………..182 iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS No dissertation is written without the kindness and support of many individuals. First of all, I want to thank my advisor, Dr. Trudy Steuernagel, who was so generous with her time. Her prompt feedback and advice have helped me write a much better dissertation than I thought I could write. My heart is heavy with sadness due to her tragic passing. She touched many lives and will not soon be forgotten. I am grateful to many other faculty members in the Department of Political Science for providing me with a quality education, advice, and the tools I need to succeed in my chosen career. I would like to especially thank Dr. Tom Hensley who agreed to serve as my dissertation advisor after Dr. Steuernagel passed away. I would also like to thank my good friend, Ramona McNeal. Her encouragement and support have aided me greatly in the dissertation writing process. Thank you Ramona, for taking my late night phone calls and responding to the many emails I sent you during my tenure in graduate school. I am also in debt to my parents, Linda and Ronald Dotterweich, who supported me in many ways throughout my time in graduate school. Tiffany Rich, Sarah Crisp-Fogel, and Kelley Distel, I owe you “big-time” for putting up with me talk endlessly about my dissertation during the last few years. My husband, Ted Bryan, has provided me with a great deal of emotional support and advice during the past year. He assumed a great deal of my work around the house so I could finish my dissertation during the summer. I‟d also like to thank my stepson, Michael, for giving me time and peace to work on my dissertation over the summer. Yes, Michael, I‟m FINALLY done and we‟ll have a lot more time to play now. Last, but not least, I‟d like to thank Kent State University. The school has supported me financially and in many other ways. I am grateful for the opportunities the school provided me with to further my education and advance my career. v INTRODUCTION Teach your children well Their father‟s hell did slowly go by, And feed them on your dreams the ones they pick, the more you‟ll know by --Graham Nash In 2002, President George W. Bush secured passage of the No Child Left Behind Act, (P. L. 107-110), the self-professed “cornerstone” of his administration. According to the U. S. Department of Education, the Act‟s goals were to produce stronger accountability for results, to secure more freedom for states and communities, to encourage proven education methods, and to offer more choices to parents (U. S. Department of Education 2002a). The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act was a revised version of the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (P. L. 89-10). It was the central federal law in pre-collegiate education and mandated requirements in almost every public school in the United States (Education Week on the Web 2002). This is a study of the role of epistemic communities in the development of the No Child Left Behind Act. Some of the literature on epistemic communities suggests their role is limited in terms of policy outcomes (Haas 1992a). However, this literature focused mainly on the epistemic communities involved in the policies dealing with the natural sciences. In respect to political science, the epistemic communities‟ framework has been utilized more frequently in international relations. This research examines the role of epistemic communities in federal education policy, a domain in which the study of the 1 2 role of epistemic communities is limited. Epistemic community theory is discussed in more detail later in this chapter. This chapter provides an overview of federal education policy in the United States and discusses the research goals and hypotheses of this project. First, it focuses on the history of federal education reform in the United States. Next, it presents an overview of the NCLB Act and discusses its provisions. Then, it briefly discusses the theoretical lens, the hypotheses, research design, and methodology used for this research. History of Education Reform in the United States This section examines the federal education reforms that have taken place since the late 1950s and before the NCLB Act was signed into law. The reforms discussed in this section include the National Defense of Education Act of 1958 Act (P.L. 85-864); the Elementary and Secondary Act of 1965; vocational education; the report titled A Nation at Risk, published by the National Commission on Excellence in Education in 1983; the Goals 2000: Educate America Act (P.L. 103-227); and the School-to-Work Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-239). National Defense Education Act of 1958 Many politicians and scientists were concerned with the competitive standing of America in relation to the Soviet Union after the successful 1957 Soviet launch of the space shuttle Sputnik (Fraser 2001). A two-year study conducted by the United States Office of Education indicated the Soviet Union had made significant gains in every level of education since 1927. Another finding of the report is the fact that the average Soviet 3 high school graduate, at the end of ten years of education, was generally better educated in academic subjects than the American graduate is after twelve years of education (Fine 1957). These concerns led to the proposal by President Dwight D. Eisenhower of the National Defense Education. The NDEA was passed by Congress and signed into law in 1958 (Fraser 2001). It is one of the most significant pieces of federal legislation impacting schools and colleges in the United States. Many projects at the national, state, and local levels were developed to implement the NDEA. These included funds for the improvement of instruction in science, mathematics, and foreign languages. Funds were also allocated for the improvement of guidance and counseling services, special programs for the disadvantaged, and the upgrading of libraries and media centers. In addition, the National Science Foundation increased its support for projects to improve the curriculum and education materials in mathematics and science. A study by the Ford Foundation (1972) found few lasting changes in American public schools as a result of the 1958 legislation. Subsequent reports and studies described American schools as unchanging and immutable institutions (Louis 1986; Lieberman and Rosenholtz 1987), which may have contributed, in part, to the limited success of the National Defense Education Act. 4 Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 The next major reform in American public education was the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), which has its roots in the civil rights movement. This educational reform was used to address the social inequalities that pervaded the public schools at the time. Before the ESEA was signed into law, Chief Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren wrote in the Brown vs. Topeka Board of Education (1954) decision that desegregated schools were critical to the success of African Americans both individually and as a group (Kantor & Lowe 1995). Consequently, the schools were used as a vehicle for desegregation. The ESEA funds were allocated on the stipulation of desegregation in the public schools. The ESEA was signed into law in 1965 as a part of President Johnson‟s “War on Poverty” campaign. Title I funding was and still is used to help improve teaching and learning in schools with concentrations of low-achieving and financially disadvantaged children to help them meet state academic standards (Rury, 2002 191).