Learning Citizenship? How State Education Reforms Affect Parents’ Political Attitudes and Behavior
Over the past three decades, the states have adopted a suite of reforms to their education systems in an effort to improve school performance. While scholars have speculated about the political consequences of these policies, to date there has been no empirical research investigating how these reforms affect the practice of American democracy. Combining data from an original survey of public school parents with information on state education standards, testing, and accountability policies, I examine how design features of these policies influence parents’ attitudes about government, participation in politics, and involvement in their children’s education. My research shows that parents residing in states with more developed assessment systems express more negative attitudes about government and education, and are less likely to become engaged in some forms of involvement in their children’s education, than are parents who live in states with less developed assessment systems.
KeywordsPolicy feedback Interpretive effects School accountability Education policies Citizenship Standards Testing Accountability
- Angrist, J., & Pitschke, J. S. (2009). Mostly harmless econometrics: An empiricist’s companion. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Apple, M. (2006). Educating the right way: Markets, standards, god, and inequality (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Banerjee, A. V., & Duflo, E. (2008). The Experimental Approach to Development Economics (No. w14467). National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
- Bushaw, W. J., & Lopez, S. J. (2012). Public education in the United States: A Nation divided. In: The 44th annual phi delta kappa/gallup poll of the public’s attitudes toward the public schools. Washington, DC: Phi Delta Kappa.Google Scholar
- Campbell, A. (2003a). How policies make citizens: Senior political activism and the american welfare state. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Citizens’ Commission on Civil Rights. (2001). Closing the deal: A preliminary report on state compliance with final assessment and accountability requirements under the improving America’s Schools Act of 1994. Washington, DC: Citizens’ Commission on Civil Rights.Google Scholar
- Cooperative Congressional Elections Study. (2012). Available from the Cooperative Congressional Elections Study website. Retrieved July 1, 2012 from http://projects.iq.harvard.edu/cces/.
- Editorial Projects in Education. (2012). Available from Editorial Projects in Education, Custom Data Services. Retrieved June 10, 2012 from http://www.edweek.org/rc/collections/2009/11/02/k12data.html.
- Education Week. (2012a). Quality counts 2012: The global challenge. Washington, DC: Education Week. Retrieved July 11, 2013 from http://www.edweek.org/ew/toc/2012/01/12/index.html?intc=EW-QC12-FL1.
- Education Week. (2012b). Methodology: About the state policy survey. Retrieved July 11, 2013 from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2012/01/12/16method.h31.html?intc=EW-QC12-TOC.
- Figlio, D. N. (2005). Testing, crime and punishment. Journal of Public Economics, 90(4), 837–851.Google Scholar
- Fuhrman, S. H., & Massell, D. (1992). Issues and strategies in systemic reform. In: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers University. New Brunswick, NJ.Google Scholar
- Hetherington, M. (2005). Why trust matters. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Ho, D., Imai, K., King, G., & Stuart, E. (2011). MatchIt: Nonparametric preprocessing for parametric causal analysis, June 28. Retrieved July 11, 2013 from http://r.iq.harvard.edu/docs/matchit/2.4-20/matchit.pdf.
- Honaker, J., King, G., & Blackwell, M. (2010). Amelia II: A program for missing data. Version 1.2-18, November 4. Retrieved July 12, 2013 from http://gking.harvard.edu/amelia.
- Imbens, G. M., & Wooldridge, J. M. (2008). Recent developments in the econometrics of program evaluation (No. w14251). National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
- Keele, L. (2009). rbounds: An R package for sensitivity analysis with matched data. Retrieved July 11, 2013 from http://www.personal.psu.edu/ljk20/rbounds.html.
- Keele, L. (2010). An overview of rbounds: An R package for rosenbaum bounds sensitivity analysis with matched data. Retrieved July 11, 2013 from http://www.personal.psu.edu/ljk20/rbounds%20vignette.pdf.
- King, G., Honaker, J., Joseph, A., & Scheve, K. (2001). Analyzing incomplete political science data: An alternative algorithm for multiple imputation. American Political Science Review, 95(1), 49–69.Google Scholar
- Krieg, J. M. (2008). Are students left behind? The distributional effects of the No Child Left Behind Act. Education, 3(2), 250–281.Google Scholar
- Manna, P. (2006). School’s in: Federalism and the National Education Agenda. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
- Manna, P. (2010). Collision course: Federal education policy meets state and local realities. Washington, DC: CQ.Google Scholar
- McDonald, M. (2013). United States Elections Project Database. Retrieved July 11, 2013 form http://elections.gmu.edu/voter_turnout.htm.
- McGuinn, P. (2006). No child left behind and the transformation of federal education policy, 1965–2005. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
- Mettler, S. (2005). Soldiers to citizens: The G.I. Bill and the making of the greatest generation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2012). Accessed from the National Assessment of Educational Progress website. Retrieved June 10, 2012 from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/.
- Nitta, K. (2008). The politics of structural education reform. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Piche, D. (1999). Title I in Alabama: The struggle to meet basic needs. Washington, DC: Citizens’ Commission on Civil Rights.Google Scholar
- Program on Education Policy and Governance (PEPG). (2012). Survey of the public’s attitudes toward the public schools. Cambridge, MA: Program on Education Policy and Governance, Harvard University.Google Scholar
- Public Education Network. (2007). Open to the public: How communities, parents, and students assess the impact of the No Child Left Behind Act—2004–2007: The realities left behind. Washington, DC: Public Education Network.Google Scholar
- Rhodes, J. (2012). An education in politics: The origin and evolution of no child left behind. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
- Rogers, M., & Stoneman, C. (1999). Triggering educational accountability. Washington, DC: Center for Law and Education.Google Scholar
- Rosenbaum, P. R. (2005). Observational study. In B. S. Everitt & D. C. Howell (Eds.), Encyclopedia of statistics in behavioral science (pp. 1451–1462). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Schneider, A. L., & Ingram, H. M. (1997). Policy design for democracy. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
- Sekhon, J. (2011). Multivariate and propensity score matching software with automated balance optimization: The matching package for R. Journal of Statistical Software, 42(7), 1–52.Google Scholar
- Sekhon, J., & Grieve, R. (2013) (N.d). A nonparametric matching method for covariate adjustment with application to economic evaluations. working paper. Retrieved July 11, 2013 from http://sekhon.berkeley.edu/papers/GeneticMatching_SekhonGrieve.pdf.
- Soss, J. (2000). Unwanted claims: The politics of participation in the U.S. welfare system. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
- Soss, J. (2005). Making clients and citizens welfare policy as a source of status, belief, and action. In A. Schneider & H. Ingram (Eds.), Deserving and entitled: Social constructions and public policy (pp. 291–328). New York: SUNY.Google Scholar
- Tomz, M., Wittenberg, J., & King, G. (2003). Clarify: Software for interpreting and presenting statistical results. Retrieved July 11, 2013 from http://gking.harvard.edu/clarify.
- Tourangeau, K., Nord, C., Le, T., Sorongon, A. G., & Najarian, M. (2010). Combined user’s manual for the ECLS-K eighth-grade and K-8 full sample data files. Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics, U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
- U.S. General Accountability Office. (2000). Title I program: Stronger accountability needed for performance of disadvantaged students. Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting Office.Google Scholar