Political Behavior

, Volume 37, Issue 1, pp 181–220 | Cite as

Learning Citizenship? How State Education Reforms Affect Parents’ Political Attitudes and Behavior

Original Paper

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Policy feedback Interpretive effects School accountability Education policies Citizenship Standards Testing Accountability 

References

  1. Angrist, J., & Pitschke, J. S. (2009). Mostly harmless econometrics: An empiricist’s companion. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Apple, M. (2006). Educating the right way: Markets, standards, god, and inequality (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Arceneaux, K., & Nickerson, D. W. (2009). Modeling certainty with clustered data: A comparison of methods. Political Analysis, 17(2), 177–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Banerjee, A. V., & Duflo, E. (2008). The Experimental Approach to Development Economics (No. w14467). National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
  5. Barksdale-Ladd, M. A., & Thomas, K. F. (2000). What’s at stake in high-stakes testing teachers and parents speak out. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(5), 384–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brookhart, S. M. (2013). The public understanding of assessment in education in the United States. Oxford Review of Education, 39(1), 52–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bruch, S., Ferree, M., & Soss, J. (2010). From policy to polity: Democracy, paternalism, and the incorporation of disadvantaged citizens. American Sociological Review, 75(2), 205–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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
  9. Campbell, A. (2002). Self-interest, social security, and the distinctive participation patterns of senior citizens. American Political Science Review, 96(3), 565–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Campbell, A. (2003a). How policies make citizens: Senior political activism and the american welfare state. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Campbell, A. (2003b). Participatory reactions to policy threats: Senior citizens and the defense of social security and medicare. Political Behavior, 25(1), 29–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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
  13. Cohen, D. K. (1995). What is the system in systemic reform? Educational Researcher, 24(9), 11–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cooperative Congressional Elections Study. (2012). Available from the Cooperative Congressional Elections Study website. Retrieved July 1, 2012 from http://projects.iq.harvard.edu/cces/.
  15. DeBray-Pelot, E., & McGuinn, P. (2009). The new politics of education: Analyzing the federal education policy landscape in the post-NCLB era. Educational Policy, 23(1), 15–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dee, T., & Jacob, B. (2011). The impact of no child left behind on student achievement. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 30(3), 418–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Diamond, A., & Sekhon, J. (2013). Genetic matching for estimating causal effects: A general multivariate matching method for achieving balance in observational studies. Review of Economics and Statistics, 95(3), 932–945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. Fan, X., & Chen, M. (2001). Parental involvement and students’ academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 13(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Figlio, D. N. (2005). Testing, crime and punishment. Journal of Public Economics, 90(4), 837–851.Google Scholar
  23. Figlio, D., & Loeb, S. (2011). School accountability. Handbook of the Economics of Education, 3, 383–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Figlio, D., & Rouse, C. (2006). Do accountability and voucher threats improve low-performing schools? Journal of Public Economics, 90(1), 239–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Figlio, D. N., & Winicki, J. (2005). Food for thought: The effects of school accountability plans on school nutrition. Journal of Public Economics, 89(2), 381–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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
  27. Hanushek, E., & Raymond, M. (2005). Does school accountability lead to improved student performance? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 24(2), 297–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hetherington, M. (2005). Why trust matters. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Hill, N. E., & Tyson, D. F. (2009). Parental involvement in middle school: A meta-analytic assessment of the strategies that promote achievement. Developmental Psychology, 45(3), 740–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ho, D., Imai, K., King, G., & Stuart, E. (2007). Matching as nonparametric preprocessing for reducing model dependence in parametric causal inference. Political Analysis, 15(3), 199–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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.
  32. 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.
  33. Hong, S., & Ho, H. Z. (2005). Direct and indirect longitudinal effects of parental involvement on student achievement: Second-order latent growth modeling across ethnic groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(1), 32–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hursh, D. (2007). Assessing no child left behind and the rise of neoliberal education policies. American Educational Research Journal, 44(3), 493–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Imbens, G. M., & Wooldridge, J. M. (2008). Recent developments in the econometrics of program evaluation (No. w14251). National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
  36. Jacob, B. A. (2005). Accountability, incentives and behavior: The impact of high-stakes testing in the Chicago public schools. Journal of Public Economics, 89(5), 761–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jacob, B. A., & Levitt, S. D. (2003). Rotten apples: An investigation of the prevalence and predictors of teacher cheating. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(3), 843–877.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Jacobson, R., Saultz, A., & Snyder, J. W. (2013). When accountability strategies collide: Do policy changes that raise accountability standards also erode public satisfaction? Educational Policy, 27(2), 360–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Jeynes, W. H. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relation of parental involvement to urban elementary school student academic achievement. Urban Education, 40(3), 237–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Jolliffe, D., & Hedderman, C. (2012). Investigating the impact of custody on reoffending using propensity score matching. Crime and Delinquency,. doi:10.1177/0011128712466007.Google Scholar
  41. 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.
  42. 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.
  43. 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
  44. King, G., & Zeng, L. (2006). The dangers of extreme counterfactuals. Political Analysis, 14(2), 131–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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
  46. Manna, P. (2006). School’s in: Federalism and the National Education Agenda. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Manna, P. (2010). Collision course: Federal education policy meets state and local realities. Washington, DC: CQ.Google Scholar
  48. Mayer, A. K. (2011). Does education increase political participation? Journal of Politics, 73(3), 633–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. McDonald, M. (2013). United States Elections Project Database. Retrieved July 11, 2013 form http://elections.gmu.edu/voter_turnout.htm.
  50. McGuinn, P. (2006). No child left behind and the transformation of federal education policy, 1965–2005. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
  51. Mehta, J. (2013). How paradigms create politics: The transformation of American Educational Policy, 1980–2001. American Educational Research Journal, 50(2), 285–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Mettler, S. (2002). Bringing the state back into civic engagement: Policy feedback effects of the G.I. Bill for World War II veterans. American Political Science Review, 96(2), 351–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Mettler, S. (2005). Soldiers to citizens: The G.I. Bill and the making of the greatest generation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Mettler, S., & Soss, J. (2004). The consequences of public policy for democratic citizenship: Bridging policy studies and mass politics. Perspectives on Politics, 2(1), 55–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Mettler, S., & Stonecash, J. (2008). Government program usage and political voice. Social Science Quarterly, 89(2), 273–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Mettler, S., & Welch, E. (2004). Civic generation: Policy feedback effects of the gi bill on political involvement over the life course. British Journal of Political Science, 34(3), 497–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Mulvenon, S. W., Stegman, C. E., & Ritter, G. (2005). Test anxiety: A multifaceted study on the perceptions of teachers, principals, counselors, students, and parents. International Journal of Testing, 5(1), 37–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 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/.
  59. Nitta, K. (2008). The politics of structural education reform. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  60. Piche, D. (1999). Title I in Alabama: The struggle to meet basic needs. Washington, DC: Citizens’ Commission on Civil Rights.Google Scholar
  61. Pierson, P. (1993). When effect becomes cause: Policy feedback and political change. World Politics, 45(4), 595–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Polikoff, M. S. (2012). Instructional alignment under no child left behind. American Journal of Education, 118(3), 341–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Polikoff, M. S., Porter, A. C., & Smithson, J. (2011). How well aligned are state assessments of student achievement with state content standards? American Educational Research Journal, 48(4), 965–995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 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
  65. 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
  66. Remillard, J. T., & Jackson, K. (2006). Old math, new math: Parents’ experiences with standards-based reform. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 8(3), 231–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Rhodes, J. (2012). An education in politics: The origin and evolution of no child left behind. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  68. Rogers, M., & Stoneman, C. (1999). Triggering educational accountability. Washington, DC: Center for Law and Education.Google Scholar
  69. Rosenbaum, P. R. (2002). Observational studies. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 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
  71. Schneider, A. L., & Ingram, H. M. (1997). Policy design for democracy. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
  72. Segool, N. K., Carlson, J. S., Goforth, A. N., Embse, N., & Barterian, J. A. (2013). Heightened test anxiety among young children: Elementary school students’ anxious responses to high-stakes testing. Psychology in the Schools, 50(5), 489–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 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
  74. 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.
  75. Smith, M. S., & O’Day, J. (1991). Systemic school reform. Journal of Education Policy, 5(5), 233–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Soss, J. (1999). Lessons of welfare: Policy design, political learning, and political action. American Political Science Review, 93(2), 363–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Soss, J. (2000). Unwanted claims: The politics of participation in the U.S. welfare system. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  78. 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
  79. Stuart, E. (2010). Matching methods for causal inference: A review and a look forward. Statistical Science, 25(1), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Supovitz, J. A., & Taylor, B. S. (2005). Systemic education evaluation: Evaluating the impact of systemwide reform in education. American Journal of Evaluation, 26(2), 204–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 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.
  82. 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
  83. 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
  84. Weaver, V., & Lerman, A. (2010). Political consequences of the carceral state. American Political Science Review, 104(4), 817–833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(1), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of MassachusettsAmherstUSA

Personalised recommendations