Negotiating Intergovernmental Relations Under Essa
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 9734831 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Megan Duff (0000-0002-9173-7256, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, NY, corresponding author), Priscilla Wohlstetter (Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, NY) |
| Year | 2019 |
| Volume | 48 |
| Issue | 5 |
| Pages | 296-308 |
| Publication date | 2019-07-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Educational Researcher (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0013-189X • E-ISSN: 1935-102X |
| Publisher | American Educational Research Association (AERA) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.3102/0013189x19854365 |
| OpenAlex | W2948193628 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 14 |
| References cited | 13 |
The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) has generated considerable buzz in education circles and the general media. But how much has really changed, and what does this mean for states as they begin the process of implementing a new federal education law? In this article, we apply principal-agent theory to explore intergovernmental relations under ESSA, focusing specifically on the relationship between the federal government (the principal) and state governments (the agents). First, we review power dynamics under No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and ESSA, exploring implications of changes in the substance of both laws for the principal-agent problem. Next, using political discourse analysis, we show how shifts in the content of Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and its implementation by the current administration influenced the federal review process of state plans for the sixteen states that submitted plans under the early deadline. We find the federal government was most likely to provide feedback around Title I, Part A, Section 4 pertaining to accountability and school improvement. Ultimately, however, states that ignored or defied federal feedback were successful given both the limits ESSA places on U.S. Department of Education authority and the current administration’s reliance on negotiation over sanction. Thus far, this approach has ensured states are realizing the maximum flexibility available through the law, as all state plans were approved, regardless of whether states heeded federal feedback and complied with the law
Accountability · Administration (probate law · Economics · Federal law · Flexibility (engineering · Government (linguistics · Legislation · Management · Negotiation · Political science · Politics · Power (physics · Principal (computer security · Sociology · State (computer science · Educational Assessment and Improvement · Evaluation and Performance Assessment · Law · Public Administration · Public Policy and Administration Research
Equalizing Postsecondary Transition for At-Promise Youth Receiving Special Education Services
Understanding congressional coalitions
An exploration of how district leaders organize to support principal supervisors for underperforming schools in mid-sized districts
“A very small cog in the wheel”
Equity and Early Implementation of the Every Student Succeeds Act in State-Designed Plans During Covid
Does Essa Assure the Use of Evidence-based Educational Practices
Equity in Secondary Career and Technical Education in the United States
“Fighting an Uphill Battle”
Hub Leaders’ Perspectives on Equity in Networked Improvement
Opportunism in Performance Goal Setting in the Public Sector
Betwixt and Between Justice and Inaction
The Administrative Presidency and PK ‐12 Education Policy
Education Policy Trump Style
Coordinating school improvement
| Unique citing works | 14 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 2,33 |
| Citation span | 2020 - 2025 (6) |
| Citation velocity | recent |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 13 |