IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/teg/journl/v11y2015i2p1-16.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Costs of Federal Intervention in Local Education: The Effectiveness of America's Choice in Arkansas

Author

Listed:
  • Sandra Stotsky
  • Trae Holzman

Abstract

Since passage of the No Child Left Behind act in 2001, all states have been under federal pressure to identify "failing schools." The US Department of Education has strongly encouraged "turnaround" as an option for schools to use in order to improve student achievement. The study reported here reviewed the research literature on school "turnaround," with a particular focus on the results in Arkansas of the use of the same "turnaround" partner (America's Choice) for over five years for many of the state's "failing" elementary, middle, and high schools. There was little evidence to support either this partner or this policy option. The lack of evidence raises a basic question about the usefulness and cost of the federal government's intervention in local education policy. Nor is it clear how a new program titled Excellence for All now offered by the developers of America's Choice will differ. It is described as follows: "Excellence for All provides a clear, practical strategy for every student to graduate from high school prepared to succeed in college or in a program of career and technical education that will lead to a successful career." We are also told: "Excellence for All is aligned with the Common Core State Standards, enabling participating high schools to not just lay the foundation for the Common Core but to get a head start on implementation." According to a draft of a yet-to-be-voted-on re-authorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA/NCLB), state departments of education are to submit "college-ready" standards for approval by the USDE if they want Title I funds. However, state legislators, local school board members, parents, and a state's own higher education academic experts are excluded from approving the standards their state department of education submits, perhaps to ensure that only the "right" standards are submitted. If the language in the current re-authorization draft is approved by Congress, Arkansas may find Excellence for All one of the few intervention programs recommended for its low-income, low-achieving schools despite its costs and no evidence that this new program can do better than America's Choice did. At this point, it seems reasonable to suggest that there should be no federal or state requirement for "turnaround" partners or the "turnaround" model, whether or not the programs they promote address Common Core's standards. We clearly do not need the federal government pushing states and local districts to pay for consultants and services to solve the problems in low-achieving schools for which they have had no solutions.

Suggested Citation

  • Sandra Stotsky & Trae Holzman, 2015. "The Costs of Federal Intervention in Local Education: The Effectiveness of America's Choice in Arkansas," Nonpartisan Education Review, Nonpartisan Education Review, vol. 11(2), pages 1-16.
  • Handle: RePEc:teg:journl:v:11:y:2015:i:2:p:1-16
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://nonpartisaneducation.org/Review/Articles/v11n2.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: http://nonpartisaneducation.org/Review/Articles/v11n2.htm
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Richard P. Phelps, 2022. "References," Nonpartisan Education Review, Nonpartisan Education Review, vol. 18(11), pages 1-62.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    education; policy;

    JEL classification:

    • I21 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education - - - Analysis of Education

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:teg:journl:v:11:y:2015:i:2:p:1-16. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Richard P. Phelps (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.nonpartisaneducation.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.