Beyond Mutual Adaptation, into the Bully Pulpit: Recent Research on the Federal Role in Education

Jung, Richard; Kirst, Michael W.

doi:10.1177/0013161x86022003004

Cited by 26 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The second wave of research, focusing on implementation after the initial start-up years, however, challenged the notion that programming initiated by higher levels of government would never be implemented (Odden, 1991). Instead, longitudinal studies of state and federal categorical aid programs in education repeatedly found that time, coupled with "mutual adaptation," or opportunities for educators to tailor programs to meet their local needs and circumstances, led to support for new program initiatives, the local capacity to run them, and, ultimately, the provision of services to targeted student populations (Berman & McLaughlin, 1975;Birman, Orland, Jung, Anson, & Garcia, 1987;Jung & Kirst, 1986;Sarason, 1982). As it turned out, it was possible to implement state and federal education reform at the local level.…”

Section: Situating Improvement Science In Research On Education Policy Implementationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implementing Educational Innovations at Scale

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is growing concern among researchers and governmental officials that knowing what works in education is important, but not enough for school improvement. Sound evidence alone is not sufficient for large-scale, sustainable change, both because practitioners may consider it irrelevant to their own problems of practice or run into challenges when they try to implement. Failed attempts at replicating positive outcomes in new (or simply expanded) settings underscore the need for a different relationship between research and practice, one that takes a systemic perspective on improvement and transforms the role for research. In this article, we describe the new science of improvement and where it sits in the evolution of research on education policy implementation. We discuss the roots of the approach as well as its key features. We explain how the work differs from that of traditional research and end with illustrations of this difference from our experiences with the National Center on Scaling Up Effective Schools.

show abstract

Section: Situating Improvement Science In Research On Education Policy Implementationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implementing Educational Innovations at Scale

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is important to note, of course, that the influence of think tanks on federal education policy extends back to the Reagan administration. The ideologies and strategies of institutions such as the Heritage Foundation, the Hoover Institution at Stanford, and the American Enterprise Institute were factors shaping the Reagan Education Department's "bully pulpit" in favor of spending cuts and program devolution (Jung & Kirst, 1986).…”

Section: Heightened Role Of Conservative Think Tanks In the Education Policy Arenamentioning

confidence: 99%

Chapter 2: Partisanship and Ideology in the ESEA Reauthorization in the 106th and 107th Congresses: Foundations for the New Political Landscape of Federal Education Policy

DeBray¹

2005

Review of Research in Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The major difference, however, between Britain and the USA is the ability of the national government under Thatcher to make bold new policies to restructure the entire education service from national curriculum and testing to local school organization and funding, while the federalism of Reagan meant that he and his administration basically tried, using the bully pulpit (Jung & Kirst, 1986;Boyd, 1987), to diminish the federal role and to leave radical reform to the states, districts, and private organizations.…”

Section: B S Coopermentioning

confidence: 99%