Change Accomplished through Street Level Bureaucrats

While most will agree policy making is the responsibility of those at the higher end of the hierarchy and implementation of those policies is handled at the lower levels, as usual the truth is actually found somewhere in between. Lipsky (2010) brings to light the factors which can affect policies at the implementation level. The primary influencing factors include discretion and relative autonomy from the organizational authority. Lipsky (2010) gives the examples of police officers and governmental workers as lower or street level employees who have “considerable discretion in determining the nature, amount and quality of benefits … provided by their agencies” (p. 13). Their positions give them the discretion to determine how policies are implemented and, truthfully, without this type of discretion, little would be accomplished daily. In business and higher education, this type of discretion is also referred to as “empowering your people.” Additionally, many of these same types of employees have and need a certain degree of autonomy from the organization but will generally “more or less conform to what is expected of them” (p. 16).  Lipsky (2010) also references the inherent conflict that exists between street level employees and their managers. This conflict often results in street level employees to become more focused on their own interests than that of their managers and leads street level employees to use other (new or existing) regulations to circumvent implementation of policies. However, concern begins to rise when these same lower level employees become street level bureaucrats making policy and, in some cases, clearly changing the intent of the original policy. It is even more interesting when street level bureaucrats go so far in their refusal to implement a policy that it becomes necessary to amend or change the policy.

No Child Left Behind (NCLB), was the reauthorization of the Federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) passed in 2001. For schools and districts, it represented an ocean of change for the federal government's role in K‐12 education (Ladd, 2017). Under the NCLB and federal law, every student was required to be tested on an annual basis in grades three through eight and at least once in high school math and reading (Ladd, 2017). NCLB also provided for proficiency and adequate yearly progress (AYP) toward the proficiency goals. Failure to do so subjected the school and district to increasing consequences. Although most teachers support the principles of NCLB and research indicates some positive outcomes in test scores in the years following NCLB implementation, the incentives provided for in NCLB have created some untended responses that have reduced the quality of education delivered to some children (Murname & Papay, 2010). These unintended responses included high level burnout among teachers with many opting out of the system. It also brought a demand by teachers and principals as well as other school district administrators as street level bureaucrats to create a change in the policies guiding K-12 education. These demands finally created a change in NCLB, when it was replaced in 2015 with then President Obama’s Every Students Succeeds Acts (ESSA), which was the latest reauthoring of the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA).

References:

Ladd, H. (2017). No Child Left Behind: A Deeply Flawed Federal Policy. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 36:461-469.

Lipsky, M. (2010). Street-Level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services.  Russel Sage, New York.

Murname, R., Papay, J. (2010). Teachers’ Views on No Child Left Behind: Support for the Principles, Concerns about the Practices.  Journal of Economic Perspectives, 24:151-166.

Expanding and Reinforcing the Educational Pipeline

Rippner (2016) reminds us the American education system has changed greatly over the last century and that it has only been in the “later part of the 20th century that America began a move toward mass higher education” (p. 171). With more students anticipating and participating in all three levels of the American educational system--including early childhood education (ECD), K-12, and higher education--there becomes a greater need for coordinated policy efforts to “ensure students move efficient and effectively through the entire educational” pipeline (p. 171). In other words, to expand and reinforce the educational pipeline to make sure it can accommodate the surge in attendance. In a recent study conducted by Kirst and Venezia (2003) through Stanford’s Bridge Project, it was revealed that while 88 percent of high school students said they plan to go to college, only 66 percent of high school graduates actually immediately enroll in higher educational courses.

While the good news includes more students entering the pipeline earlier through ECE program both public and private, and continuing to move through the K-12 educational pipeline fairly fluently, there are challenges facing many students desiring to transition from high school into higher education which must be addressed. In fact, there are those within the system raising the alarm that the broken pipeline between K-12 and higher education is harming overall completion rates (Rippner, 2016). The challenges include personal cultural, financial, and academic preparational factors as well as policy and practices which are creating transitional blockages.  The policy factors can include lack of alignments between high school graduation and college entrance requirements, misalignment between high school and college curriculums, and lack of information sharing between counselors in both educational arenas (Rippner, 2016).

Unfortunately, this disconnect, or disjuncture is not new and began more than 30 years ago (Clark, 1985). When comparing America with other countries, it is clear America has a more forgiving view and a system of second chances which allows continuing education into adulthood (Clark, 1985). However, while this system of second chances provides for life-long education, it also makes creating uniform policies and system to facilitate a smooth transition through pipeline difficult (Clark, 1985).

Of interest is a recent interest and growth involving career technical education (CTE). While CTE has moved in and out of popularity, it has been a part of the American educational system since the 1800s. CTE provides students with the academic and technical skills, knowledge and training necessary to succeed in future careers and to become lifelong learners” (Advance CTE, 2017).  However, CTE has long been seen as a split-track; an either or in education. A recent trend which fits with America’s increased interest in high education is the addition of college preparatory education (CPE) to CTE. This combination has created a new form of educational reform policy, which has been implemented in California for nearly the last 10 years. One such approach is the Linked Learning (LL) program. LL was founded in the mid-2000s by a grant from The James Irvine Foundation and found support within the California legislature (Linked Learning, n/d). LL is a California-based organization offering pathways organized around industry and sector themes, which can be offered in standalone schools or academies within larger comprehensive high school campuses (Warner, M., et. al., 2016).  LL has been partnered with nine school districts in California, has begun to move into other states across the nation as well as internationally. While the results are not definitive, LL appears to be obtaining results and is a good educational policy making the transition between K-12 to college a bit smoother. This is definitely educational policy worth watching.

References:

Advance CTE. (2017). Career Technical Education. Retrieved from https://careertech.org/cte

Clark, B. (1985, February). The high school and the university: What went wrong in American, Part 1. Phi Delta Kappan, 391-397.

Kirst, M., & Venezia, S. (2003, Spring). Undermining student aspirations. National Crosstalk. Retrieved from www.highereducation.org/crosstalk.

Linked Learning. (n/d). About the Linked Learning Alliance. Retrieved from http://www.linkedlearning.org/en/linked-learning-alliance/

Rippner, J. A. (2016).  The American policy landscape.  New York: Routledge.

Warner, M., Caspary, K., Arshan, N., Stites, R., Padilla, C., Park, C., Patel, D., Wolf, B., Astudillo, S., Harless, E., Ammah-Tagoe, N., McCracken, M. & Adelman, N. SRI International. (2015). Taking stock of the California Linked Learning District Initiative. Sixth-year evaluation report. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

How to Use Educational Policy to Build the Pipeline

Building on last week’s posting about the “leaking educational pipeline” (Zimpher, 2013, p. 40), it is easy to observe the leaking pipeline starts a lot earlier than higher education. When one considers the fact that the American educational system is broken into distinct sectors--including early childhood education, K-12, and higher education--and that the sectors are often disconnected from each other, it is easy to understand the challenges this segmentation presents to policymakers who are working to create policy to improve the system. Part of the problem is that when referring to public education most people aren’t thinking of ECE or college, but of kindergarten through 12th grade education, albeit there is good reason for this way of thinking.  “Unlike ECE or college, state laws make K-12 schooling mandatory for all children in the U.S. and forms the core of the educational pipeline (National Center for Education Statistics, 2014). 

The reality is that the American educational system is complex and serves diverse student needs across diverse states. The problems facing system are not simple or as easily solved as some politicians lead the general public to believe. There are many illustrations of the diverse needs creating challenges within the system. For example, although early childhood education (ECE) “became a part of the nation’s education agenda through President Lyndon B. Johnson’s war on poverty” (Rippner, 2016, p. 52) in the 1960s, “it is still considered a relatively new field when compared to K-12 and higher education” (Rippner, 2016, p. 64). Another example includes the support for English language learners. In California schools about 23 percent of students require such services while less than 1 percent of West Virginia students need similar services (National Center for Education Statistics, 2015).  The same can be said for higher education. “which has seen a dramatic growth over the last several decades” (Rippner, 2016, p. 113). Higher education is “no longer a system just for the elite or the wealthy; it is theoretically open to all who are interested and qualified” (Rippner, 2016, p. 113).

While there are many key factors affecting the educational pipeline, the primary issues include access, governance, funding and policy making. Access issues begin with ECE due in part to a political divide on how best to deliver these services: universal or targeted access. For K-12 improving access has been challenging for rural students, women, immigrants and minority students. Higher education faces issues of equal access due to rising costs and qualifications (Rippner, 2016, p. 113).  “Governance of ECE is complex and fragmented” (Rippner, 2016, p. 53). In K-12 education is “the sole province of states, as it is not covered in the U.S. Constitution” (Rippner, 2016, p. 82). And in higher education “the variety of higher education institutions necessitates a variety of governance structures” (Rippner, 2016, p. 118). Funding for all three educational sectors are complex and require a mixture of federal, state, local and private funding (Rippner, 2016). The real key to improving the educational system is policy. Many policymakers understand the importance of getting students into the educational pipeline early enough and keeping them in the pipeline long enough for to obtain the education necessary for a sustainable career. A well-known policy approach, which began in 2006, is the Cradle to Career approach. This approach is based on improving education through a shared agenda with measurable and specific outcomes (StriveTogether, n/d). This approach can assist policymakers in their quest to create policy to strengthen and improve the system.

 References:

National Center for Educational Statistics. (2014). Digest of education statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov

National Center for Education Statistics. (2015). Digest of education statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov

Rippner, J. A. (2016).  The American policy landscape.  New York: Routledge.

StriveTogether.com (2018). Retrieved from https://www.strivetogether.org/about/

Zimpher, N. (2013). Systemness: Unpacking the value of higher education systems. In J. Lane & B. Johnston (Eds), Higher educational systems 3.0 – Harnessing systemness, delivery performance (pp. 247-44). New York, NY: SUNY Press.

How Can Educational Policy Assist the American Educational System to Move Forward?

According to Rippner (2016), the educational system in America is a set of integrated systems. However, educational policymakers “rarely seek out or have access to the big picture” of the system (Rippner, 2016, p. 2). A lack of access and lack of hands-on experience or knowledge of the educational system itself are among the greatest challenges facing educational policymakers. The fact that the educational system is broken into distinct sectors--including early childhood education, K-12, and higher education--and that the sectors are often disconnected from each other add to policymakers’ challenges. To fully understand the system, it needs to be examined and viewed as a whole. Only then can policymakers understand the problems “plagu[ing] the individual parts as well as the interactions between them” (Rippner, 2016, p.2).

Of interest to many policymakers within the educational system, particularly in higher education, is the “leaking educational pipeline” (Zimpher 2013, p. 40). Keeping students in the educational pipeline long enough for them to obtain the education necessary for a sustainable career is paramount. This approach knows as Cradle to Career is an effective lens through which to view the "leaking educational pipeline"syndrome. The Cradle to Career approach was founded in Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky in the 2006 when over 300 local organizations came together to improve education through a shared agenda with measurable and specific outcomes (StriveTogether, n/d). Currently, StriveTogether boasts more than 10,000 local organizations in its network, supports 70 community partnerships,across 37 states and the District of Columbia, and impacts 10.4 million students (StriveTogether.com, n/d). 

In Monterey County, Bright Futures is the Cradle to Career program working to re-link the American educational structure, which is “one of the world’s least-linked educational structures” (Boswell, 2000, p. 4). Bright Futures is supported by Cal State University Monterey Bay and outlines seven community goals, which includes early care and education, kinder-ready, language and literacy, critical thinking, youth contentedness, college or job training ready, and career pathways (BrightFuturesMC.org, n/d). While there is good progress being made, there is more to be done.

The American educational system is made up of numerous and complex moving parts. The complexity of the system makes reform or improvements difficult to achieve. There are inherent, historic and systemic tensions which stem the flow of students through the educational pipeline. However, viewing policy creation and changes through the long-range approach may be the key to the beginning to resolve the “leaking educational pipeline (Zimpher, 2013, p. 40) and provide educational policymakers with a successful approach.

References: 

Boswell, K. (2000). Building bridges or barriers? Public policies that facilitate or impede linkages between community colleges and local school districts. New Directions for Community Colleges, 111, 3-15.

Rippner, J. A. (2016).  The American policy landscape.  New York: Routledge.

StriveTogether.com (2018). Retrieved from https://www.strivetogether.org/about/

Zimpher, N. (2013). Systemness: Unpacking the value of higher education systems. In J. Lane & B. Johnston (Eds), Higher educational systems 3.0 – Harnessing systemness, delivery performance (pp. 247-44). New York, NY: SUNY Press.