SOCPOL 351: Education Policy and Social Change

Winter 2017 Mon & Wed, 12:30PM-1:50PM

Annenberg Hall Room G01

First class meets Tues, 1/4/17

Dr. Pam Schuetz,

Office hours:Wed 2PM-4PM, Annenberg G01 and by appointment

Objectives: How are education policies developed, implemented and evaluated? What fundamental outcomes should we expect of public education? To what extent do schools influence opportunity structures and social change? This course explores relationships between education policy, institutional practices and student outcomes with special attention given to research methodologies and policies as levers for social change.

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

Recommended text:Mitchell, D. E., Crowson, R. L., and Shipps, D. (Eds.), The shaping of education policy: Power and process. New York: Routledge

Note: Unless otherwise noted, all assignments are due by 11:59PM on the due date

Online posting(10%): Short discussions (min. 50 words each) on reading/video assignments. W1-W6 postings are required; W7-W10 are extra credit.

Weekly class and group participation (25%): Professionalism, attendance, active participation

Group policy brief (15%): Group written policy brief (10 pp. not including 5 annotated references min).

Information literacy (10%).Demonstrate research skills includinglocation of high quality online and print sources and critical evaluation of different perspectives on controversial issues.

Short written assignments and a related final policy brief(40%): Includes several short written assignments that help develop a 10-page (not counting references)final policy brief. Emphasis on balanced, evidence-based analysis ofat least three alternative solutions to a pressing education policy issue.

TUES 1/3: Class survey and introduction to U.S. education system

  • History and characteristics ofP-20 system
  • Public/private goalsof education
  • Policy and social change
  • Finding and evaluating sources:
  • News: EdWeek.org; Chicago Reporter;Washington Post; New York Times (NU library access)
  • Databases:
  • Illinois report card(Neuqua, Harper, Schurz, New Trier)
  • National Center for Education Statistics
  • Digest overview of statistics
  • ERIC
  • Guidelines for reflective reading; robust discussion; information literacy
  • Factcheck.org; snopes.com; politifact.com
  • Definitions and credibility of sources

WED 1/4: Goals and perspectives on reform

Labaree, D. F. (1997). “Public goods, private goods: The American struggle over educational goals.” American Education Research Journal 34(1), pp. 39-74. Retrieved from

View 53-min long TED Talk on education:kand

and complete survey at P

Kober, N. & Usher, A. (2012). A Public Education Primer: Basic (and Sometimes Surprising) Facts about the

U .S. Education System. Retrieved from

MON 1/9: History of education policy

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

  • Chapter 1 and 2 (pp. 1-32).

Shedd, C. (2015). Unequal city: Race, schools, perceptions of injustice, pp 1-18. New York, NY: Russell Sage

View 24 min. video: Sir Kenneth Robinson: “Changing education”

Kantor, H. and Lowe, R. (2013). “Educationalizing the welfare state and privatizing education: The evolution of social policy since the New Deal.” In P.L. Carter and K.G. Welner, Closing the opportunity gap: What America must do to give every child an even chance (pp 25-39). New York, NY: Oxford.

WED 1/11: Policy process

Kiely, E. and Robertson, L. (2016, Nov. 18). How to spot fake news. Retrieved from

Rippner, J. A. (2016). Theories of the policy process. In The American education policy landscape, pp. 33-47. New York, NY: Routledge.

Rittel, H. W. J. & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences 4, pp. 155-169. Amsterdam: Elsevier Scientific.

WEEK 3: MON 1.16: Poverty and opportunity

Welner, K. G. and Carter, P. L. (2013). Achievement gaps arise from opportunity gaps. In P.L. Carter and K.G. Welner (Eds). Closing the opportunity gap: What America must do to give every child an even chance, pp. 1- 10. New York: Oxford.

National Public Radio (2016): Can More Money Fix America's Schools?Retrieved from

View 12 minute video: Professor Raj Chetty on “The case for economic justice.” Retrieved from Q

View 8-minute video:Sean Reardon: Inequality & Academic Achievement. Retrieved from

Blanchard, S. (2008). Policy analysts: Shaping society through research and problem-solving, pp. 20-25. Washington DC: Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Teixeira, C. D. (2008). Working in politics. Occupational Outlook Quarterly, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Hostetler, K. (2005). What is “good” education research? Educational Researcher, 34(6), pp. 16-21.

MON 1/23: Education research

Anderman, E. (2009). Research methods: An overview, pp. 135-142. Retrieved from

Rippner, J. A. (2016). Development and uses of educational research. In The American education policy landscape, pp. 153-170. New York, NY: Routledge.

Bracey, G. W. (2008). How to avoid statistical traps. In Jeanne H. Ballantine and Joan Z. Spade (Eds.)

Schools and society: A sociological approach to education, pp. 370-374. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Coburn, D. K. and Turner, E. O. (2011). Research on data use: A framework and analysis. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and perspectives, 9(4), pp. 173-206.

WED 1/25: Research and meaning

Ladd, H., Loeb, S. (2013). The challenges of measuring school quality. In D. Allen & R. Reich (Eds.) Education, justice, and democracy, pp 19-42. Chicago: University of Chicago

Lubienski. C., Scott, J.,, and DeBray, E. (2014). The politics of research production, promotion and utilization inEducational Policy. Educational Policy, 28(2), 131–144

MON 1/30 Opportunity gaps

Bowles, S. & Gintis, H. (2008). Schooling in capitalist societies. In J. H. Ballantine and J. Z. Spade (Eds.). Schools and society: A sociological approach to education, pp. 41-44. Thousand Oakes, Sage.

Mathis, W.J. (2016). Does money matter? NEPC Research based options for education policymaking (6 pp).

Retrieved from

Welner, K.G. and Carter, P.L. (2013). Achievement gaps arise from opportunity gaps.In P.L. Carter and K.G. Welner (Eds.) Closing the opportunity gap: What America must do to give every child an even chance, pp. 1-10. New York: Oxford.

View 55 min. video: Michael Sandel - Justice: What's The Right Thing To Do? Episode 09: "ARGUING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION" Retrieved from

Hochschild L. J. (2003). Social Class in Public Schools.Journal of Social Issues, 59(4), pp. 821—840.

WED 2/1: Innovation and borrowing policy – inside and out of the U.S,

Burdette, N. and O’Donnell, S. (2016). Lost in translation? The challenges of educational policy borrowing, Educational policy borrowing. Education Research, 58:2, 113-120.

Horace Mann League and National Superintendents Roundtable (2015). School performance in context: Indicators of school inputs and outputs in nine similar nations. Summary report (pp. 1-20). Retrieved from

Wong, A. (2016, May 23). What are Massachusetts public schools doing right? The Atlantic. Retrieved from

Fullan, M. (1994). Why centralized and decentralized strategies are both essential, 2 pp. Systemic reform: Perspectives on personalizing education. Retrieved from

Yum, H. (2014). An introduction to international education comparisons. National Conference of State

Legislatures. Retrieved from

MON 2/6: Preschool

Bauer, L. and Schanzenbach, D. W. (2016). The Long-Term Impact of the Head Start Program. Retrieved from

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

  • Chapter 4: Early childhood education (pp. 51-78).

View two videos on Common Core:

  1. Ed Week (2016): What is Common Core (2:30 min)
  1. PBS/Ed Week (2015). What the first round of test results say about Common Core progress

(5:20 min)

Cooper, B. S. & Randall, E. V. (2008). Fear and privatization. Educational Policy, 22(1), pp. 204-227.

WED 2/8:K-12 standards and choice

Delpit, L. (2012). How would a fool do it: Assessment. “Multiplication is for white people”: Raising expectations for other people’s children, pp. 137-148. New York, NY: New Press.

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

  • Chapter 5:K-12 (pp. 79-112).

Scott, J. & Wells, A. S. (2013). Reconciling school choice policy with equality of opportunity goals. In P.L. Carter and K.G. Welner (Eds.) Closing the opportunity gap: What America must do to give every child an even chance, pp. 123-140. New York: Oxford.

View video (8 min): PBS (2016). Do Charter Schools Help or Hurt? A Divided Black Community. Retrieved from

Harris, D. N. & Witte, J. F. (2011). The market for schooling. In D.E. Mitchell and D. Shipps (Eds.) Shaping Education Policy: Power and Process, pp. 92-116. New York: Routledge.

MON 2/13: Teacher training

Goldhaber, D. (2002). The mystery of good teaching. Education Next.Retrieved from

Tobin, K. (2012). Control of teacher certification in the United States. Peabody Journal of Education, 87(4), pp 485-499.

View PBS video: Today's newest teachers face tough job odds, high turnover (7:33 min)

Hargreaves, A. & Fullan, M. (2013). The power of professional capital: With an investment in collaboration, teachers become nation builders, pp. 36-39. Retrieved from

Knapp, M.S. (2001). Policy, poverty, and capable teaching: Assumptions and issues in policy design. In Bruce J. Biddle (Ed.), Social Class, poverty and education: Policy and practice, pp. 175-207. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Vasquez Heilig, J. & Jez, S.J. (2014). Teach For America: A Return to the Evidence. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center. Retrieved from -return_0.pdf

Walker, T. D. (2016, Nov. 18). When Finnish Teachers Work in America’s Public Schools. Retrieved from

MON 2/20: Goals, access and accountability in higher education

Hanson, C. (2014). Changing how we think about the goals of higher education. New Directions for higher education, 166, pp 7-13.

National Conference of State Legislature (2014). Affirmative action overview (3 pp). Retrieved from

Mullin, C. M. (2010). Doing more with less: The inequitable funding of community colleges. Policy Brief 2010-03PBL, 11 pp. Washington DC: AACC.

Video: Justice, What’s the right thing to do? Arguing affirmative action (55 min).

Conley, D.T., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2013). Creating systems of assessment for deeper learning. Stanford, CA: Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education, pp. 1-38. Retrieved from

Kirst, M. W. & Usdan, M.D. (2009). The historical context of the divide between K-12 and higher education. In States schools and colleges: Policies to improve student readiness for college and strengthen coordination between schools and colleges (pp5-22). San Jose, CA: The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education.

Venezia, A. and Jaeger, L. (2013). Transitions from high school to college. In The future of the children, 23(1), pp. 127-132.

WED 2/22: Inequality, financial aid and student debt

Hillman, N. (2015). Borrowing and Repaying Student Loans. Journal of student financial aid, 45(3), Article 5. Retrieved from

Stone, C. Trisi, D., Sherman, A. and Horton, El. (2016). A Guide to Statistics on Historical Trends in Income Inequality. Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. Retrieved from

Belfield, C. and Levin, H.M. (2013). The cumulative costs of the opportunity gap. In P. L. Carter and K. G. Welner, Closing the achievement opportunity gap: What America must do to give every child an even chance, pp. 195-206. New York, NY: Oxford .

Page, L.C. and Scott-Clayton, J. (2016). Improving college access in the United States: Barriers and policy responses Economics of Education Review, 51, pp 4-22.

MON 2/27: Individual, interpersonal and structural change

National Education Association (2016). Backgrounder: Students from poverty, 9 pp. Retrieved from

Jordan, E. and Cooper, P. M. (2016, Oct.). How to share research about children and youth with policymakers. Child Trends, 8 pp. Retrieved from

Jenkins, D. and Duffy, M. (2016).Community schools in practice:Research on implementation and impact. Research for action, 14 pp. Retrieved from

Datnow, A. (2011). Collaboration and contrived collegiality: Revisiting Hargreaves in the age of accountability. Educational Change 12, 147-158.

WED3/1: Dynamics of change

Anderson, A. K. & Emig, C. (2014). Integrated Student Supports: A Summary of the Evidence Base for

Policymakers. Retrieved from

Fullan, M. (1999). Complexity and the change process. In Change forces: The sequel, pp. 13-30. Phila.: Falmer.

Traub, J. (2000). “What no school can do.” New York Times Magazine, pp. 52-83.

Crains Chicago Business (2015). Five big ideas for Chicago’s troubled school. Read these three:

  1. Management

bStop the selective enrollment madness.

schools

MON 3/6:Challenges and benefits of shaping education policy

Mitchell, D.E., Shipps, D., and Crowson, R.L. (2011). “What have we learned about shaping education policy?” In Mitchell, D. E., Crowson, R.L., and Shipps, D. (Eds.) (2011). Shaping Education Policy: Power and Process (pp. 286-296).

Rice. J. K. (2015). Investing in equal opportunity: What would it take to build the balance wheel? Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center.

Tyack, D. & Tobin, W. (1994). The "Grammar" of Schooling: Why Has It Been So Hard to Change? American Educational Research Journal (31)3, pp. 453-479.

Ravitch, D. (2013). Conclusion: The pattern on the rug. Reign of error: The hoax of the privatization movement and the danger to America’s public schools, pp 313-325. Knopf.

cUse data to build a student GPS.

FINAL POLICY BRIEF DUE by 11:59PM MONDAY 3/13:

(10 pp. not including references)

Note: Extra credit: Additional 20 points for turning in your paper early - by 11:59PM Sat 3/11.

Turning your paper in after the final deadline of 11:59PM Monday 3/13 will result in an immediate 25% (30 pt) deduction. No final papers will be accepted after 11:59PM Tues 3/14.

Due date / Assignment / Group and class participation
(125 pt) / Group policy brief
(75 pt) / Final brief
(200) / Online posting
(50) / Info literacy
(50)
Sun 1/8 / Group: Post findings and 300 word group reflection on Illinois Report Card exercise / 10
Tue 1/17 / Individual: 300 word reflection on Norris Career Fair visit 1/11 - 1/12 / 10
Tue 1/17 / Group: Post job analysis / 15
Wed 1/18 / Group: 5 min presentation in class on job/grad school analysis. NU career counselor visit. / 15
W3 or W4
(1/16-1/25) / Group: Mandatory office hour; Three page memo on at least two possible direction for the group brief. / 25
Wed 1/25 / NU reference librarian visit; information literacy assignment / 20
Fri 2/3 / Group policy brief (with at least 5 references). / 50
W7
2/13-2/17 / Individual: Office hour; 3 pp summary of 2 ideas for final brief; misc. support assignments. / 25
Tue 3/7 / Final brief: Mini-poster presentation handout / 10
Wed 3/8 / Mini poster presentations and evaluations of final brief - in class / 40
Tues 3/13 / Final brief (10 pp) / 125
Weekly / W2-W6 posting of discussion questions and responses / 50
Weekly / Professionalism, attendance, active participation / 75
Weekly / Information literacy, critical thinking assignments / 30
Weekly / Extra credit: W7-W10 posting of discussion questions and responses

Assignments

GRADING OVERVIEW

Final / Grades
Points Earned / Final Letter Grade
465-500+ / A
450-464 / A-
435-449 / B+
420-434 / B
405-419 / B-
390-404 / C+
375-389 / C
360-374 / C-
300-359 / D
0-299 / F

GUIDELINES AND GRADING

1.Weekly online postings (10% of final grade)

  • On Sundays and Tuesdays (Graded W2-W6; Extra credit W7-W10):
  • By 6PM, post one discussion question that engages your interest.
  • By 11:59PM, post two responses to peer postings

Postings should be substantive, involving thoughtful reflection on the meaning, importance and/or interconnectedness of issues and topics raised by readings/videos and peer postings.

Grading of weekly online postings:

  • Full credit – Posting is direct, “to the point” with substantive*content. Posting is on time, free of spelling or grammatical errors, meets content/length requirements; and includes citations of literature as appropriate. (Typically: 3 pts/discussion question; 2 pts/response)
  • Partial credit - Posting is on time and meets length requirements but is only indirectly related to the course material, contains errors in grammar or spelling, is unclear and/or less than substantive in nature. One point is deducted every 6 hours for aposting after the due date/time.
  • No credit - Posting is more than one week late.
  • Extra credit - Additional postings or longer postings may receive extra credit if substantive.

2.Class participation and group work(25% of final grade). Discussions work best when all participants arrive on time and prepared to take active part in discussions, ask questions and discuss issues that emerge from the readings. Therefore, class participation grades accord equal weight to: a) professionalism;

b) attendance and c) active participation in small group and class discussions.

a)Professionalism involves attending scheduled office hours, meeting individual class responsibilities laid out in the syllabus and in class meetings; showing consideration and respect for others who are speaking; and collaborating with others as necessary.

b)Attendance: If you know you are going to be late or miss a class, I would appreciate it if you let me know by e-mail beforehand. However, whether you notify me or not, the class policy for absences and late arrival is as follows:

Absence.Each student will be allowed two “free” absences, no explanation required. However, if you miss a class, you are still responsible for submitting all assignments for that class on time. With any additional absences (except in documented case of illness or family emergency), I reserve the right to lower your final course grade:

  • By one grade step (i.e., A to A-) for a total of three absences;
  • By one full grade level (i.e., A to B) for a total of four absences; and
  • To a failing grade with a fifth absence.

Late arrival. Each student will be allowed two “free” late arrivals (after 12:30PM), no explanation required. With every two additional late arrivals, I reserve the right to lower your class participation grade by one grade step (i.e., A to A-). The later you arrive, the more likely it is that your class participation grade will be lowered for lateness. Missing 30 minutes of class will be considered an absence.

c)Active participation. Individual students are expected to complete required reading before each class and to participate in related active and meaningful discussions. The grade each individual student receives for participation in discussions depends on thoughtful and professional fulfillment of a role both as an engaged listener and as a speaker in class.

Extra credit is available for:

•No absencesand at most one late arrival makes students eligible for up to one grade step “bump” (for example, from an A- to an A) in their final course grade.

•Extraordinary participation: Students who are extraordinarily helpful in fostering or deepening class discussion and learning throughout the term may be eligible for up to one grade step (for example, from an A- to an A) “bump” in their final course grade. Active listening, strong group participation and bringing optional reading into discussion all count toward extraordinary participation.

3.Group policy brief (15%). (10 pp., 5 sources min). This policy brief is a collaborative project that:

  • Addresses a specific policy issue in the context of a particular population of students;
  • Narrows the problem statement to a specific student population, school setting, etc.
  • Develops three policy options that could resolve the issue in a particular setting;
  • Addresses a particular policy audience – a person or other entity – who is in a position to implement your policy recommendation.

Guidelines for writing a policy brief, a listing of some possible topics and samples of briefs are available on Canvas under Files > Resources for policy briefs.

4.Three page memo (5%). Discuss at least two topics of interest you might pursue for final policy brief. Include population of interest, possible policy/intervention and audience for the brief (non-binding, three pages min. not including references). Mandatory office hour. See Canvas files for resources.