University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Oregon education policy implementation: a case study of the achievement compacts information dissemination of the Oregon Education Investment Board

(USC Thesis Other)

Oregon education policy implementation: a case study of the achievement compacts information dissemination of the Oregon Education Investment Board

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION
i

OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION:
A CASE STUDY OF THE
ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS INFORMATION DISSEMINATION OF THE
OREGON EDUCATION INVESTMENT BOARD

By

Saemina Park

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

August 2014

Copyright 2014 Saemina Park
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION
ii

DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to first and foremost my God and Savior, Heavenly Father,
Lord, Jesus Christ. I could not have completed this intensive project without your help and
encouraging motivation by bringing people into my life to push me through the moments I felt I
could write no more.
This dissertation is also dedicated to my family whose support has been unwavering in all
of my educational pursuits. My mother, Pastor Jong Hee Park, continues to invest so much
energy into her children and family. I am grateful for her abounding love and choosing the
hardest occupation in the world—a full-time mother who has sacrificed her dream to see her
children grow full of love, kindness, gentleness, and joy, with a holistic education and childhood
through multiple library and museum visits, sports lessons, summer schools and camps, piano
lessons, and a life centered on Jesus Christ. Thank you, mom, for encouraging me to dream big
and motivating me to pursue my doctorate. My sister, Tamina, has been a source of inspiration
for me as I have endeavored to follow in her footsteps to become an excellent writer. And to my
father, Hong Sik Park, thank you for showing your love through the pride you take in me and in
showering me with random bedside meals as I worked on this project. Thank you for
contributing to my success and supporting this worthwhile project.

OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION
iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

To the members of my dissertation committee: USC professor Dr. Lawrence O. Picus, Dr. Mike
Seelig, and Dr. Rudy Crew; I could not have completed this project without the initial stages of
support and encouragement. Dr. Picus and Dr. Seelig, I want to express my wholehearted
gratitude for the initial phone calls and phone conference we had together clarifying my research
topic, for the rapid responses to all of my concerns and questions even in the midst of your busy
schedules, and for your belief in me. Your encouragement that I would be able to complete a
proposal from scratch in two weeks has made me feel validated and motivated me to press on,
even when I felt like my legs had given out on the last mile of a run. I want to express my
gratitude to the first Oregon Education Investment Board Chief Education Office, Dr. Rudy
Crew, who has been my professor and an inspirational influence in my personal life; this could
not have been completed without your leadership lessons taught in class.

To my USC family and dissertation cohort: Each of you has provided me with academic
knowledge, support, insight, and encouragement to pursue this project, thank you!

To my Fountain of Life Covenant Church brothers and sisters: Thank you for every uplifting
word, thought and prayer that you’ve offered along the way; you have provided nourishment to
my soul and motivation to keep going.

To my Windsor Hills Math/Science Aerospace Magnet family: Thank you staff, parents, and my
scholars for your encouragement and enthusiasm as I pursued this lengthy assignment!
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION
iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii

LIST OF TABLES vi

LIST OF FIGURES vii

ABSTRACT viii

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1
Statement of the Problem 8
Purpose of the Study 8
Research Questions 8
Importance of the Study 9
Summary of Methodology 10
Limitations 10
Delimitations 11
Assumptions 11
Definitions 11
Dissertation Organization 16

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW 18
Systematic School Reform in Oregon 19
Oregon Education Investment Board 28
Returns to Education Investment 34
Education Policy Implementation 48
Conclusion 71

CHAPTER THREE: METHODS 73
Research Questions 73
Methodology 73
Sample and Population 74
Data Collection 75
Data Analysis 76

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS 78
Introduction 78
Responses to Research Question 1 81
Responses to Research Question 2 84
Responses to Research Question 3 91
Responses to Research Question 4 94
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION
v
Conclusion 95

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION 98
Introduction 98
Summary of Findings 99
Limitations 101
Implications for Policy-Makers and Schools 101
Recommendations for Future Research 102
Concluding Comments 103

REFERENCES 105

APPENDICES 117
Appendix A: Survey Protocol 117
Appendix B: Survey Instrument 118
Appendix C: Survey Cover Letter 120

OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1: Country statistics profile: United States 2013 44

Table 2.2: Reading Score Gaps 59

Table 2.3: Math Scores Gap 62

Table 4.1: The Process and Timeline of the Achievement Compacts 80

OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1: Achievement Compact Measures for 2012-2013 31

Figure 2.2: The Two-Way Partnership of OEIB and Schools 33

Figure 2.3: Fiscal-Year 2013 Discretionary Budget Authority by Agency 41
($1.2 trillion)

Figure 2.4: Fiscal-Year 2013 U.S. Department of Education 42
Discretionary Funding ($65.7 billion)

Figure 2.5: Department of Education Discretionary Funding 43
Figure 2.6: School spending cost-effectiveness on PISA mathematics 46

Figure 2.7: Average PISA Mathematics Score, 2003 47

Figure 2.8: Trend in NAEP reading average scores for
9, 13, and 17-year old students 58

Figure 2.9: Trend in NAEP reading average scores for
9, 13, and 17-year old students 61

Figure 4.1: Knowledge about the OEIB 86

Figure 4.2: Knowledge about the 40-40-20 Goals 87

Figure 4.3: Knowledge about the Achievement Compacts 88

Figure 4.4: Methods of Receiving OEIB/Achievement Compact Information 90

OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

viii

ABSTRACT
This study was conducted to discover the information dissemination of the
achievement compacts for the Oregon Education Investment Board. This study has
implications for both policy-makers and schools to address the implementation gaps of
the achievement compacts and the links to an effective policy implementation. The study
was based on a case study analysis of documents and surveys completed by educators in
Oregon from Kindergarten classroom practitioners to University faculty. Oregon
Education Investment Board members were also surveyed.
The findings of the qualitative analysis suggest knowledge gaps by classroom
practitioners when the achievement compact information flow from the Oregon
Education Investment Board members to the school administrators, and to the classroom
practitioners. This case study found that teachers could not implement the policy due to a
lack of knowledge about the achievement compacts. The surveys and case study data
were also used for implications for both policy-makers and schools to enhance the quality
of education and improve student performance.
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

1

CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION
In the last two decades, education policy reforms focused on standards and
assessments have gained popularity in the United States (Spillane, 2004); however, many
reforms have replaced the previous ones in order to further improve student performance.
In the 1980s and early 1990s, Outcome-Based Education (OBE) reforms that emphasized
setting clear standards for observable and measurable outcomes were adopted by many
states and districts. A typical approach by states that adopted the OBE reform was to
create a committee to adopt standards and create an assessment to measure students’
knowledge and skills.
Outcome-Based Education Reform
There are three premises in OBE: (1) all students can learn and succeed; (2)
success breeds success; and (3) schools control the conditions of success (Spady &
Marshall, 1991). OBE empirically measures student performance or “outcomes.” Its
philosophy is a student-centered learning approach to teaching, incorporating progressive
pedagogical models and ideas such as whole language reading, project-based learning,
block scheduling and reform mathematics. OBE does not specify or require any particular
style of teaching or learning, but it requires that students demonstrate that they have
learned the required skills and content through assessments (Princeton, 2013).
Standards-based assessment.
In the 1990s, Congress set the standards-based National Education Goals (Goals,
2000), many of which were based on the principles of OBE. Since standards-based
assessment is one approach to OBE, in the United States (U.S.) standards-based reforms
have been adopted by states such as Texas, California, Kentucky, and Oregon.
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

2
Texas. The State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR)
replaced the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) in 2012 because TAKS
was repealed by Texas Senate Bill 1031 in 2007 (Texas Education Agency, 2013). The
STAAR program will continue to assess the same subjects and grades that are currently
assessed on TAKS in grades 3-8. However, in high school, grade-specific assessments
will be replaced with end-of-course (EOC) assessments in 12 subject areas: Algebra I,
Geometry, Algebra II, Biology, Chemistry, Physics, English I, English II, English II,
World Geography, World History, and U.S. History (Texas Education Agency, 2013).
California. California is another state that has gone through standards-based
assessment reforms. The short-lived California Learning Assessment System in 1993 was
replaced by Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR). STAR includes data from
California Standards Tests (CSTs), California Modified Assessment (CMA), California
Alternative Assessment (CAPA), Standards-based Tests in Spanish (STS), Stanford
Achievement Test, Ninth Edition (SAT/9), and California Achievement Tests, Sixth
Edition Survey (CAT/6). All of these are assessments that measure students’ knowledge
(California Department of Education, 2013).
Kentucky. The Kentucky Education Reform Act (KERA), implemented in 1990,
created a new system of assessing students, the Kentucky Instructional Results
Information System (KIRIS) (Clark, 2005). The KIRIS is a “performance-based”
approach that rewards schools financially, along with their teachers, for increases in
average KIRIS scores (Hoyt, 1997). KIRIS is not like a traditional test of multiple-choice
objectives; instead, students create a "portfolio" of writing and mathematics work in the
4th

(writing only), 8th, and 12th

grades (Hoyt, 1997). Thus, lengthy essays may be
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

3
included in their portfolios, although the content of these essays is based on a list of
topics emphasized by the Kentucky Department of Education (Hoyt, 1997).
Oregon. Oregon measures student performance and progress through the Oregon
Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (OAKS) assessment administered to grades 3, 5, 8
and 11 in reading, writing, mathematics and science and through national achievement
tests, such as the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Currently
Oregon is going through a systemic educational reform; while adopting the nation-wide
Common Core State Standards (CCS) initiative, Oregon will continue to use assessments
as part of their evaluation (Oregon Department of Education, 2013).
Assessment is a key component of standards-based reform. Currently, standards-
based reforms are highly popular among policy-makers, as the goal is to have all students
achieve and perform regardless of race or class. After the standards-based National
Education Goals were set, not all of the goals were attained nationwide by the year 2000,
as was intended. Further reform resulted in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, which
is still active. A new road to reform is currently being paved with the nation-wide
Common Core State Standards (CCS) initiative. This initiative means to prepare students
for college and career (Core Standards, 2013) and will be implemented in the 2014-2015
school year for most states.
Elementary and Secondary Education Act
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), which was a federal
statute enacted in 1965 by Congress and signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson,
emphasized equal access to education and established high standards and accountability
for all students. The act aimed to close the achievement gaps between students of
different race and class subgroups by providing every child with an opportunity to
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

4
achieve an exceptional education. The funds mandated in the act were authorized for
professional development, instructional materials, resources and support for educational
programs, and promotion of parental involvement. The act is reauthorized every five
years by the government.
No Child Left Behind
The current reauthorization of ESEA is the “No Child Left Behind” (NCLB) Act
of 2001. NCLB was a standards-based reform passed by the Congress and signed by
President George W. Bush. The goals were: (1) that all students reach a minimum
proficiency or better in reading and mathematics by 2013-2014, (2) that all limited
English proficient students become proficient in English, (3) that all students be taught by
highly qualified teachers, (4) that all students be educated in learning environments that
are safe, drug free and conducive to learning, and (5) that all students graduate from high
school.
Though the goals of NCLB are commendable, there have been many negative
unintended consequences. NCLB was the first law to tie federal school funding and
sanctions to annual performance goals for public schools. NCLB required states to set
“challenging student academic achievement standards,” (Linn, 2004); however, sanctions
are placed on schools that do not meet the fixed target goals, otherwise known as
benchmarks. Two measures of achievement, the Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) and
Annual Performance Index (API) are based on state standards-based assessment. The
comparison of performance in a given year to a fixed target known as the annual
measureable objective (AMO)—is the sole determinant of whether a school or district
makes AYP.
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

5
A positive feature of NCLB is its emphasis on groups of low-achieving students.
NCLB requires separate reporting of results for economically disadvantaged students,
students with disabilities, limited English proficient students, and by race/ethnicity.
Unfortunately, reporting more groups increases the number of ways that schools can fail
to meet AYP, because if one group fails, the entire school misses its goals (Linn, 2004).
Because NCLB has been criticized as being punitive and “teaching to the test,” President
Barack Obama’s administration has now allowed states to apply for waivers to some of
NCLB’s most stringent provisions in exchange for agreeing to adopt some of its
education policies, for example, teacher evaluations that take student tests scores into
account through Race to the Top (Resmovits, 2013).
Race to the Top
In the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009, also known as
the Recovery Act, Congress required the U.S. Department of Education to make
education reform grants to states (GAO.gov, 2011). To aid states and districts in
education, Race to the Top (RTT) was created by President Barack Obama’s
administration to waive certain NCLB provisions, such as all students meeting
proficiency in reading and mathematics. RTT provided extra grant funds of $4 billion to
competing states. States may apply for RTT funds providing that they will develop
effective teachers and leaders, improve the lowest-achieving schools, expand student data
systems, and enhance standards and assessments (GAO.gov, 2011). In addition to the
Recovery Act fund, states with an emphasis on early childhood learning can be awarded
up to $700 million in RTT grants in 2011 and $900 million in 2012 through the Race to
the Top Early Learning Challenge (RTT-ELC) (APTS, 2013). RTT-ELC is a program to
improve the quality of early learning and development and close the achievement gap for
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

6
children with high needs. One of the states that applied and were awarded for the RTT-
ELC program was Oregon.
Oregon’s New Reform Model
Oregon has a history of extensive educational system reforms. Governor
Kitzhaber and the Oregon Legislature passed Senate Bill 909 (SB909), which created the
Oregon Education Investment Board (OEIB). OEIB’s role would oversee the effort to
“create a seamless, unified system for investing in and delivering public education from
early childhood through high school and college so that all Oregonians are well prepared
for careers in our economy” (OEIB, 2012). Oregon applied for a waiver from NCLB’s
measurements and sanctions with Senate Bill 253 (SB253), which passed into law in
2011. OEIB’s goals from SB253 state the following:
(1) Ensure that at least 40 percent of adult Oregonians have earned a bachelor’s
degree or higher; (2) Ensure that at least 40 percent of adult Oregonians have
earned an associate’s degree or post-secondary credential as their highest level of
educational attainment; and (3) Ensure that the remaining 20 percent or less of all
adult Oregonians have earned a high school diploma, an extended or modified
high school diploma or the equivalent of a high school diploma as their highest
level of educational attainment (Oregon Legislative Assembly (2011).

Oregon has an innovative educational reform model on the spectrum of reforms
because it is different and unique from previous educational reforms. For most
educational reforms, the policymakers create the policy and seek implementation from
schools. Oregon’s educational reform requires a two-way accountability partnership
between the Oregon Education Investment Board (OEIB) and the education entity,
including all K-12 school districts, education service districts, community colleges, the
university system and Oregon Health and Science University (Oregon.gov, 2012). The
two-way process between OEIB and the school districts is three-fold: (1) OEIB informs
the policy to schools, (2) the schools develop and design set targets and goals to meet the
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

7
policy, with the amount of funds needed to achieve the goals, called achievement
compacts, and sends the document to OEIB, (3) OEIB reviews the compacts and if
approved, allocate the funds and human resource aid to schools in Oregon to meet the
achievement compacts. The process is organic and innovative in that it is much different
from a top-down approach, in which the policy-makers create the law and mandates (also
known as policy), and schools are required to meet the mandates.
Achievement compacts. The “achievement compacts” as defined by the OEIB
(Oregon.gov, 2012) means:
An agreement entered into between the OEIB and the governing body of an
education entity. The achievement compacts may contain a description of the
outcomes and measures of progress that will allow each education entity to
quantify: (1) completion rates; (2) validations of knowledge and skills; and (3)
relevance and connection across the education continuum and workforce. The
achievement compacts must contain: (1) a target number and percentages of
students for achievement of all the outcomes, measures of progress and goals
specified in the achievement compact; (2) a target number and percentage of
students for the aggregate of all disadvantaged subgroups, as defined by federal
law or specified by rules adopted by the board; and (3) the school district’s level
of funding for the fiscal year compared to, and as a proportion of, the Quality
Education Commission’s determination of that school district’s share of the
statewide amount of moneys sufficient to ensure that the state’s system of K-12
meets quality goals.
The achievement compacts are a roadmap to the 40/40/20 goal and a tool to guide
budget and policy setting at the state and local level. Funding is provided for all
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

8
education entities when the achievement compacts are approved by the Chief Education
Officer (CEO) of the OEIB.
Statement of the Problem
Despite their popularity and persistence, standards-based reforms and other
educational policies face the challenge of successful local implementation. States may set
mandates and provide incentives for implementing them; however, local district policies
often determine how classroom practitioners comprehend the standards. Effective
dissemination of information, how informative the policy flows from the policymakers to
the local school district and the local school site has a significant potential to influence
educational policy implementation.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is four-fold: (1) to identify the process of information
dissemination from policy-makers to schools, which includes state policy-makers, district
superintendents, school site administrators, and classroom practitioners; (2) to determine
the perceptions of state policies by schools; (3) to determine whether or not all
stakeholders have the same information, and if not, to identify the gaps in information
dissemination to better inform both policy-makers and school districts and help reach
stated goals; and (4) to provide recommendations, if any, to policy-makers from local
school districts to make policy and implementation more effective.
Research Questions
The research questions for this study are:
• How is information about achievement compacts being disseminated from policy-
makers to schools?
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

9
• What are the schools’ perceptions of policy towards improving student
achievement?
• Are all stakeholders receiving the same information? If not, what and where are
the gaps in the information dissemination?
• What recommendations emerge to make education policy and implementation for
improved student achievement more effective?
Importance of the Study
Many researchers have studied and completed case studies on policies to
determine whether policies are effective or ineffective in meeting student learning and
achievement goals; however, little research has been done on the dissemination of
information from policy-makers to the classroom practitioners as a possible cause of why
such policies are effective or ineffective. Policies created by policy-makers are
implemented by states and schools, but schools alone are being held accountable to the
measures of the policy. For example, when NCLB was implemented, schools were placed
under sanctions for not meeting measures mandated under NCLB.
The results of this study can inform all stakeholders, from policy-makers to
district superintendents, site administrators, and classroom practitioners. This study
provides policy-makers with an understanding of schools’ perspectives on policy and
gives practical and valuable data that can be used in future decisions on policies that
better support schools. This study also provides schools with policy-makers’ informed
decisions on policy, so that schools have a clear knowledge and understanding of a policy
and can make strategic plans to achieve their goals to educate students and to meet
federal achievement goals.

OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

10
Summary of Methodology
In an effort to study how policy information is disseminated from policy-makers
to schools, this study conducts case studies of Oregon educators and OEIB members. A
total of twenty-two interviews and surveys are conducted for this study. Five OEIB board
members, seventeen Oregon educators were interviewed for this study. The Oregon
educators consist of K-20 classroom practitioners, school site administrators, out-of-
classroom educators, and higher education professors and administrators.
A qualitative case study design was used for this study. Data was collected
through documents and surveys. Documents were be reviewed prior to the interview and
revisited after the interviews. The surveys consist of semi-structured, open and closed-
ended questions. Data from the surveys were used to identify patterns in the responses
made by the sample. The responses from the surveys were compared to one another and
then compared to the responses from the OEIB board member to triangulate the data. An
analysis was completed using HyperResearch, a code and retrieve data analysis program,
to code and to determine how districts have understood the policy compared to the OEIB
board member and the implementation of the achievement compacts.
Limitations
In every case study, there are limitations presented that are beyond the control of
the researcher. In this study, there were several limitations, the first being that the
primary method of data collection was based upon structured and semi-structured
surveys. There is, therefore, an inherent possibility that the results may be subjective. The
second limitation is the ability to gain access to superintendents in Oregon. The third
limitation is the ability to gain access to Oregon educators. The fourth limitation is that
the achievement compacts will be implemented in the 2013-2014 school year. Because
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

11
this is a new reform model, schools may have had limited familiarity or knowledge when
being interviewed about the policy.

Delimitations
In a case study, delimitations are limitations that the researcher chooses. There are
two delimitations to this case study. The first delimitation is that the participants were
selected by network of friends for this study. The second delimitation is that the Oregon
Education Investment Board member is serving as the policy-maker, although OEIB is
not the governing body to make policies, but rather the accountability partner for schools
to achieve the achievement compacts. However, the board member chosen possesses the
same knowledge as a policy-maker.
Assumptions
This study has several assumptions, addressed below:
• Methods and procedures are appropriate for this study.
• The participants in the study are educators currently working in a school district
that is implementing the policy.
• The OEIB member serving as the policy-maker has the same knowledge as a
policy-maker for this policy being reviewed.
• Interviewees give honest and candid responses.
• Policy information is disseminated to policy makers, school district
superintendents, site administrators, and classroom practitioners respectively.
Definition of terms
To clarify key terms throughout this study, definitions are provided below:
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

12
• 40/40/20: Established by Oregon Senate Bill 253, the objective to have 40
percent of adult Oregonians earn a bachelor’s degree or higher, 40 percent earn an
associate’s degree or post-secondary credential, and the remaining 20 percent or
fewer earn a high school diploma or its equivalent by 2025 (OEIB, 2011).
• Achievement compact: Documents that set targets on key student outcomes to
meet the 40/40/20 goal.
• Achievement gap: A difference in student achievement tests scores between
groups of students.
• Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs): unique yearly targets in reading and
mathematics for each subgroup, school and district, as described in Washington's
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Flexibility Request
(Washington State, 2013)
• Common Outcome Measures for K-12 Compacts: outcome measures in the
achievement compacts that are identical and categorized as follows:
o College and Career Ready
Four-Year and five-year cohort graduation rates,
Five-year completion rate,
Post-secondary enrollment, and,
Earning nine or more college credits.
o Progression
Ready For School, a kindergarten readiness assessment;
Third grade proficiency in reading and math;
Sixth grade on track, an attendance measure; and,
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

13
Ninth grade on track, a compound measure of attendance and
credits completed.
o Equity
Currently, schools on federal Title I school improvement lists; and,
In future years, what Oregon Department of Education defines as
priority and focus schools, pursuant to the final terms of the
Oregon NCLB waiver.
o Local priorities
Three optional outcome measures that demonstrate the priorities of
a local community and district (OEIB, 2012).
• Disadvantaged students: K-12 students who fall into one or more of the following
categories:
o Socioeconomically disadvantaged students,
o Limited English proficient students,
o Students with disabilities,
o Black students (not of Hispanic origin),
o Hispanic/Latino students,
o American Indian or Alaska Native students, and,
o Pacific Islander students (OEIB, 2012).
• Economically disadvantaged (ED): Student who is eligible for the free or
reduced-price lunch program.
• Education entity: includes K-12 school districts, education service districts,
community college districts, the Oregon University System (OUS), and Oregon
Health and Science University (OEIB, 2012).
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

14
• Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA): passed in 1965 as a part of the
President Lyndon Johnson’s "War on Poverty,” ESEA guarantees equal access to
education and establishes high standards and accountability. The law authorizes
federally funded education programs that are administered by the states. In 2002,
Congress amended ESEA and reauthorized it as the No Child Left Behind Act
(NCLB).
• English Language Learner: Indicates a person who has a first language other
than English and is in the process of learning English.
• No Child Left Behind (NCLB): NCLB is the 2002 reauthorization of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and increased the federal
government’s focus on assessment, accountability, and teacher quality. It also
holds schools and education entities accountable for increasing student
achievement for all students including minorities, English learners, students who
are socioeconomically disadvantaged, and students with disabilities (EdSource,
2010d).
• Oregon Education Investment Board (OEIB): The Oregon Education Investment
Board, chaired by the Governor of Oregon, is overseeing an effort to create a
seamless, unified system for investing in and delivering public education from
early childhood through high school and college so that all Oregonians are well
prepared for careers in the Oregon economy (Oregon.gov, 2013).
• Outcome-Based Education: OBE empirically measures student performance using
a student-centered learning approach to teaching, incorporating progressive
pedagogical models and ideas such as whole language reading, project-based
learning, block scheduling and reform mathematics. OBE does not specify or
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

15
require any particular style of teaching or learning, but it requires that students
demonstrate that they have learned the required skills and content through
assessments (Princeton, 2013).
• Race to the Top (RTTT): Government grant fund established under the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 which awarded almost $4
billion to competing states to aims to meet the goals of: developing effective
teachers and leaders, improving the lowest-achieving schools, expanding student
data systems, and enhancing standards and assessments.
• Senate Bill 253 (SB 253): Passed by the Oregon legislature in 2011, SB 253
established the 40/40/20 goal to be completed by 2025.
• Senate Bill 909 (SB 909): Passed by the Oregon legislature in 2011, SB 909
called for the creation of the Oregon Education Investment Board (OEIB) “for the
purpose of ensuring that all public school students in Oregon reach the education
outcomes established for Oregon.” It directed the OEIB to oversee a unified
public education system from early childhood through post-secondary education
(P-20). It also created the position of Chief Education Officer to oversee the
OEIB and recommend strategic investments to ensure that the public education
budget is integrated and targeted to achieve the education outcomes established
for the state (OEIB, 2012).
• Senate Bill 1581 (SB 1581): Passed by the Oregon legislature in 2011, it identifies
positions that will be under direction and control of Chief Education Officer for
matters related to design and organization of the state's education system, requires
governing bodies of education entities to enter into achievement compact with
Oregon Education Investment Board, describes terms that must be included in
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

16
achievement compact, and directs education entities to form achievement compact
advisory committees to develop and implement achievement compact
(Oregon.gov, 2013).
• Standards-based education reform: establishes objective metrics to assess student
performance and teacher effectiveness, using standardized instructional materials
and testing: Individual performance is measured against a set of common criteria
rather than in relation to other students (RAND, 2012).
Dissertation Organization
Chapter I of the study presents the introduction, a statement of the problem, the
purpose of the study, research questions, the importance of the study, a summary of the
methodology, limitations, delimitations, assumptions, definition of terms, and the
organization of the dissertation.
Chapter II of the study presents a review of the literature in the systematic school
reform in Oregon, the Oregon Education Investment Board (OEIB), returns to education
investment, and the education policy implementation.
Chapter III of the study presents the methodology and study design, research
questions, sample and population, instrumentation, data collection, and an analysis of the
data.
Chapter IV reports the findings from the four research questions—including a
summary of how information was disseminated from policy-makers to schools, the
schools’ perceptions of policy, a discussion of whether or not all stakeholders received
the same information on the policy, and recommendations that schools have for policy-
makers to make policy and implementation more effective.
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

17
Chapter V provides a summary of the study, implications from the study, and a
conclusion of the study.
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

18
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
Chapter Two of this study presents a review of the literature about the systematic
school reform in Oregon, the Oregon Education Investment Board (OEIB), about returns
to education investment, and about the implementation of education policy. The chapter
is divided into four sections:
1. Systematic School Reform in Oregon - A history of school reforms with
improvements of education in Oregon, addressed through the following: (A)
Oregon Educational Act for the 21
st
Century in 1991; (B) High school certificates
and programs of: (i) Certificate of Initial Mastery; (ii) Certificate of Advanced
Mastery; and (iii) Proficiency-Based Admission Standards System; (C) Oregon
Revised Statutes Chapter 329; and (D) Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
2. Oregon Education Investment Board (OEIB) - the following will be addressed:
(A) OEIB background; (B) Senate Bills 909; (C) Senate Bill 253; (D) Senate Bill
1581; and (E) Achievement Compacts.
3. Returns to Education Investment - Discusses the needs and the returns of
educational investment through: (A) Globalization and global competitiveness;
(B) the high standards of achievement; and (C) economic returns.
4. Education Policy Implementation - The first section will address the
implementation gaps from policymakers to the LEA and the implementation gaps
within the LEA themselves through the National Council of Teachers in
Mathematics standards. The next sections provide a summary of policy
implementation and its effects through the (A) Elementary and Secondary
Education Act; (B) the implementation process and its effect on No Child Left
Behind; (C) Race to the Top; and (D) Common Core State Standards Initiative.
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

19
Systemic School Reform in Oregon
Oregon Educational Act for the 21
st
Century in 1991
Reforms of the education system in Oregon have been evolving for the last 20
years. In 1991, a hearing was called by the Subcommittee on Regulation, Business
Opportunities, and Energy of the Committee on Small Business in the House of
Representatives in Portland, Oregon. The hearing focused on three important education
reform plans. They are President Bush’s Education 2000, the proposal on Oregon
Education for the 21
st
Century by Representative Vera Katz, and the Urban Schools for
America Act. Each of these strategies had similar goals of raising educational standards,
measuring performance, encouraging parent involvement, increasing participation in
business and education at all levels, demanding accountability of schools, and
recognizing excellence in teaching. Those goals, to this day, remain a part of the core
values and beliefs of Oregon education reformers “that all students can and will achieve
to a high standard of rigorous content” (Vanderstek & Burk, 2009, p. 2). Out of the three
plans, Oregon Education for the 21
st
Century was the most prominent proposal and was
overwhelmingly approved by Legislature in 1991.
The “Act.” Oregon’s Educational Act for the 21
st
Century or the “Act” was designed to
set standards, state-funding levels, and instructional accountability for all Oregon
students and schools (Engel, 1992; OSBA, 2005). According to Engel (1991), the Act
required fourteen standards:
(1) Periodic review and revision of common curriculum goals; (2) an "Oregon
Report Card" submitted to district patrons and the legislature; (3) statewide
accountability procedures; (4) a policy requiring parental involvement; (5)
allocation of state monies for the 21st Century Schools Program and School
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

20
Improvement and Professional Development Program; (6) a Distinguished
Oregon Educators Program; (7) State Board of Education-developed educational
choice models; (8) full funding for Head Start; (9) a directed study on developing
an ungraded primary program; (11) an Early Childhood Improvement Program;
(12) an advisory council appointed by the Superintendent of Public Instruction;
(13) Certificates of Initial and Advanced Mastery (CIM, CAM); (13) child labor
law reforms; and (14) a 220-day school year (abstract).
The “Act’s” accountability requirements. The legislation authorized not only
the Certificate of Initial Mastery and Certificate of Advanced Mastery, but also the
creation of benchmarks for all students and assessments in grades 3, 5, 8, 10, and 12
(Venezia & Kirst, 2006). The Act’s goal was to ensure that Oregon public school students
would not only master basic skills and meet high standards but also apply those skills as
adults. Consequently, the Act required the state and school districts to be more
accountable for student achievement through several state and local assessments: with the
Oregon State Assessment Tests (OSAT) administered to grades 3, 5, 8, and 10 in reading,
writing, mathematics, and science; with the Oregon Assessment of Knowledge and Skills
(OAKS), a statewide testing for grades 3-8, and 11; with national achievement tests, such
as the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP); and with college
admissions exam such as the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) and (ACT) (OSBA, 2005).
The Act also required accountability through the publication of an annual statewide
report card, which reports an overview of the trends in Oregon schools concerning
academic achievement, special program offerings, student and staff characteristics,
funding and other significant information (OSBA, 2005). Providing alternative programs
for students not meeting or exceeding state standards and tracking the dropout rate were
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

21
also required for accountability measures in the Act (OSBA, 2005). Since the enactment
of the Act in 1991, the provisions have changed over time, especially with respect to
educational goals and the provisions of the Certificate of Initial Mastery and Certificate
of Advanced Mastery. However, the major goal to educate and equip students with
academic and career skills necessary to pursue the future remains the same (OSBA,
2005).
High School certificates and programs. Oregon does not have a 12
th
grade
benchmark or a high school exit exam and performance on state assessments is not linked
to high school graduation (Venezia, Callan, Finney, Kirst, & Usdan, 2005; Venezia &
Kirst, 2006). However, the Oregon Department of Education (ODE) website (2013)
addresses three certifications students enrolled in high school need to obtain to graduate
and enter college or the workforce: (1) the Certificate of Initial Mastery (CIM); (2) the
Certificate of Advanced Mastery (CAM); (3) and/or the Proficiency-Based Admission
Standards System (PASS) before leaving high school. All three certificates are rooted in
the state’s “rigorous academic content standards” that reflect the knowledge and skills
obtained in school. Also, performance standards define how well students must perform
on classroom assessments and state assessments leading to the CIM (ODE, 2013).
Certificate of Initial Mastery. In 1995, the Act was revised with Bill 2991. It
authorized goals that strengthened and clarified efforts to build a more academically
rigorous system of public education that included a work-based learning component
(Hargis, 1995). The CIM is not a requirement, but may be obtained through benchmarked
assessments in English language arts, mathematics, and science, with work samples in the
10
th
grade. According to Oregon's 2002-03 Report Card, 31% of high school graduates
received a CIM diploma in 2002, an increase of 5% in 2001 (ODE, 2003). The
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

22
percentage of students who obtained a CIM varied extensively by race/ethnicity: 33.5%
White, 31.8% Asian/Pacific Islanders, 22.7% Native American/Alaskan Natives, 10.7%
of Hispanics, and 10.9% of African Americans (Castillo, 2003). After the CIM is
acquired, the student can choose a college preparatory program or go into the workforce
(Venezia & Kirst, 2006).
Certificate of Advanced Mastery. The CAM is issued to 12
th
grade students who
meet high academic standards at more advanced levels than the required CIM, and who
participate in structured work-related activity. Each student selects one or more career
areas to study, such as arts and communications, business and management, health
services, human resources, industrial and engineering systems, and natural resource
systems. “These areas have become Oregon’s version of the career major required by the
federal School-to-Work Opportunities Act,” (Hargis, 1995, p. 23). Public education
institutions such as high schools, community colleges, public professional technical
schools, 4-year colleges, and the workplace can all serve as sites for the CAM learning as
long as they meet the requirements of the State Board of Education.
Proficiency-based admission standards system. The Oregon Senate Bill 919
established the Proficiency-Based Admission Standards System (PASS), which was
developed by the Oregon University System (OUS) in 1993. The PASS was a means of
higher education admittance based on the knowledge and skills necessary for success in
higher education (Venezia et al., 2005). It includes academic standards and criteria for six
content areas defined at the K-12 level: English, math, science, social science, second
language, and visual and performing arts (ODE 2013).
The CIM, CAM, and PASS all have different outcomes; however, as a whole,
they provide “a program with the flexibility and depth to meet the goals of the needs of
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

23
all students,” (OEA, 1995). The CIM and the CAM were not originally designed to be
connected to college and university admissions; however, the university system
collaborated with the Department of Education to work toward goals in college and
career related development for all students. The collaboration between the university and
the Department of Education was not linked by legislation (Venezia & Kirst, 2006),
perhaps because “policy making in Oregon is decentralized and entrepreneurial in nature”
(Venezia et al., 2005). In 1995, the 1991 Education Act was amended to modify the CIM
and CAM’s implementation schedule and to reduce the number of work samples. Given
the many changes and modifications in the system, it has been challenging for schools to
adopt and implement the new standards and assessments (ODE, 2013). The Oregon
University System (OUS) has led collaborative efforts between the PASS and the CIM
for years, but recently, the DOE is driving much of the remaining collaboration (Venezia
et al., 2005). PASS is not in statute, though CIM and CAM are, with little state support in
terms of high-level leadership or funding (Venezia et al., 2005).
Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 329. During the 2012 regular session,
Oregon’s legislative assembly amended or repealed the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS)
Chapter 329 to modify the Oregon Educational Act for the 21
st
Century requirements
(ORS, 2011). There were several changes made to Chapter 329 by the Legislative
Assembly, for example:
(1) The four educational goals were amended to:
Equip students with the academic and career skills and information necessary to
pursue the future of their choice through a program of rigorous academic
preparation and career readiness; provide an environment that motivates students
to pursue serious scholarship and to have experience in applying knowledge and
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

24
skills and demonstrating achievement; provide students with the skills necessary
to pursue learning throughout their lives in an ever-changing world; and prepare
students for successful transitions to the next phase of their educational
development (ORS 329, 2011); and
(2) characteristics of the school system through the accountability of public
elementary and secondary school students, parents, teachers, administrators,
school district boards, and State Board of Education; (3) revisions to the common
curriculum goals, performance indicators, diploma requirements, essential
learning skills, and academic content standards and instruction in academic
content areas; (4) providing adequate funding when funds are available; (5) the
State Board of Education or its designee shall assess the effectiveness of schools
and school districts and report findings within six months of the assessment; (6)
the Department of Education shall require self-evaluations of school districts and
schools and update their improvement plans on a biennial basis; (7) report on the
state of public schools and their progress towards meeting educational goals
through an annual publication of the Oregon Statewide Report Card; and (8)
policy on parental and community participation by providing opportunities for
parents or guardians to be involved in establishing and implementing educational
goals and decision-making at the school site and entering partnerships businesses
and recreational groups (ORS 329, 2011).
Elementary and Secondary Education Act
ESEA Flexibility Request. The Oregon Department of Education receives and
distributes federal education funds to eligible school districts through the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA). The supplemental funds support the efforts to meet
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

25
federal and state requirements and improve the ability of all students to meet academic
standards (Saxton, 2012). In 2011, the U.S. Department of Education invited states to
request flexibility regarding specific requirements of the NCLB in “exchange for rigorous
and comprehensive state-developed plans designed to improve educational outcomes for
all students, close achievement gaps, increase equity, and improve the quality of
instruction,” (Saxton, 2012, p. 17). Oregon submitted its ESEA Flexibility Request, a
waiver to NCLB, on January 2012, and was approved on July 2012.
Accountability system. As part of the federal ESEA Flexibility application,
Oregon developed a new accountability system using multiple measures to rate schools.
In high school, academic achievement, academic growth, subgroup growth, graduation
rates, and subgroup graduation rates will be measured annually. For elementary and
middle schools, the first three measures are used. Oregon used this system to identify 94
Oregon schools (34 Priority Schools and 60 Focus Schools), which will receive
additional supports and interventions from the state to help close the achievement gap
and increase student achievement (Saxton, 2012). In the new accountability reform
reported by Saxton (2012), Priority Schools represent the lowest 5% of high poverty
schools (Title I) and Focus Schools represent the lowest 15% of high poverty schools in
the state that have achievement gaps. Model schools are schools that have high poverty,
but successful student outcome. Thirty schools will serve as models to other schools
around the state.
Like the NCLB required mandate, Oregon requires teachers to be highly
qualified. Teachers must hold at minimum a bachelor’s degree, be fully credentialed, and
demonstrate mastery of subject knowledge, either by rigorous state exam, major and
degree in college, or a graduate degree in the core academic area. As a requirement of the
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

26
ESEA, schools receiving federal monies under Title IA Improving Basic Programs must
send letters to parents of students who are being taught for four or more weeks by a
teacher who is not highly qualified. Another requirement for ESEA is to provide options
to parents for students who attend a school that is deemed “persistently dangerous,”
because the school exceeds the threshold number of expulsions for weapons and/or
arrests for violent criminal behavior for three consecutive years. The parents can choose
to exercise their right to send their student to a different public school in the district.
Annual Measurable Objectives. Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs) are
annual performance measures of student subgroups meeting or exceeding rigorous state
academic standards against an annual performance target. In the 2011-2012 State AMO
Report, 77.46% of all students met or exceeded the English/Language arts criterion,
while 63.85% did so for mathematics. The achievement gap between White students and
Black students has been a serious and continual problem even before the inception of
NCLB and is still a disheartening issue even after efforts have been made to close the
achievement gap (Braun, Chapman, & Vezzu, 2010; Rowley & Wright, 2011). In the
2011-2012 State AMO Report, the performance target for English/language arts and
mathematics is 70% for high school (Saxton, 2012). 61.34% of Black students are
meeting or exceeding in English/Language Arts and 42.32% in mathematics, whereas
their White counterparts are outperforming them at 82.72% in English/Language arts and
68.78% in mathematics. When Whites and Blacks are compared to Asians, Asians are
achieving at the highest level, at 83.50% in English/Language Arts and 80.45% in
mathematics. Interestingly, when Asians were tested on the Scholastic Achievement Test
(SAT) from all the schools in Oregon, they performed lower compared to all the schools
in the nation.
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

27
Oregon has had ongoing systematic educational reforms for more than twenty
years. The Quality Education Act for the 21
st
Century, making amendments to the
Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 329 in an ever changing political system, revising
standards and goals with the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act and No Child Left Behind Act, applying for the ESEA Flexibility waiver and being
approved are reform efforts to have all students learn and achieve to high standards.
Recently Governor Kitzhaber and the Oregon Education Investment Board have activated
the most innovative systematic educational reform in Oregon’s history.
Oregon Education Investment Board
Background. Governor Kitzhaber shared a promising goal with the
kindergarteners of Metzger Elementary in a speech on September 5, 2012: “Our
commitment to you -- the Class of 2025 -- is that every single one of you, in every
community in Oregon, will graduate from high school with the tools and skills to pursue
your dreams in college and careers" (Oregon.gov, 2012).
Democrat John Kitzhaber, M.D. is in his third term as governor of Oregon.
Governor Kitzhaber attended medical school at the University of Oregon Medical School,
now Oregon Health and Science University. He practiced as an emergency room doctor
in Roseburg, Oregon. Governor Kitzhaber’s background and knowledge in health were
brought to bear upon the Oregon health reform plan. He was influential in bringing
together legislatures and interest groups to pass the Oregon Health Plan—a plan, much
like Medicaid or Medicare, that ensures all Oregonians have health insurance (National
Governors Association, 2011; McDonald, 2013; Oregon.gov, 2013). In an opinion
section of the online news program, “Oregon Live,” on July 9, 2013, John Kitzhaber
shared:
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

28
We have also taken the next steps to help small businesses, families and state
government avoid spending more and more every year on an inefficient health
care system that is not making us healthier as a population—dollars that otherwise
businesses could use to create jobs, families could use to get out of debt and pay
down mortgages, and the state could invest in public education and other critical
services. We are on track to deliver better health and better care at a lower cost as
we expand access to ninety-five percent of Oregonians by 2016.
Governor Kitzhaber not only has a passion to help Oregonians with the Health Plan, but
he also has a passion for education reform in Oregon. He is now bringing his influence
and experience to the current education system reform of Oregon with the passing of
Senate Bill 253, Senate Bill 909, and Senate Bill 1581.
Senate Bill 253. The House voted 46-14 in favor of Senate Bill 253 (SB253) and
was signed into law by Governor Kitzhaber in 2011 (Graves, 2011). The policy aspires to
make high school dropouts extinct by declaring a mission to ensure all adult Oregonians
will have a high school diploma by 2025. This could be accomplished through Oregon
Education Investment Board’s 40/40/20 goal, where forty percent of all adult Oregonians
have a bachelor’s degree or higher, forty percent have an associate’s degree or post
secondary credential, and twenty percent have a high school diploma or an equivalent
(Graves, 2011; OEIB, 2011).
Senate Bill 909. Senate Bill 909 created the Oregon Education Investment Board
(OEIB) in 2011 (OEIB, 2011). Chaired by Governor Kitzhaber, the OEIB oversees “an
effort to create a seamless, unified system for investing in and delivering public education
from early childhood through high school and college so that all Oregonians are well
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

29
prepared for careers in our economy (OEIB, 2011). SB909 created the board and charged
it with the required duties of OEIB:
• “Developing an education investment strategy to improve learning outcomes from
early childhood through public schools, colleges and universities.”
• “Hiring a Chief Education Officer to oversee the unified public education
system.”
• “Establishing a statewide student database, from early childhood through higher
education, that encourages accountability for outcomes, and provides better
information for policy-makers, educators, students and their families to ensure
progress along the entire educational path.”
• “Establishing an Early Learning Council to streamline and strengthen early
childhood services to at-risk youth to ensure all children are ready to learn when
they enter kindergarten.”
• Reporting back to the Oregon Legislature, on progress (OEIB, 2011).
OEIB builds on the efforts of the Oregon Education Investment Team (OEIT), which
was created by the Governor by executive order. The Governor directed the OEIT to
“engage the public, legislators and stakeholders in the creation of a new investment and
budget process for education in Oregon,” (OEIB, 2011). The driving goal of OEIT is the
same as OEIB’s 40/40/20 goal. OEIT leads and coordinates a “process of collecting,
reviewing and evaluating the efforts of groups that have studied ways Oregon can most
effectively reach its goal through transformation” by three key areas: (1) Early Learning,
(2) education budget, and (3) increasing K-12 efficiencies (OEIT, 2011). A survey was
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

30
conducted in April 2011 and in October 2011 to “inform the Governor on ways the state
can better support districts and schools in implementing efficiencies” (OEIT, 2011).
Senate Bill 1581. “For the purpose of furthering the mission of the OEIB to
oversee a unified public education system,” (Oregon Legislative Assembly-76th, 2012),
Senate Bill 1581 (SB1581) was passed in 2012. SB1581 gave powers to the Chief
Education Officer (CEO) to have direction and control over the positions of the education
entity and matters related to the design and organization of the state’s education system,
including early childhood services provided by the state (Oregon Legislative Assembly-
76th, 2012).
The current interim Chief Education Office is Dr. Nancy Golden who took office
after the first Chief Education Officer Dr. Rudy Crew. Dr. Rudy Crew was a lifelong
educator, public school administrator and chancellor. He was appointed by Governor
Kitzhaber and served in OEIB overseeing Oregon’s education entity starting in June
2012. Dr. Crew resigned after serving for a year with Oregon and currently serves as the
President of Medgar Evers College in New York. Before he resigned, Dr. Crew worked
on the strategic planning and vision of the OEIB for the work to be done in the next seven
years, assuming that there’s a continuum from the current biennium (2013-2015) to the
next (2015-2017) (OEIB, 2013).
Achievement compacts. As the CEO, Rudy Crew and the OEIB entered into
achievement compacts with all education entities, which included: every K-12 school
district, education service district, community college, the university system and
individual university, and Oregon Health Sciences University. The achievement
compacts are documents setting “targets for defined outcome measures that are indicative
of student success” with the allocation of resources needed to accomplish its plan
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

31
(Nesbitt, 2012). Figure 2.1 shows the Achievement Compacts measures for 2012-2013,
the outcome measures for progress in meeting the 40/40/20 goal across the P-20
continuum, from pre-kindergarten to college and career readiness (OEIB, 2012).
Figure 2.1
Achievement Compact Measures for 2012-2013

Source: Oregon Education Investment Board, 2012
OEIB hope that the Achievement Compacts will:
• Use a two-way accountability system to “define key measurements and set goals
for student progress;”
• Help Oregon achieve its goals of 40/40/20, by measuring progress and uniting
educational institutions;
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

32
• “Allow comparisons of outcomes among educational institutions – spotlighting
best practices to share and expand, and allowing diagnosis and intervention to
overcome obstacles;”
• “Encourage local boards and educational leaders to connect their budgets and
improvement plans to share goals of high school and college completion and
career readiness;”
• “Help state and local leaders determine how much progress they can make with
the best use of state and local funds – and how they might invest funds in ways
that deliver better results for students;”
• Disseminate information about how educational entities are performing to parents
and students;
• “Allow Oregon to replace provisions of No Child Left Behind with a more
supportive and flexible state K-12 accountability system.” (OEIB 2012).
The achievement compacts seek a two-way partnership agreement between OEIB
and the education entity (see Figure 2.2) in a committed effort to:
Align all sectors of our education system toward achievement of the 40/40/20
goal and college and career readiness; focus and inform state investment and local
budget and program decisions to achieve these outcomes; spotlight best practices
and promote collaboration, so that successful districts, colleges and universities
can share their strategies with those that can benefit from additional guidance and
support; and in K-12 districts, replace provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act
with a more supportive and flexible accountability system (Nesbitt, 2012).
The outcome measures are organized into four categories:
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

33
1) “College and Career Ready: Are students completing high school ready
for college or career?
2) “Progression: Are students making sufficient progress toward college and
career readiness?
3) “Equity: Are students succeeding across all buildings and populations?
4) “Local priorities” (OEIB, 2012a; Nesbitt, 2012; OEA, 2012a).”
Figure 2.2
The Two-Way Partnership of OEIB and Schools

Figure 2.2 shows the two-way partnership between OEIB and the education
entity. It also shows the three-step process in achieving the 40/40/20 goal from the
policymakers. The first step is for OEIB to disseminate information to the schools
regarding goals. Secondly, the schools, having received information, develop and create
goals for the achievement compacts and return the document to OEIB. Lastly, OEIB
receives the achievement compacts, decides whether to support them with the funds
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

34
requested to meet the goals of the achievement compact, and provides human resource
services for the schools.
The initial achievement compacts were due in August 2012. Unfortunately, more
than one-third of them were not accepted by the Oregon Education Investment Board and
had to be rewritten (Hammond, 2012). When the initial achievement compacts were
reviewed, some schools set targets that were flat with no growth or increases of about 1
percentage point a year (Hammond, 2012). Some achievement compacts set targets that
were lower than the previous year’s achievement levels arguing that was the best they
could achieve due to a lack of funding (Hammond, 2012).
Returns to Education Investment
Education is the key to global competitiveness and a strong economy (Epstein,
2011). President Obama said in a speech at the University of Texas (2010), “The single
most important thing we can do is to make sure we’ve got a world-class education system
for everybody. That is a prerequisite for prosperity.” This cannot be done without the
investment in education that is needed to support improvements in student achievement.
Our students are suffering, especially between student subgroups defined by
race/ethnicity, language, and socioeconomic backgrounds in the U.S., but also those in
economically competitive countries such as in Finland and South Korea on international
tests. Education has the potential to improve the conditions of a country’s economy,
creating resources, developing critical thinking skills needed for work, developing human
capital, providing knowledge and skills to promote health and excellent medical doctors,
and a productive business industry (Bloom). Friedman and Mandelbaum (2011) argue
that the national security depends on the quality of its education system.
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

35
Globalization and global competitiveness. In this 21
st
century, technology
advances and growth have “helped speed up global integrations,” (Bloom, p. 60) as
telecommunications have improved. Globalization has also increased foreign direct
investment (FDI), which offers countries opportunities to improve productivity and
expand their industrial capital, for example in the creation of jobs; importing new
technology, knowledge and skills; and providing business to local suppliers (Bloom, p.
60). East Asia, i.e. China, was once a third world country; however, it is now rising
economically due to the globalization of import and export trade. Globalization has aided
many countries in raising their gross domestic product (GDP). Globalization can also be a
process where countries become more integrated through education.
The high standards of achievement. American students have fallen behind
many nations, being in the middle of the group of nations tested. Finland and South
Korea are ranked first and second, respectively, while the U.S. is ranked 17
th
in the
Global Index of Cognitive Skills and Educational Attainment (Gayathiri, 2013; Pearson,
2013; & Phi Delta Kappan, 2013). The indicators used for the rankings were from three
international cognitive tests scores: Program for International Student Assessment
(PISA), Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) and Progress in
International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) with the educational attainment in literacy
and graduation rates (Pearson, 2013; Phi Delta Kappan, 2013). The Economist
Intelligence Unit (EIU) took test results and data from the literacy and graduation rates
between 2006 and 2010 of fifty nations, along with spending on pupils and class size.
Qualitative data such as the level of school choice and numerous potential outcomes
ranging from development of cognitive skills to GDP growth were also used (Gayathiri,
2013). McKinsey & Company (2009) reported if the United States were to close the
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

36
educational achievement gap from those who are better-performing nations such as
Finland and Korea, GDP could have been $1.3 trillion to $2.3 trillion higher in 2009—
this represents nine to sixteen percent of GDP.
The United States’ school system. Our nation is one of the most diverse
countries in the world, not only in racial and ethnic multicultural backgrounds, but
language, sexual orientation, religious beliefs and practices, socioeconomic status, and
educational status. In large cities such as Los Angeles, New York, and Chicago, this
diversity is intensified - each of these cities is densely populated with diverse citizens
living cheek by jowl, compared to the rest of the nation. Schools at these cities have the
responsibility to accommodate and meet the needs of all students’ subgroups.
The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) produces an annual report to
help policymakers and the public monitor the progress of education attainment or
effectiveness. A report was produced on May 2012, which shed light on important
indicators of developments and trends in United States education such as: enrollment
trends in education by age, English Language Learners in public schools, school
characteristics and climate, student eligibility for free or reduced-lunch, finance, and
resources. The report also looks at high school in the U.S. over the last twenty years.
There have been many demographic and policy changes that have affected our high
schools since 1990 (NCES, 2012) and these changes continue as students come from
various backgrounds, experiences, and knowledge.
NCES (2012) suggests that enrollment in elementary and secondary U.S. schools
is expected to grow to 53.1 million students, while undergraduate enrollment is expected
to increase to 20.6 million in 2021 (NCES, 2012). Post-baccalaureate programs are to
increase to 3.5 million students. These increases in enrollment will lead to an increase in
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

37
diversity of the student populations. As a consequence, school districts and the
government must modify teaching strategies, curriculum, and classes offered to
accommodate the needs of these diverse learners.
NCES (2012) has reported progress on national assessments in reading and
mathematics among 4
th
and 8
th
graders since the early 1990’s. However, on both
mathematics and reading assessments, there have been significant gaps among
racial/ethnic and class groups between White and Black subgroups. The White middle-
class subgroup are performing at a greater number than the low-income Black subgroup.
On the other hand, there have been improvements. The freshman graduation rate
increased from 71.7% to 75.5% from 2009-2011 (NECES, 2012). Other improvements
are status dropout rate, which declined among all racial/ethnic groups, and rates of
postsecondary degree attainment, which increased for Black, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific
Islander, and American Indian/Alaska Native students (NCES, 2012).
Though there are improvements, there are still gaps that must be filled in our
education system, for example between student achievement for Blacks and Hispanics of
low-income and upper/middle class White and Asian students, who are attaining higher
education degrees and test scores. Disparities among racial/ethnic groups and between
upper/middle and low-income socioeconomic groups must be eliminated along with
differences in financial resources for rich and poor districts. According to Epstein (2011),
closing the racial/ethnic and income achievement gaps between 1983 and 1998 would
have added $310 billion to $525 billion to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by 2008,
while closing the achievement gap would have added between $400 billion and $670
billion to our 2008 GDP. Differences in K-12 achievement of students must also close
between our nation and other nations to achieve a desired level of economic growth and
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

38
live up to our founding ideals. A study by Hanushek and Woessmann (2010) found that
increasing students’ scores on the PISA test by twenty-five points between 2010 and
2030 would result in economic gains for Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD) countries. Currently, U.S. students rank below many countries on
this test; however, if the United States and other countries improved by one-fourth of a
standard deviation, the payoff to the United States would be more than $40 trillion by
2090 (Hanushek & Woessmann, 2010).
Funding in education. Investment in education and funding has been decreasing
with the budget cuts due to global recession for the past several years. However, there
have been multiple funding reforms in individual states. These reforms have sought to
effectively maximize the money allocated to have the highest return on student
achievement and equalize funding for students by ethnicity and income.
Kentucky Education Reform Act. Clark (2003) examined the Kentucky
Education Reform Act (KERA), which was a statewide education reform policy in 1990
designed to include a new funding system to correct large financial disparities between
school districts, curriculum revision and standardization, and increased school and district
accountability. KERA’s effects on school spending and student achievement did
successfully equalize per-pupil expenditures across rich and poor districts. However,
Clark (2003) found ultimately that increased spending did not improve test scores, nor
did it narrow the gap, with only modest gains in Black student achievement.
Database Initiative Project. In 1997, the legislature in Oregon authorized the
Database Initiative Project (known as the DBI). The DBI collected comparable data on:
funding information, school district profiles, district comparisons, ESD profiles, school
profiles, school comparisons, average elementary class size by school, hours of
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

39
instruction for each grade within a school, student information, staffing number and type
by school, and technology (Legislative State of Oregon, 2010). “With this information,
policymakers could make better school funding decisions based on the comparable data
on spending, resource allocation, and student performance” (DOE, 2001). The data that is
collected is publicized on the web, and schools and districts can compare themselves to
other schools and districts.
Oregon Quality Education Model (OQEM). The Oregon Quality Education
Model (OQEM) developed by Conley and Picus (2003) is an “adequacy funding model
that attempts to connect the resources provided to schools with the student-learning
outcomes,” (Conley & Picus, 2003, p. 586). It is a budget tool that estimates the cost of
meeting education goals in order to guide policymaker decisions on education funding in
K-12 (DOE, 2011). QEM also “intends to raise academic standards and achievement,
instructional best practices carried out in local schools, funding resources, and student
performance” (Quality Education Commission, 2010, p. 1).
Economic returns. Many studies show that the amount of funding has a direct
impact on the quality of public education as well as students’ academic success and
educational outcomes. Although there are other factors that affect student performance,
the direct impact of money on education cannot be ignored. Returns on education
investment impact our economy and our standing as a nation. Increasing our high school
and college graduation rates would contribute to large economic returns. If half of the
approximately 1.3 million students that dropped out of the class of 2010 had graduated
from high school, “the class of 2010 alone would earn $7.6 billion more per year and
generate an addition $5.6 billion in increased spending and $2 billion in increased
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

40
investing per year” (Epstein, 2011, p. 4 & Alliance for Excellent Education, 2011). If
dropout rates were cut further, economic returns would be even higher (Epstein, 2011).
The U.S. has continued to cut funding for education for multiple consecutive
years and the consequent loss of jobs and trade in the state must be included as a factor in
what caused our economic downturn and that of the nation. According to the Federal
Education Budget Project (2013), in the fiscal year of 2013, the federal budget totaled
$3.7 trillion. Funding is broken into two categories: discretionary funding and mandatory
funding. Discretionary funding is subject to the annual appropriations process whereby
Congress determines funding levels each year through legislation whereas mandatory
funding is not subject to the annual appropriations process and includes entitlement
programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and student loans. Of the total budget
amount, 32% was discretionary funding, which is $1.2 trillion (Federal Education Budget
Project, 2013). Only 5.5% of the total discretionary funding was for education that year
(Federal Education Budget Project, 2013), and now it has dropped to 4.6% for the year
2014 (DOE, 2013). Figure 2.3 reveals the fiscal year 2013 discretionary budget authority
by agency. It also shows the amount spent on education, which is just a fraction
compared to defense, which comprises half of the budget.

OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

41
Figure 2.3
Fiscal-Year 2013 Discretionary Budget Authority by Agency ($1.2 trillion)

Source: President’s 2014 Budget Request Historical Tables (DOE, 2013).
In Figure 2.4, the majority of the funding went to just three programs: Elementary
and Secondary Education Act Title I grants to local education agencies, the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) state grants, and Pell Grant program for college
students (Federal Education Budget Project, 2013). The United States federal state and
local government spending is over $92 billion in the fiscal year of 2013 on K-12
education and training (Chantrill, 2013 & GPO.gov, 2013); however, these three
programs collectively received $53 billion in the fiscal year of 2013 (Federal Education
Budget Project, 2013).

OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

42
Figure 2.4
Fiscal Year 2013 U.S. Department of Education Discretionary Funding ($65.7 billion)

Source: U.S. Department of Education Budget Tables (DOE, 2013).
Figure 2.5 shows education funding levels since 2000. Funding levels increased in
education after the passage of NCLB in 2000 and grew rapidly between 2000 and 2002.
There is also another rapid spending increase in fiscal year 2009, due to the passage of
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). The stimulus, ARRA,
saved 250,000 and 350,000 jobs in education. If the states and local governments cut
education budgets, it would mean eliminating more educational jobs and programs,
whereas investing in education could translate directly to job preservation and
employment growth (Epstein, 2011). If additional spending and investment were used for
education to produce more high school graduates, it would lead to more job creation and
would add new jobs to the economy (Epstein, 2011).

OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

43
Figure 2.5
Department of Education Discretionary Funding

Source: President’s 2014 Budget Request Historical Tables (DOE, 2013).
As noted in Figure 2.5, funding for education has decreased and the economy has
also suffered with the loss of profit. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis
(BEA) of the United States Department of Commerce (2013), real gross domestic product
(GDP) increased 1.8% in the first quarter of 2013; manufacturing and farm industries
were the leading contributors to the increase. In contrast, business investment slowed,
corporate profits fell 1.4%, and profits from trade to the rest of the world fell 4.3% (BEA,
2013). According to OECD (2013) statistics on the United States taken from 2004 to
2011, employment rates have decreased and unemployment rates have increased (see
Table 2.1).

OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

44
Table 2.1
Country statistics profile: United States 2013

Source: Adapted from: Country statistical profiles: Key tables from OECD (2013).
Adapted without permission.
Conversely, China has been inputting and using additional monies to support their
educational system (Diamond, 2013) so that it is now thriving as a country. The
government of China plans to “increase the pool of highly skilled workers, to 180 million
by 2020 from the current 114 million” (Huiyao, 2013). Another goal is to have 40% of
the workforce have a college education by 2020 (Huiyao, 2013). “The investment in
education will expand the middle class in China and will increase the consumption of
goods and services from all over the world, (Huiyao, 2013).
China and Hong Kong have been improving a national system of education
investment, with the governmental budget allocation as the main source of public
educational expenditures (Nanzhao & Muju, 2007). In 2009, Hong Kong’s public
spending on education accounted for 4.5% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP); while the
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

45
United States public spending on education accounted for 5.4% of GDP (The World
Bank, 2013). Both countries have ensured that no student in need of financial aid should
be denied equal educational rights, through their policy-support systems, which include:
educational loans, assistantships, scholarships, subsidies, tuition waiver or reduction, and
paid work-study for higher education. Ironically, though the United States is spending
more on education, China and Hong Kong’s basic education has gained higher rankings
than the U.S. Figure 2.6 reveals that the United States spends more than any other
country per point on the PISA mathematics test. The U.S. spends $165 per student per
point on PISA mathematics in 2003 (OECD, 2006 & McKinsey, 2009).

OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

46
Figure 2.6
School spending cost-effectiveness on PISA mathematics

Figure 2.7 shows seventeen countries that have higher average PISA mathematics
test scores and lower income-based inequality than the United States in 2003 (McKinsey,
2009). The socioeconomic statuses were measured by PISA’s index of economic, social,
and cultural status (McKinsey, 2009).

OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

47
Figure 2.7
Average PISA Mathematics Score, 2003

Source: Learning for Tomorrow’s Word-First Results from PISA (2003); McKinsey,
(2009)
The findings in Figure 2.7 suggest that U.S. students must improve to complete in
a global economy and that education investment is vital to meeting that goal; however,
education investment is not the only change that must be implemented to compete
globally. We can learn from other nations and their success. For example, China’s
success in Shanghai was due to universal primary and junior-secondary education. “More
than eighty percent of students of college age are admitted into higher-education
institutions, compared with the U.S. national figure of twenty-four percent,” (Hechinger,
2010). According to the OECD (2009) report, top-scoring education systems’ success
holds lessons for U.S. policy. United States Education Secretary Arne Duncan said,
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

48
"Great teachers and great principals elevate the entire profession," Education Secretary
Arne Duncan continued. "There are huge lessons we can learn from countries that are
both doing better than we are and improving more rapidly" (Metz, 2010).
Education Policy Implementation
When education policy is implemented, all stakeholders, from policymakers and
district superintendents to principals and teachers, must be actively involved and
communicate effectively in order to achieve the intended goals of the policy. Too often,
education policy is mandated to improve student achievement, close the achievement gap
between racial/ethnic groups and income differences, and prepare students to be globally
competitive, only to have inconsistent and disappointing results (Weinbaum & Supovitz,
2010). New reforms, new standardized assessments, new policies, and new programs are
all designed to address this issue; however, continually creating new ideas and reforms
will not solve the endemic problems within the education school system. Finding the gaps
in the process of implementation will provide practical solutions to the issue of why
policy reforms have been inconsistent and disappointing in their results. The next section
will provide an example which addresses the implementation gaps from policymakers to
the LEAs and the implementation gaps within the LEAs themselves through the National
Council of Teachers in Mathematics standards.
The National Council of Teachers in Mathematics
“The National Council of Teachers in Mathematics (NCTM) is the public voice of
mathematics education, supporting teachers to ensure equitable mathematics learning of
the highest quality for all students through vision, leadership, professional development,
and research” (NCTM, 2013). Multiple studies have been completed to address the
implementation of the NCTM standards. While studying the implementation process, the
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

49
researchers have found gaps in the implementation from the vision of the designers to the
practice in the classroom by practitioners.
According to Hill (2001), two observations were relevant about state’s
policymaking process when studying the implementation of the NCTM standards. First,
state reformers reported the policy and its ideas contained in the NCTM standards.
Second, through the policy process state reformers offered modest amounts of guidance
and some learning opportunities, such as professional training, towards enacting the
mathematical vision to the LEA. When policies like these standards arrive at the local
school sites, “reformers hope, the words will be taken, debated, understood, and if
necessary transformed into a more usable form” (Hill, 2001, p. 293).
Implementation gaps from policymakers to LEA. Hill (2001); Spillane (2005);
Supovitz (2008); and Weinbaum & Supovitz, (2004) found the problem of translation and
the interpretations of policy to practice is the implementation gap. It’s common to hear
that a program is not being implemented with “fidelity,” (Weinbaum & Supovitz, 2004,
p. 68). When a program or policy does not meet the expected intent, blame is placed
usually on teachers who are held accountable for failing to implement in ways that are in
“perfect consonance with their creator’s visions,” but then the fingers are pointed back
the other way. Decades of research reveal that even the most clearly defined programs are
unlikely to be implemented in ways that are “in perfect consonance with their creators’
vision” (Weinbaum & Supovitz, 2004). In fact, variability in program implementation is
the most consistent finding from research (Weinbaum & Supovitz, 2004 & Spillane,
2005). When a policy is created, information is filtered down from the policymaker, to
the district, to the principal, and to the practitioners, and as the information flows, the
information may mutate as it migrates from one setting to another. As in the game of
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

50
“Telephone,” where a message is passed from one person to the next, the final iteration of
the message may be different from the original. This phenomenon was called by Supovitz
(2008) “iterative refraction” (Spillane, 2004; Supovitz, 2008; & Weinbaum & Supovitz,
2004).
Spillane (2004) examined how the NCTM standards moved from state and local
government policymakers to the school districts and finally, to the practitioners who
attempt to make sense of them from nine Michigan districts. Spillane (2004) found
challenges in implementing the new standards were immense. Most practitioners lacked
the training in math and science needed to carry out the challenge, classroom practice in
using the new ideas were not developed, and the lack of staff and resources in Michigan
Department of Education (MDE) were challenges even before the implementation. MDE
relied on districts and schools to heed the standards. However, meager budgets to support
the state policy implementation and the broad overviews of the standards in the
presentations by the MDE led to an insufficient policy to promote local implementation.
Implementation gaps within the LEA. While a policy is effective if it is
implemented perfectly according to the creators’ vision, it is also dependent on the
knowledge, values, and beliefs of those passing on the information about the policy
(Spillane, 2008). There are multiple factors that can alter the policy from its intent:
misunderstanding of the policy, teacher engagement or “push-back”, the lack of
knowledge by the teachers and support at the district and school site, and lack of
resources or funding. When other factors, such as teacher professional training and
specific instructional approaches are used inconsistently or in ways their designers had
not expected, outcomes may result as failures (Weinbaum & Supovitz, 2004). These next
few sections will focus on the effects of the education policy implementations of the
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

51
Elementary Secondary Education Act, No Child Left Behind, Race to the Top, and the
new Common Core State Standards Initiative.
Elementary Secondary Education Act
Title I of the Elementary Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was established in
1965 to provide federal funding to K-12 schools that serve disadvantaged students in
order to meet the educational needs of those students. Title I, Part A provides allocations
to state education agencies (SEA) who, in turn, distributes funds to local education
agencies (LEA) on a funding formula based on the percentage of low-income children
defined by the state. LEA then allocates funds to schools based on the percentage of low-
income students among all the students in the school. If forty percent or more of the
student population in the school are low-income, the school may implement school-wide
reforms. The decision on how to use Title I dollars is determined by the local school site
and their needs for their students at their site. In most districts and schools, Title I dollars
have been used to support instruction through: instructional aides, resource specialists,
professional training and conferences for teachers, extended day programs, supplemental
instructional materials for academic content areas like reading/literacy and mathematics,
technology in the classroom, and in some cases supplemental services, including
counseling.
Title I, Part A funds answers to the many research studies that state there are
inequitable distributions of state and local funds for low-income students and that more
funding is needed to provide a fair and equitable education among the disadvantaged
student subgroups. Thus, billions of dollars were allocated to states across the country, to
K-12 schools that met the requirements of Title I, Part A funding. After years of funding,
the evidence of the effects of Title I funding was researched and found that Title I funds
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

52
had limited effects on student achievement (Klaauw, 2005; National School Boards
Association (n.d); & Weinstein, Stiefel, Schwartz, Chalico, 2009;) and the Department of
Education (2012) was unable to confirm that the impacts of Title I Supplemental
Education Services (SES) on student achievement had statistical significance. However
the Department of Education (2011) did find that a quarter of school districts were out of
compliance with an expenditures-based comparability requirement, depending on the
specifications of the requirement when using the Title I funds even though the average
estimated cost of complying amounts to just one to four percent of school-level
expenditures.
No Child Left Behind
The current reauthorization of the ESEA is the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act
of 2001, which was signed into law in 2002 by President George W. Bush. The law
represents the most significant change in federal education policy since the first ESEA
was enacted in 1965. NCLB impacted the way public education is conducted in every
state and school that receives federal ESEA funding. The act requires the following: an
annual standards-based testing in reading and math for all students in grades 3-8 and 10,
reporting of test results to parents and the public through a school report card, fully
qualified teachers in every classroom, and greater choice for students in chronically
failing schools.
The path to implementing NCLB. Pitella (2011) studied the implementation and
effects of NCLB. Pittella (2011) starts from the very beginning of the implementation;
after NCLB was signed into law, the Secretary of the United States Department of
Education, Rod Paige, began a series of significant missives to superintendents, State
Education officers, administrators, and others in education to “address, describe, detail,
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

53
and provide advice about the specifics of its implementation” (Pittella, 2011,p. 99).
Secretary Paige addressed superintendents’ concerns and resentments prior to passing the
NCLB.
Letter to superintendents. With increasing accountability, NCLB provided
states and schools districts additional funding. States could apply for flexible spending
through “Local-Flex,” which allow up to seven states and eighty school districts to
redirect up to a hundred percent of certain NCLB program funds, but with terms and
conditions. The agreements would document evidence of “collaboration between
teachers, parents, and educators at the minimum” (Pittella, 2011, p. 101). In 2003, a study
was conducted by the United States General Accounting Office (GAO), based on the
experiences of those states that applied for the Local Flex program. The GAO
recommended that the “U.S. Department of Education better target information to states
and districts in the best position to apply for additional flexibility” to “states and districts
that had developed goals and strategies to improve student achievement and narrow
achievement gaps,” (GAO, 2003). Additionally, the Department of Education provided
guidance on the application process and assisted interested applicants; nevertheless, the
two applicants that the GAO visited stated more guidance was needed during the process
(GAO, 2003).
Letter to U.S. Chief State School Officers. In 2002, Secretary Paige’s second
official letter addressed the United States Chief State School Officers. Paige wrote about
the rigidity of NCLB in regards to flexibility funding and accountability through annual
assessments and “in the biennial State academic assessments of 4th and 8th grade reading
and math under the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).” Paige
emphasized “the monitoring, measuring, and reporting of progress against a standard of
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

54
proficiency,” (Pittella, 2011, p. 106); however, the definition of proficiency had yet to be
addressed. The National Center for Education (NCES) in 2009 conducted a study using
data from the NAEP program and concluded:
A proficient reader in State A may be very different from a proficient reader in
State B – even though those students may have the same academic skill," says
Peggy Carr, associate commissioner for assessment at the National Center for
Education Statistics (NCES).

The study aims to provide useful comparisons among the state standards. To do
so, it put states' data on test scores into the system used by the National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) – a common national test that is
often referred to as the ‘Nation's Report Card.’

What this shows is that states are all over the map when it comes to what they
expect their students to learn. Particularly lax are fourth-grade reading standards:
The level considered proficient in 31 states didn't even reach the "basic" level on
NAEP. Not a single state had standards that reached NAEP's "proficient" level
(Paulson, 2009).

Letter to school administrators. Secretary Paige wrote a letter addressing school
administrators to describe an inclusive strategy of partnership between educators and the
policymakers of the NCLB law (Pittella, 2011). Secretary Paige wanted to support the
frustrated schools and focused on three key points in his letter: “public school choice,
supplemental education services, and collective bargaining agreements.” Paige also
recognized the difficulty faced by States when attempting to define and benchmark
Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) to fulfill the most critical requirement of NCLB, when no
relevant Federal standard had been set. The letter also revealed the punitive actions that
were to take place if schools did not meet AYP. Many states were left with confusion and
concerns regarding the Reading First program, which was just one small facet of the
NCLB requirement.
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

55
Secretary Paige later used strong language to address states and school districts
that were not in compliance of the NCLB and who were trying to “cheat” the system by
manipulating data. He emphasized that NCLB is to “improve achievement and bring
success.” He also iterated that highly qualified teachers were a priority to student
academic performance and success.
Effects of NCLB
A report was conducted by Azzam, Perkins-Gough, & Thiers (2006) on the impact of
NCLB. The report offers four conclusions about NCLB: (1) teaching and learning are
changing; (2) scores on state achievement tests are rising; (3) the effects of NCLB are
holding steady; and (4) NCLB is having a greater effect on urban school districts.
Teaching and learning are changing. When schools had to implement NCLB,
curriculum and instructional strategies were adapted to meet state academic standards and
assessments. Through the use of assessment data, teachers were able to find patterns of
standards that students were struggling with. With this information, teachers were able to
reteach the standard and focus on the standard more for the following class of students.
The school districts have also become more serious about monitoring teaching practices
in their schools, encouraging teachers to use pacing guides and instructional coaches
(Azzam, Perkins-Gough, & Thiers (2006). However, 71 percent of school districts
reported that their elementary schools had reduced instructional time in at least one other
subject to focus more on reading and mathematics (Azzam, Perkins-Gough, & Thiers
(2006). NCLB also required teachers to be highly qualified; however, studies have shown
that advanced degrees have little to no impact on student achievement (Azzam, Perkins-
Gough, & Thiers, 2006; Hanushek, 1986; Rowan, Correnti & Miller, 2002; Walsh &
Tracy, 2004).
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

56
Scores on state achievement tests are rising. Azzam, Perkins-Gough, & Thiers
(2006) state:
The majority of respondents found that adequate yearly progress (AYP)
requirements were responsible in part for these gains but that school district
policies and programs played a larger role. It is unclear, however, to what degree
rising scores reflect increased student learning. Many states are making policy
changes that result in higher numbers of students being classified as “proficient.”
The goal of NCLB was for all students regardless of ethnic/racial background to
be “proficient;” however, the looming achievement gaps between White and
Black students are significant. The National Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP) report provides evidence that NCLB has not met its intended goal based
on standardized test scores. The following is a summary of results from the NAEP
2008 long-term trend report, released in 2009 for English:
• Age 9 reading: reading scores did go up 4 points from 2004 to 2008, but
they went up 7 points from 1999 to 2004 (more than 1.5 points/year). That
is, the rate of improvement has slowed substantially since NCLB took
hold compared to a period when at most NCLB might have had some
impact at the very end of the period (2003-04). This tendency is common
across subjects and age levels (See Figure 2.8).
o The black-white reading gap closed 3 points (statistically
significant) while the Hispanic-white gap closed 4 points, also
statistically significant. However, the Hispanic-white gap closed 7
points from 1999-2004, and the black-white gap closed 9 points
from 1999-2004, about three times as fast. That is, while the racial
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

57
gaps keep closing, the rate of closure has slowed dramatically.
Similarly, there have been score gains for blacks and Hispanics,
but the rate of improvement for both groups slowed in the 04-08
period compared with the 99-04 period (See Table 2.2).
• Age 13 reading: scores rose modestly but were approximately level with
the scores of the early to mid 1990s (See Figure 2.8).
o The black-white gap closed 4 points from 2004-2008, but that gap
closed 7 points from 1999-2004. The Hispanic-white gap actually
widened by 2 points from 2004-08 after widening one point in the
99-04 period. Actual scores have improved for blacks, but not for
Hispanics (See Table 2.2).
• Age 17 reading: again, scores gained modestly, but in this case they have
not returned to the higher levels reached from the late 1980s through the
1990s (See Figure 2.8).
o The black-white gap widened by 2 points from 2004-08 after
narrowing 2 points from 1999-2004; and the Hispanic-white gap
widened by 4 points from 04-08 after widening by 5 points from
99-04, with NCLB failing to reverse a negative trend. The black-
white gap remains far wider than it was at its narrowest, in 1988,
and black scores are still below their 1988 peak. The same is true
for Hispanics, with 1999 their peak year and the smallest gap with
whites (See Table 2.2).

OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

58
Figure 2.8
Trend in NAEP reading average scores for 9, 13, and 17-year old students

* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2008.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National
Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),
various years, 1971–2008 Long-Term Trend Reading Assessments.

OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

59
Table 2.2
Reading Score Gaps

Note: The results for Hispanic students were first available in 1975. Therefore, the results
shown in the 1971 section for Hispanic students are from the 1975 assessment.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National
Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)

The following is a summary of results from the NAEP 2008 long-term trend report,
released in 2009 for Math:
• Age 9 math: the largest gains in the past were from 1986-90 (8 points) and 1999-
2004 (9 points) – both 2 points per year gains. However, the 4-point gain from
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

60
2004 to 2008 averages only 1 point per year, showing that improvement rates
have declined in age 9 math since NCLB took hold (See Figure 2.9).
o From 2004-08, the black-white gap widened by 2 points and the Hispanic-
white gap remained unchanged, with no changes being statistically
significant (See Table 2.3).
• Age 13 math: in the five-year span from 1999 – 2004 NAEP rose 5 points, or 1
point per year. In the four years under NCLB, from 2004 to 2008, NAEP gains
were only 2 points, or half the rate of improvement in the previous period (See
Figure 2.9).
o From 2004 to 2008, the black-white score gap closed 2 points and the
Hispanic-white score gap remained unchanged, with no changes being
statistically significant (See Table 2.3).
• Age 17 math: scores have been essentially flat and are now slightly lower than the
previous high point in 1999, prior to NCLB (See Figure 2.9).
o The black-white gap closed one point from 2004-2008, while the
Hispanic-white gap widened by two points, with no changes being
statistically significant (See Table 2.3).

OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

61
Figure 2.9

Trend in NAEP mathematics average scores for 9, 13, 17-year old students

* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2008.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National
Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),
various years, 1973–2008 Long-Term Trend Mathematics Assessments.

OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

62
Table 2.3

Mathematics Scores Gap

Note: The results for Hispanic students were first available in 1975. Therefore, the results
shown in the 1971 section for Hispanic students are from the 1975 assessment.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National
Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)

The effects of NCLB are holding steady. According to Azzam, Perkins-Gough,
& Thiers (2006), the number of schools identified as “in need of improvement” had little
change from the previous year. Only two percent of students eligible were taking
advantage of school choice and the percentage of students participating in tutoring
programs remained the same.
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

63
NCLB is having the greatest effect on urban school districts. Many schools
that are identified as “in need of improvement” are urban schools. Fifty-four percent of
Title I schools and ninety percent of the schools in restructuring are in urban districts
(Azzam, Perkins-Gough, & Thiers, 2006). Urban schools and districts often have greater
diversity, which includes more subgroups. All subgroups must meet Annual Yearly
Progress (AYP) in order to meet the NCLB requirement. Thus, if one subgroup does not
meet AYP, the entire school is sanctioned. Another complicating issue is the transiency
rate among urban schools and districts. The turnover rate for students in urban schools
ranges between forty and eighty percent and “approximately thirty percent of children in
low-income families change schools annually versus eight percent of children well above
poverty” (Grant, Popp, & Stronge, 2003). According to the Department of Defense
(DoD) in 2003, schools that had a minority student population greater than fifty percent
had a transiency rate of thirty-five percent.
The U.S. has gone through multiple educational reforms, like No Child Left
Behind (NCLB). Although it has not been as successful as hoped in terms of decreasing
the gap between low-achieving and high-achieving students, it has had positive results
such as: high learning expectations, the focus on subgroups that have traditionally lagged
behind, improved alignment, and better use of data (Azzam, Perkins-Gough, & Thiers,
2006). The negative aspects of the legislation include lack of funding, lack of staff
necessary to carry out NCLB's accountability requirements, teacher stress, and low
morale (Azzam, Perkins-Gough, & Thiers, 2006). One of the major concerns for
practitioners was that sanctions were imposed upon the school site if a single subgroup
was unable to meet the requirements of NCLB.

OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

64
Race To the Top
In 2009, President Obama signed into law the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (2009). The ARRA was “a historic legislation designed to
stimulate the economy, support job creation, and invest in critical sections, including
education” (DOE, 2009). Race to the Top (RTT), enacted as part of the ARRA, is a
competitive grant program that awards monetary incentives to states to reform their
education systems in four areas: (1) enhancing standards and assessments, (2) improving
collection and use of data, (3) increasing teacher effectiveness and achieving equity in
teacher distribution, and (4) turning around low-achieving schools.
The award process of RTT. States must apply for the RTT, and are judged based
on points awarded in six areas with subareas. Winning states must use the grant money to
implement the programs and plans detailed in their grant application. The U.S.
Department of Education (USDOE) awarded RTT grants in two phases. Phase 1—forty-
one states applied for the grants and two winners, Delaware and Tennessee, received
grants of $100 million and $500 million, respectively. Phase 2—thirty-six states applied
for the grants and ten winners were awarded $75 million to $700 million. The Race to the
Top emphasizes the follow reform areas, taken from the White House’s fact sheet of
Race to the Top (2013):
• Designing and implementing rigorous standards and high-quality
assessments, by encouraging states to work jointly toward a system of
common academic standards that builds toward college and career
readiness, and that includes improved assessments designed to measure
critical knowledge and higher-order thinking skills.
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

65
• Attracting and keeping great teachers and leaders in America’s
classrooms, by expanding effective support to teachers and principals;
reforming and improving teacher preparation; revising teacher evaluation,
compensation, and retention policies to encourage and reward
effectiveness; and working to ensure that our most talented teachers are
placed in the schools and subjects where they are needed the most.
• Supporting data systems that inform decisions and improve instruction, by
fully implementing a statewide longitudinal data system, assessing and
using data to drive instruction, and making data more accessible to key
stakeholders.
• Using innovation and effective approaches to turn-around struggling
schools, by asking states to prioritize and transform persistently low-
performing schools.
• Demonstrating and sustaining education reform, by promoting
collaborations between business leaders, educators, and other stakeholders
to raise student achievement and close achievement gaps, and by
expanding support for high-performing public charter schools,
reinvigorating math and science education, and promoting other
conditions favorable to innovation and reform.
Accountability. Like NCLB, RTT has standards and assessments; however, RTT
allows each state to develop its own standards and assessments and definitions of the
three achievement levels: basic, proficient, and advanced. On the other hand, RTT
requires states to adopt the Common Core State Standards and “commit to increasing the
quality of their assessments and, with other states, implement common assessments”
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

66
(Lohman, 2010). NCLB measures progress by comparing the year-to-year performance
of groups of students at the same grade level. However, RTT does not require a school to
use the individual students’ progress to determine whether the school or district is
improving student achievement; rather, growth in individual student’s academic
achievement is determined as he or she moves through school. To achieve a winning
score, states use a “longitudinal” data system to cover pre-kindergarten through up to four
years of post-secondary education (P-16). A state may receive a total of 24 points on its
RTT application if its longitudinal data system meets the 12 elements specified in the
American COMPETES Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-69). The American COMPETES Act was
signed into law by President Bush. There are 3 provisions: (1) Teachers for a competitive
tomorrow, (2) advanced placement and international baccalaureate programs, and (3)
promising practices in STEM teaching.
Effective teachers and principals. RTT awards more points to states that link
teacher evaluations and student performance. Principals are also in the awarding system.
It requires states to ensure that “effective and highly effective teachers and principals are
equitably distributed to high-poverty and high-minority schools and districts. Finally, it
gives states points for providing high-quality teacher and administrator preparation
programs, including programs that provide alternative routes to teacher and administrator
certification (Lohman, 2010).
Turning around low-achieving schools and districts. NCLB required states to
identify schools that were not meeting Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) for two
consecutive years to turn around low-achieving schools and districts for improvements.
Like NCLB, RTT grants require winning states to intervene and turn around low-
achieving schools and districts; however, it specifically targets the lowest and most
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

67
persistent failures instead of every school and district that fails to make AYP. There are
four restructuring models the RTT program requires states to use in such situations as
detailed in the NCLB law: (1) an option to close the school permanently, (2) the
“turnaround” model, which includes replacing the principal and at least fifty percent of
the school’s staff, adopting a new governance structure, and implementing a new or
revised instructional program with increased learning time, (3) the “restart” model, in
which a school district converts a school or closes a school and reopens it as a charter
school, and (4) the “transformation” model, which includes replacing the principal,
implementing a new evaluation system that uses student growth as a significant factor,
and identifying and rewarding staff who are increasing student outcomes and supporting
and possibly removing staff who are not (Lohman, 2010).
Common Core State Standards Initiative
The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) may be a solution to the problem of
inconsistent standards and ineffective standards-based assessments reforms like NCLB.
The common core standards are new sets of standards that are clear and concise. They are
focused on college and career readiness for every grade from level K-12, for the states to
use and implement. Forty-five states, the District of Columbia, four territories, and the
Department of Defense Education Activity have adopted the K-12 Common Core State
Standards (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief
State School Officers, 2013).
Key points in the standards. Common Core State Standards focuses on the
English language arts and mathematics standards. There are five key points in English
language arts: (1) in reading: the standards become increasingly complex so that “all
students are ready for the demands of college-and career-level reading no later than by
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

68
the end of high school;” (2) in writing: the ability to write logical arguments, opinion
writing, research and analysis writing, and establish adequate performance levels in
writing arguments, informational/explanatory texts, and narratives; (3) in speaking and
listening: “requiring students to gain, evaluate, and present increasingly complex
information, ideas, and evidence through listening and speaking as well as through
media;” (4) in language: “the standards expect that students will grow their vocabularies
through a mix of conversations, direct instruction, and reading;” and (5) in media and
technology: using twenty-first century skills by integrating media and technology
throughout the standards. The key points in mathematics for K-5 standards are to provide
students with a “solid foundation in whole numbers, addition, subtraction, multiplication,
division, fractions, and decimals” which help students to build the foundation needed to
successfully apply more complex math concepts and procedures. The standards stress not
only “procedural skill, but also conceptual understanding.” In middle school, “standards
are robust and provide a coherent and rich preparation for high school mathematics.” In
high school, standards call on students to apply math to real world issues and challenges
using critical thinking skills and reasoning skills to help “students develop a depth of
understanding and ability to apply mathematics to novel situations, as college students
and employees regularly do” (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices
& Council of Chief State School Officers, 2013).
Process. The process is led by states and has support across the country from
educational organizations including:
• CCSSO
• NGA Center
• Achieve, Inc
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

69
• ACT
• College Board, the National Association of State Boards of Education
• Alliance for Excellent Education
• Hunt Institute
• National Parent Teacher Association
• State Higher Education Executive Officers
• American Association of School Administrators
• Business Roundtable according to the National Governors Association
Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers (2013).
Teachers have also been critical in the development of the standards. “The
drafting process relied on teachers and standards experts across the nation”
including the National Education Association (NEA), American
Federation of Teachers (AFT), National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics (NCTM), and National Council of Teachers of English
(NCTE) (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices &
Council of Chief State School Officers, 2013).
Developing the standards. The standards were carefully crafted and developed
through scholarly research, surveys from colleges and workforce, “assessment data
identifying college-and career-ready performance, comparisons to standards from high-
performing states and nations, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)
frameworks in reading and writing,” and findings from Trends in International
Mathematics and Science (TIMSS) and other studies concluding that the “United States
mathematics curriculum must become more coherent and focused in order to improve
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

70
student achievement” (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices &
Council of Chief State School Officers, 2013). Particularly, the “alignment with
expectations for college and career success, clarity, consistency across all states,
inclusion of content and the application of knowledge through high-order skills,
improvement upon current state standards and standards of top-performing nations,
reality-based, and research-based criteria guided the development of the standards
(National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State
School Officers, 2013).
Implementation. The CCSS will remain a state-led effort; the federal
government had no role in the development of the CCSS and will not have a role in their
implementation, as they are not part of NCLB and adoption of the standards is not
mandatory. “States that have adopted the standards may choose to work together to
develop instructional materials and curricula” (National Governors Association Center
for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2013). In addition to
supporting effective implementation of the CCSS, NGA and CCSSO will commit to
“developing a long-term sustainability structure with leadership from governors, chief
state school officers, and other state policymakers,” (National Governors Association
Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2013). There will be
no data collection requirements of states adopting the CCSS; however, assessments are
being developed by the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Career
(PARCC) and the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC). “The data that
results from the assessments are up to the discretion of each state and are separate and
unique from the CCSS” (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices &
Council of Chief State School Officers, 2013). Common Core State Standards has yet to
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

71
be implemented fully, as the target date for full implementation is in the 2014-2015
school year.
Conclusion
With every new initiative, “true transformation will occur only if the goals are put
into practice and fully implemented for the benefit of every student, in every classroom,
and in every state (Cohen, M., Barber, M., & Cox, K., 2012, p. 1.5). Having a common
core of standards across the nation is one step to centralizing our education. Furthermore,
having a centralized curriculum through the common core will add another layer of
consistency. They will bring commonality and a linear leverage among the states similar
to that found in China, Korea, and Finland—all countries that have among the highest
education ratings in the world because of their centralized education and curricula.
The United States has had a long history of reforms efforts, beginning with the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act enacted in 1965 as part of President Lyndon
Johnson’s “War on Poverty;” continuing with the release in the 1980s of “A Nation at
Risk,” Ronald Reagan’s effort to reduce or eliminate the United States Department of
Education; continuing with the adoption in the 1990s of Outcome-Based Education,
which led to the standards-based reforms movement of the No Child Left Behind Act of
2001, and now continuing with Race to the Top and Common Core State Standards,
which will be implemented in the 2014-2015 school year. All of these reform efforts have
aspired to raise student achievement; reduce or eliminate achievement gaps, especially of
those between different racial/ethnic groups and low-income students; and prepare
students to be contributing citizens with the skills and knowledge to be successful.
Issues and barriers in effectively implementing policies have been due to
disparities in funding in education—this has been a major issue in all the reforms, with
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

72
the exception of the “stimulus,” otherwise known as the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009. Other issues and barriers in effectively implementing policy
are many, including: misunderstanding of the policy; the lack of teacher knowledge, the
lack of support at the district and school site, the lack of resources or funding; the use of
teacher professional training inconsistent with the intended policy; “push-back;” from
states, school districts, schools; and/or teachers; and “iterative refraction” translations in
the vision of the policy to practice. Understanding how and why a policy is not
effectively implemented is the gap that must be addressed. Not only are there
implications for policymakers to adapt and make changes, but the same is true for district
administrators, school administrators, and practitioners. In order to have an effective and
meaningful policy, all stakeholders must clearly understand the vision and goals of a
policy, must have worked collaboratively, must receive an equal share in accountability
and responsibility, and must work toward goals that are concise and challenging, yet
attainable. Practitioners could then be willing to implement the goals with fidelity
because they have seen the vision, have been a part of the process, and have the
knowledge or access to knowledge to equip themselves to meet the visions of the policy.
Thus, the policy is effective and meaningful, meeting its intended goals, and benefiting
students, which is the very reason why teachers teach and reforms and policies are
created. Educational policies aspire to the welfare of all students so that they will be
contributing citizens of this world.

OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

73
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
This chapter presents an overview of how this study was conducted, including the
research questions, methodology, sample and population, data collection, and data
analysis.
Research Questions
The research questions for this study are:
• How is information about achievement compacts being disseminated
from policy-makers to schools?
• What are the schools’ perceptions of policy towards improving student
achievement?
• Are all stakeholders receiving the same information? If not, what and
where are the gaps in the information dissemination?
• What recommendations emerge to make education policy and
implementation for improved student achievement more effective?
Methodology

I selected a qualitative case study as my methodology, as it is well suited to the
purpose of my study. I conducted an in-depth examination of the dissemination of
information about the achievement compacts, from the policymaker to the district
administrator, to the school administrator, and finally to the classroom practitioner, in
order to discover possible gaps in information dissemination, and to discover schools’
perceptions of the policies they’ve tried to implement. Merriam (2009) writes,
“Qualitative case studies share with other forms of qualitative research the search for
meaning and understanding, the researcher as the primary instrument of data collection
and analysis, an inductive investigative strategy, and the end product being richly
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

74
descriptive” (p. 39). This study is a case study; however, when data are analyzed, there
are aspects of phenomenological research, which “uses the analysis of significant
statements, the generation of meaning units, and the development of essence description”
(Creswell, 2009, p. 184).
I selected the case study methodology because it is a strong method for examining
policy information dissemination and the links to an effective policy implementation. The
case study allowed me to understand how policy information translates from the
policymaker to the district administrator, to the school administrator, and to the
classroom practitioner. Merriam (2009) states that a case study is a “bounded system,”
where a single entity is being studied. In this case study, the information about
achievement compacts was studied. Using a case study method enables a deep, complex
understanding of the issue, and the rich, thick description of the case study provides
readers a solid basis for a comparison to other settings.
Sample and Population
In order to be ethical and keep information confidential, all names of participants
have been replaced with fictitious names. A random sample of educators in Oregon was
chosen to participate in this study. The participants included educators in Oregon that
currently work in the public and private sectors of education: K-20 classroom
practitioners, K-20 administrators, K-20 out-of-the-classroom educators, higher education
professors, and higher education administrators. Oregon Education Investment Board
(OEIB) members also participated in this study. There were a total of twenty-two
participants were in this study. There were 17 surveys completed by educators in Oregon
that currently work in the K-20 public and private sectors of education. I emailed all 12
OEIB members and 5 surveys were completed.
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

75
Data Collection
A descriptive case study involves collected data from multiple sources, including
documents and surveys (Creswell, 2009) to arrive at a detailed, rich, “thick description”
of the case (Stake, 1995). I collected data from multiple stakeholders, including Oregon
Education Investment Board (OEIB) members, classroom practitioners, and higher
education faculty. I also reviewed documents. I collected data in the following order: (1)
review documents and (2) conduct surveys.
Document Review
I reviewed both public and private documents, as well as finding public
documents through the OEIB website. I searched the OEIB website for information about
the implementation of the achievement compacts through: (1) OEIB documents and
memos, (2) OEIB board meeting agendas and meeting minutes, and (3) letters addressing
the achievement compacts to school districts and school sites. After the interviews were
conducted, I searched for documents that were not published on the OEIB website.
Surveys
After the University of Southern California Institutional Review Board (IRB)
reviewed the information pertaining to the study, and concluded that the project did not
qualify as Human Subjects Research, I began the interview protocol process. The
interviews were conducted via online using Survey Monkey, an online survey tool to
collect data from respondents. After the surveys were conducted, they were transcribed
and analyzed. The surveys were conducted via online anonymously by K-20 Oregon
educators. After the surveys were conducted, data from respondents were analyzed.
Before the surveys. Before conducting the surveys for OEIB members, I wrote to
the participants that they have been chosen to participate in the study and stated the
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

76
purpose of the study in a transparent manner so as not to deceive the participants about
the nature of the study. I shared this information with the participants in writing via email
when the survey was conducted. Participants could either choose to respond or not
respond to the survey questions. I reminded the participants of the purpose of the study
and stated that their name, position, and any other personal information remained
anonymous and confidential if they were to respond.
Surveys. I asked semi-structured, open- and closed-ended questions for all
participants. The questions were the same for all participants. The questions addressed
the following: (1) knowledge of the achievement compacts, (2) where the participants
receive information about the achievement compacts, (3) perceptions of the policy, (4)
and recommendations.
Data Analysis
Data analysis was completed through reading all the documents and coding. Case
studies were written for each research question after data collection and entry was
completed. The purpose of the case studies was to address the information dissemination
of the achievement compacts in Oregon and possible gaps in the dissemination of
information.
Documents
Documents were analyzed for themes based on the interviews and survey
completed by the participants. Documents were used to compare and contrast data from
surveys. They served as a source to validate information learned during the survey
completion.

OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

77
Surveys
The majority of information that was analyzed was obtained from the surveys. In
order to triangulate the data, the responses from the interviews from the OEIB were
compared to the responses from the documents on OEIB and surveys completed by K-20
Oregon educators. Data from the semi-structured questions from the surveys were used to
identify patterns in the responses made by the sample.
Coding
When themes and patterns were identified, they were put into categories and
coded. HyperResearch,, a code and retrieve data analysis program, was used to code and
to determine what information K-20 Oregon educators have understood about the
achievement compact as compared to the OEIB board member. Common sources from
which the participants received information about the achievement compacts, common
themes in the perceptions of the policy by school district administrators and school sites,
and reoccurring themes were identified.
The resulting data from this study has important policy implications and practical
application at the federal, state, and local levels as legislators and schools work
collaboratively to develop an effective policy that aids all students in Oregon to reach
academic proficiency. The next chapter will present the findings of the case study.
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

78
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
Introduction
The aim of this study was to collect data on the information dissemination of the
achievement compacts from the Oregon Education Investment Board (OEIB) to the
district and implementers on the school site. This study focused on the K-20 Oregon
educators’ knowledge of the achievement compacts and the gaps in the information
dissemination. The new reform in Oregon, with the creation of the OEIB, does achieve
the needed accountability from the policymakers to the educational institutions and
schools and vice versa, while allowing flexibility and creativity. However, the challenge
remains in information dissemination and effective implementation of the new mandate
to obtain the goals set in the achievement compacts.
This chapter presents the data collected from the documents addressed by the
OEIB and the responses of the participants from surveys. Research question 1 examines
how the achievement compact information is disseminated from the policy maker to the
district and schools. Research question 2 examines whether or not all stakeholders
received the same information and also investigate possible gaps in information received
by the respondents. Research question 3 probes the schools’ perceptions of policy. The
last, research question 4, considers recommendations that schools have to make policy
and implementation more effective.
OEIB Information Dissemination of the Achievement Compacts
The Achievement Compacts Background
Meetings and forums.
Before the achievement compact information was disseminated, OEIB had
multiple meetings to address the organizational rules, and implementations of the
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

79
achievement compacts. OEIB offered forums and webinars in October 2011, at which
stakeholders provide input and feedback on educational funding. At this forum, OEIB
presented its vision for building a seamless P-20 system and provided the opportunity for
all Oregonians to engage in conversation and to share their own expectations and
priorities (Education.Oregon.gov, 2011). An e-mail address was also posted on the
announcement where public comments could be expressed and written.
The Oregon Education Investment Board (OEIB) disseminated documents and
information on the achievement compacts to superintendents and board members of K-12
school districts, education service districts, community colleges, the university system
and each of its seven universities, and to the Oregon Health and Science University
(OHSU). Every organization of the State’s P-20 education system received the same
information about the achievement compacts to create a clear, seamless communication
among all educators.
Advisory committee and subcommittees.
Before the finalization of the compacts, OEIB required the appointment of an
advisory committee to obtain public input of the achievement compacts. The advisory
committee is comprised of representatives that are affected by the achievement compacts.
The Advisory Committee consisted of representatives of:
1. Oregon School Boards Association
2. Confederation of Oregon School Administrators
3. Oregon Association of Education Service Districts
4. Community College Association
5. Board of Higher Education (Academic Strategies Committee)
6. Oregon Health and Science University
7. Oregon Education Association
8. Oregon School Employees Association
9. American Federation of Teachers
10. Minority community organizations (2)
11. Oregon PTA
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

80
12. Oregon Student Association
13. Early childhood providers
14. Health care advocacy organization (e.g. Healthy Kids Learn Better)

The subcommittees are comprised of OEIB members and staff. There are four
subcommittees: (1) governance and policy provides guidance and expertise on the P-20
design; (2) state investments provide guidance and experise on the development of an
outcome-based budget, aligned to initiatives; (3) best practices and innovation provide
guidance and expertise on developing and adjusting trajectories to 40/40/20 goal; and (4)
equity and partnerships provide guidance and expertise in the development of strategies
to reach out-of-school youth and overcome challenges associated with race, ethnicity,
poverty and language (Oregon.gov, 2013).
The process and the timeline of the achievement compacts are shown on Table
4.1. The timeline reveal that the action began with OEIB and was moved to the
subcommittees and advisory committee. The subcommittees made final
recommendations before sending it back to the OEIB. OEIB received the achievement
compacts and took public comments before sending it to the staff to distribute the
information to each educational entity.
Table 4.1

The Process and Timeline of the Achievement Compacts
Timeframe Actions
2/7/12 OEIB approves process
2/7-2/10/12
• Governor appoints achievement compact subcommittees of OEIB
members and appoints chair of each for:
o K-12 and ESDs;
o Post-secondary.
2/13-
2/29/12
• Subcommittees begin meeting to work up proposed final elements of
achievement compacts for 2012-13.
• Staff recruits Advisory Committee of stakeholders per Board’s
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

81
direction.
If achievement compact legislation is enacted:
3/1/12—
3/912
• Advisory Committee meets, reviews compacts to be recommended
by each of the two subcommittees and provides recommendations to
the subcommittees.
• Subcommittees finalize recommendations
3/13/12
• OEIB receives recommended temporary rule(s) to establish elements
of achievement compacts for each sector for 2012- 13
• OEIB takes public comments on recommended rule(s)
• OEIB adopts temporary rule
3/14-
3/30/12
• Staff incorporates data, finalizes compact to be sent to each educational
entity; distributes to each entity
Source: Oregon Education Investment Board Agenda Item #4-2
Responses to Research Question 1
How is information about achievement compacts being disseminated from policy-
makers to schools?
The following data were retrieved from document analysis from the Oregon
Education Investment Board website, agenda meetings, news articles, and surveys of
OEIB members. When the achievement compacts were finally approved, it was released,
and communications about the achievement compact began on March 27, 2012. The
OEIB made the final achievement compact documents and implementation rules were
made available and understandable for all education institutions. In the week of March
27, 2012, the OEIB:
• Launched the achievement compacts section on the OEIB website
• Uploaded the final rules and the compacts as revised and approved by the
board, was uploaded to the website
• Wrote an email update was written to the entire OEIB list
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

82
• Posted questions and answers on K-12 compacts were posted
• Partnered in support with Oregon Education Association (OEA),
Confederation of Oregon School Administrators (COSA), Oregon School
Boards Association (OSBA).
The dissemination of the achievement compacts information to the education
institutions began on the week of April 2, 2012. The goal was to share the compacts,
confirm data, and offer technical support to administrators for implementation of the
achievement compacts. In the week of April 2, 2012:
• Oregon Department of Education (ODE) was to share partially populated
data with school districts directly
o The achievement compacts with district-specific data was
distributed to all 197 school districts and achievement compact
templates to all 19 educational service districts (ESD) on April 5,
2012.
• The OEIB also made available an extensive guidance memo and a
“Question-and-Answer” document for all K-12 districts and ESDs.
• ODE held a web conference with over a hundred superintendents and key
staff from K-12 districts, ESDs, and/or their data experts. The webinar
focused on technical aspects of the achievement compacts, the data and
implementation.
• OEIB distributed compacts to each community college and university.
• On-going resources were made available on the OEIB website, along with
partner pages.
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

83
Lastly, the community-based implementation began on the week of April 9, 2012.
The goals were to support superintendents and school boards, as well as post-secondary
institutions, in starting their process for goal setting. In the week of April 9, 2012:
• The OEIB hosted a web conference focused on board members to answer
questions and help them launch their community process.
• The OEIB continued updating the “Questions and Answers,” section on
their website as questions came in from other quarters.
• The OEIB updated their email list, encouraging parents and community
partners to engage at the local level.
• They also worked with proactive media to work with to support local
compact development.
The OEIB proposed that school districts and other education institutions
communicate with students, teachers, faculty, other staff and their employee unions,
community partners and representatives as they defined their achievement compact
targets, much as they had been required to do while developing their K-12 school
improvement plans or while setting their budgets. When OEIB members were surveyed,
all members communicated to the educational institutions as outlined from the document:
• “This information was communicated to community organizations,
communities of color, head start and other community advocates in
Multnomah County.” (OEIB Member A, interview, March 3, 2014).

• “Parents of students in my community.” (OEIB Member B, interview,
March 3, 2014).

• “The OEIB sent letters explaining the achievement compacts to each
district superintendent.” (OEIB Member C, interview, March 3, 2014).

OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

84
• “We share this information to all education agencies serving students from
birth to college & career, to parents, community organizations, local
businesses etc.” (OEIB Member D, interview, March 6, 2014).
Though OEIB members did communicate the information to educational service
districts, they did not know how the information was communicated to the teachers,
except for OEIB Member E. Here are their responses when asked about communication
to teachers:
• “I am not sure, but you could contact the School District.” (OEIB Member
A, interview, March 3, 2014).

• “I have no contact with teachers.” (OEIB Member B, interview, March 3,
2014).

• “The superintendents were responsible to communicate with teachers.”
(OEIB Member C, interview, March 3, 2014).

• “Teachers get information about 40-40-20 from their principals &
superintendents. At the higher education level, teachers get information
from Deans, Provosts and other senior faculty.” (OEIB Member D,
interview, March 6, 2014).

• “The Achievement Compacts became a requirement pursuant to HB 1581
(2012). HB 1581 contains requirements related to the compact, including
that each district engage with teachers and union representatives though an
Achievement Compact Advisory Committee.” (OEIB Member E,
interview, March 5, 2014).
School districts began writing their target goals for the achievement compacts that
were due in August 2012.
Responses to Research Question 2
Are all stakeholders receiving the same information? If not, what and where are the
gaps in the information dissemination?
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

85
According to OEIB, all stakeholders should have received the same information
about the achievement compacts and its target goals; however, sixty percent of the
sample did not receive any information about the achievement compacts and as a matter
of fact, heard about it for the first time when they were questioned. The following
findings were retrieved from surveys completed by K-20 educators currently serving as
an educator in Oregon. The survey was structured and addressed basic knowledge
information questions as well as open-ended questions. Below are the responses from the
survey:
A majority of participants who completed the survey, 71 percent or 12 of 17, were
from K-12 classroom practitioners. K-12 or other faculty, comprised 24 percent, or 4 of
the 17 participants. One higher education faculty member (7 percent) completed the
survey. Three of the questions asked on the survey were knowledge questions about: (1)
OEIB; (2) the 40-40-20 goal; and (3) the achievement compacts. Of the sample
participants, only 7 participants, or 41.18 percent, have heard about the Oregon Education
Investment Board (see Figure 10). 6 participants or 35.29 percent have heard about the
40-40-20 goal (see Figure 11), and 6 participants or 35.29 percent have heard about the
achievement compacts (see Figure 12).

OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

86
Figure 4.1
Knowledge about the OEIB

Figure 4.1 shows the number of participants that have knowledge about the
Oregon Education Investment Board. A total of 17 participants responded to the
statement: I have heard about the Oregon Education Investment Board (OEIB). 7
participants or 41.18% stated they have heard of OEIB and 10 participants or 58.82%
stated they have not heard of OEIB.

OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

87
Figure 4.2
Knowledge about the 40-40-20 Goals

Figure 4.2 shows the number of participants that have knowledge about the 40-
40-20 goal. A total of 17 participants responded to the statement: I have heard about the
40-40-20 goal. 6 participants or 35.29% stated they have heard of the 40-40-20 goal and
11 participants or 64.71% stated they have not heard of 40-40-20 goals.

OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

88

Figure 4.3
Knowledge about the Achievement Compacts

Figure 4.3 shows the number of participants that have knowledge about the
achievement compacts. A total of 17 participants responded to the statement: I have heard
about the achievement compacts. 6 participants or 35.29% stated they have heard of the
achievement compacts and 11 participants or 64.71% stated they have not heard of the
achievement compacts. If participants had not heard about the OEIB, the 40-40-20 goals,
and/or the achievement compacts, many of them skipped questions pertaining to OEIB
and/or the achievement compacts. When respondents were asked, “In which of the
following methods did you receive information about OEIB and/or the achievement
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

89
compacts,” 11 of the 17 skipped the question (see Figure 4.4) because they had no prior
knowledge and didn’t receive any information according to Figures 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3. In
this survey question, participants were able to choose all the answers that applied to
receiving information about OEIB and/or the achievement compacts. The way
information received included: meetings, trainings, colleagues, and online, which were
the most popular responses about receiving information, followed by principals as
information disseminators. Other respondents heard about the OEIB and the achievement
compacts from a magazine article, news, the union, and two of the respondents heard
from their union, the Oregon Education Association (OEA).
Figure 4.4 shows the various methods the participants have received information
about the OEIB and/or the achievement compacts. A total of 6 of the 17 participants
responded to the statement. The participants chose all methods they have received
information such as: the principal, meeting/training, colleagues, and online. 2 respondents
or 33.33% have received information about the OEIB and/or the achievement compacts
through their principals, 3 respondents or 50% have received information from
meetings/trainings, 3 respondents or 50% have received information from colleagues, and
3 respondents or 50% have received information from via online.

OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

90
Figure 4.4
Methods of Receiving OEIB/Achievement Compact Information

When the sample participants were asked about how much knowledge they have
of the achievement compact, 13 respondents stated they did not know about the
achievement compacts and 2 respondents stated they knew about the achievement
compact.
When asked if they were able to explain the achievement compact, those that did
know about the achievement compact had opposite responses. One respondent strongly
agreed that he/she could explain the achievement compact in detail, while the other
respondent disagreed. However, the respondent who strongly agreed that he/she had
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

91
knowledge of the achievement compact and could explain the achievement in detail to
others, responded that the information he/she received about the achievement compacts
was not adequate enough to begin implementation. This respondent received the
information from his/her union, the Oregon Education Association.
When asked about the information they’d received about the achievement
compact being adequate to begin implementation, 13 respondents responded they could
not begin implementation the achievement compact because of they did not have enough
information of the achievement compact. 1 respondent responded that he/she could begin
implementation of the achievement compact. This respondent also responded that he/she
was not knowledgeable about the achievement compacts and therefore could not explain
the achievement compacts in details to others, but had received the information from the
principal in an email.
Responses to Research Question 3
What is the schools’ perception of policy towards improving student achievement?
There are 197 school districts in Oregon and many superintendents were not
supportive of writing the goals that needed to be written for the achievement compact.
One board member stated, “When asking these questions to superintendents, it has caused
pure mayhem. There was a lot of pushback from the superintendents.” Initially, before
the achievement compacts were written by the schools, OEIB needed change agents and
forerunners to ignite the policy. One OEIB member A stated, “Due to lack of power and
authority over policy, in order to accomplish this task, we need to influence other agency
boards, influence their director, and to cause action.” In September, 2012, an article in the
Oregonian was published. In the article, Lake Oswego superintendent Bill Korach was
supportive of the policy stating, “We believe that we need to be fully supportive of the
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

92
state’s efforts. For us to set targets that are going to be in line with what the state is trying
to accomplish, that’s important to us.” Bill Korach is the superintendent of one of the
largest public school districts in Oregon and was the forerunner in support of the policy,
leading other districts.
School districts and universities began writing their goals for the achievement
compact for the upcoming school year, along with the budget they would need to fulfill
those goals. Of the 197 school districts, 69 of the districts had to rewrite their goals
because they aimed too low (Hammond, 2012). Districts that failed to set goals to
improve their high school graduation rate and their third-grade reading and math scores
by at least one percentage point were informed by the Chief Education Officer of OEIB
that they needed to re-write their goals. Also, 36 percent of the total Oregon districts did
not set higher targets than the previous year, but used the same targets as the current
school year in 2012.
Some school districts did not resist when they were notified to aim higher like
Lake Oswego and Nyssa; however, many were left confused. Superintendents cited one
of the reasons for low goals was due to confusion over statistics, because they were asked
to set targets for 2013 before they saw the 2012 results. Another reason was the financial
burdens districts faced, which forced most districts to make deep cuts in teaching
positions, the school day or both (Hammond, 2012). School district superintendents
stated the details of the achievement compacts have yet to be explained and “despite state
officials promising to send a draft model for districts to use for ideas, Ontario School
District Superintendent Linda Florence said this week school districts have yet to receive
them,” when the achievement compacts are due in two months (Keller, 2012).
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

93
Though the achievement compacts for 2012-2013 will not be used to calculate
funding from the state, school districts need to predict how much growth will be made in
their compacts and more funding could be provided for schools that meet growth targets
indicated in the achievement compacts. However, school districts do not know how many
achievement targets they have to meet in order to qualify for additional funding because
there are more than 104 different growth target cells in the achievement compact.
“School districts performance will be reported through achievement compacts and state
report cards, but they are separate documents,” and in 2012, school district achievement
were reported through Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and state report cards (Keller,
2012). Superintendent Janine Weeks stated “many superintendents have remarked how
inconsistent AYP and state report cards can be and how difficult each is to explain, and
there are fears adding another layer to school accountability will just confuse people
more,” (Keller, 2012).
When the K-20 survey respondents in this study were asked about their
perceptions of policy, all of the respondents shared the same sentiment that: (1) Teachers
were overwhelmed with the current workload in schools; (2) Teachers’ voices need to be
heard and be a part of the policy decision making; and (3) whenever there was a new
policy, skepticism about the policy arose due to the lack of clarity and continuity of new
movements, reforms, and policies. Other respondents stated policies “should not be a one
size fits all.” Below are two excerpts from survey responses about perceptions of policy.
• Talk to teachers in classrooms before you make decisions for us. Also, you
NEED teachers on your boards and panels! (Teacher B, survey response,
January 16, 2014).

• OEIB has only one licensed educator. That is WRONG! New initiatives
are being shoved down our throats without our input! (Teacher E, survey
response, January 15, 2014).
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

94

Responses to Research Question 4
What are recommendations emerge to make education policy and implementation
for improved student achievement more effective?
In the survey, participants responded to two open-ended questions to address this
research question. The first question was, “When a new education policy or mandate is
created, which method or methods are the most effective in obtaining the information so
that you can implement it thoroughly?” The responses varied from informational
meetings with explanation of implementation, professional hands-on trainings and
follow-ups to written information that is accessible any time such as online, or by email
and to clear communication through principals or upper administration for higher
education faculty.
The second question requested comments or suggestions for policy makers when
creating policies that affect student success. Below are some of the quotes from the
respondents:
• Too many policies are being created at once. The implementation calls for
significant transformation and this takes a huge amount of time, even for
professionals who are willing and supportive. The morale among the teachers at
my school is low because of the crushing weight of the workload. Nothing is
being taken "off of our plate." Truly recognizing the overwhelming workload that
is being created is very important. I don't think the implementers realize this at all.
And class sizes make all of this even more unmanageable. (Teacher A, survey
response, January 20, 2014).

• Talk to teachers in classrooms before you make decisions for us. Also, you NEED
teachers on your boards and panels! (Teacher B, survey response, January 16,
2014).

• Help families! The window of strong brain development is closing by the time a
student is in pre-school. We need more support for family and more value of
family time! (Teacher C, survey response, January 16, 2014).

OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

95
• Unions should be involved and educators should be valued for their expertise in
the issue. (Teacher E, survey response, January 15, 2014).

• Include participation from the students themselves and those who work most
closely with them. (Higher Education Faculty A, survey response, January 14,
2014).

• Over the years, movements have come and gone. The lack of a focus and
perseverance has left many skeptical; therefore clarity and continuity are very
important. Too many cooks ruin the soup! (Teacher F, survey response, January
12, 2014).

• “Work with districts to streamline efforts to provide good communication to
families and communicates about their schools’ growth and school districts
performance.” (Superintendent Jeanine Weeks, Keller, 2012).

• “The more we can do to keep it as concise as possible but communicate the
strongest message the more helpful it will be.” (Superintendent Jeanine Weeks,
Keller, 2012).

Conclusion
The qualitative data collected from the documents and surveys revealed much
about the information dissemination of policy and the perceptions of policy by those that
needed to implement it. Three findings emerged from the review of the triangulated data
for the four research questions.
The first finding from the case study emerged from the first research question that
guided the study: How is information about achievement compacts being disseminated
from policy-makers to schools? It is apparent that OEIB members had disseminated the
information to school districts and Education Service Districts (ESD). OEIB followed the
plan to disseminate the information as outlined in the OEIB document; however, OEIB
could not provide knowledge on how the information was disseminated to teachers, the
implementers of the policy. A significant number of educators who would implement the
policy did not have the knowledge of OEIB, the 40-40-20 goal, or knowledge of the
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

96
achievement compacts and targets goals in order to implement the policy. A knowledge
and skills gap is prevalent to those that need to implement the policy.
The second finding from the case study emerged from the second research
question: Are all stakeholders receiving the same information? If not, what and where
are the gaps in the information dissemination? In the interviews, 4 of the 5 OEIB
members stated that the information was presented to teachers through the school district
or agencies working directly with students; however, it was unclear how it was
disseminated to teachers and if there was any follow-up after the information was
disseminated. It is unclear whether anyone made sure that teachers were receiving the
same information as the information sent to the school districts and ESDs. The
superintendents and administrators were responsible for disseminating the information to
teachers; however, only 2 of the respondents on the survey stated that they had heard
about the achievement compacts from their principals. Many of the respondents had
heard it from outside the school agencies, such as the news, online, teachers’ union,
colleagues, or research they had done on their own.
The third finding emerged from the third and fourth research questions: What are
the schools’ perceptions of policy towards improving student achievement? What
recommendations emerge to make policy and implementation for improved student
achievement more effective? More than 60 percent of the survey respondents did not have
an accurate perception of the achievement compacts because they did not have
knowledge about it; however, they used their own perceptions of previous policies and
mandates to address the current reform. 100 percent of the respondents shared a
skepticism of policy due to the many policies and mandates that have had to be
implemented within the past 20 years. Respondent F stated, “Movements have come and
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

97
gone,” and “the lack of focus and perseverance has left many skeptical.” The assumption
can be made that those who implement the policy on the ground level may state, “So this
too will pass, in time.” Though teachers have the heart and desire for their students to
learn, grow, and be successful, policies often “get in the way from teaching and it gets
overwhelming.” (Teacher B, survey response, January 16, 2014). Many educators believe
that the policy-makers are unknowledgeable about the student population of their
students, the way students learn, along with the best practices to engage all learners;
hence, the skepticism and convictions that policy-makers are not making the most
effective decisions in education.
Chapter Five follows with a summary of the case study including conclusions,
implications, and recommendations for future research.

OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

98
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUDING COMMENTS
Introduction
There have been many political educational reforms and movements throughout
the nation such as: (1) the Outcome-Based Education Reform, which empirically
measures student performance or “outcomes,” through standards-based assessments; (2)
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965, which was a federal
statute enacted by Congress and signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson, emphasizing
equal access to education and establishing high standards and accountability for all
students; (3) the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, which was a the reauthorization of
ESEA, a standards-based reform passed by the Congress and signed by President George
W. Bush, mandating that all students reach reading proficiency by third grade, and (4)
Oregon’s new reform model—Governor Kitzhaber and the Oregon Legislature passed
Senate Bill 909 (SB909), which created the Oregon Education Investment Board (OEIB).
An accountability partnership between OEIB and all school districts, including
universities and other educational entities, aims for better implementation of the policy
and higher performance results through achievement compacts.
This chapter provides a summary of the study followed by findings related to the
four research questions:
• How is information about achievement compacts being disseminated from policy-
makers to schools?
• What are the schools’ perceptions of policy towards improving student
achievement?
• Are all stakeholders receiving the same information? If not, what and where are
the gaps in the information dissemination?
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

99
• What are recommendations emerge to make policy and implementation for
improved student achievement more effective?
The purpose of this study was to examine the information dissemination of
achievement compacts from the policy-makers down to the schools. The findings from
the study provide both policy-makers and schools knowledge to plan and implement an
effective policy. In closing, I will discuss other limitations not noted previously,
implications for schools and policy makers, and recommendations or suggestions for
future research.
Summary of Findings
Research question one states, “How is information about achievement compacts
being disseminated from policy-makers to schools?” The OEIB, which served as the
policy-maker in this case study had documents on their website. The OEIB also held
multiple meetings to plan, organize, and formulate the achievement compacts, in which
the public were invited to share their knowledge. Finally, the OEIB disseminated the
information to all educators and educational organizations working with students via
emails, letters, webinars, public forums, and meetings, so that schools could have the
resources and funding needed to implement and reach their target goals as written in their
achievement compacts. Once OEIB disseminated the information to school district
superintendents, Educational Service Districts (ESD), and Dean’s, Provosts, and/or other
higher faculty in colleges and universities, they in turn should disseminate the
information to school principals, who again in turn share it with teachers.
• Research question 2 states, “What are the schools’ perceptions of policy towards
improving student achievement?” Initially, there were negative sentiments and
pushback from many school superintendents about the purpose and reason behind
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

100
writing the achievement compacts. A reason for push back reasons also includes
the belief that OEIB didn’t have legal authority or rights until Senate Bill 1581
was passed, giving the OEIB’s Chief Education Officer the power and legal
authority to oversee efforts to redesign and reorganize Oregon’s public education
governance system. Teachers from the survey also were confused and stated,
when policies are being written, teachers need to be a part of the plan and writing
of policies. This general sentiment among teachers and superintendents was
directly correlated with data analysis of documents and the open-ended survey
response questionnaire.
Research question 3 states, “Are all stakeholders receiving the same information?
If not, what and where are the gaps in the information dissemination?” All stakeholders
from the OEIB to the schools, ESD, and colleges and universities were receiving the
same information; however, at the local school districts and sites, the teachers were not
receiving the same information, whether about the OEIB, 40-40-20 goals, or information
about the achievement compacts, or indeed, any information at all. Unfortunately, more
than sixty percent of those who needed to implement the achievement compacts did not
have knowledge about the OEIB, the 40-40-20 goals, or the achievement compacts. A
staggering ninety percent did not know how to implement the achievement compacts,
even though some respondents had heard about the achievement compacts. There were
gaps in information dissemination between superintendents and principals as well as
between principals and classroom practitioners.
Research question 4 asks, “What recommendations emerge to make policy and
implementation for improved student achievement more effective?” The majority of
respondents were K-12 teachers and they stated a few recommendations to make
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

101
implementation more effective: (1) informational meetings and discussions; (2) modeling
implementation of the policy through trainings; (3) follow-up after implementing the
policy; and (4) sending the information via email, directly to principals.
Limitations
One key limitation in this study is the number of participants interviewed and
surveyed. Although the seventeen participants interviewed provided insight into the
perceptions and knowledge gaps of OEIB, 40-40-20 goals, and the achievement
compacts, it is not a substantial enough to warrant a complete view of all implementers of
the policy. A larger return would have provided a much better insight into the reasons for
gaps in the dissemination of information.
Another limitation in this study is there were no participants who were
superintendents and principals. It was clear that the OEIB disseminated the information
to the appropriate members that needed the information; however, this information did
not reach many of the teachers.
The last limitation in this study was the sole view of the policy that came from the
K-12 teachers. There is a need to interview and survey other stakeholders to get a better
picture of the information dissemination of the achievement compacts and to create a
higher validity for the data collected.
Implications for Policy-makers and Schools
The findings in this study have implications for both policy-makers and schools.
There are three implications for policy-makers. The first implication for policy-makers is
the need to stay connected to the student population for which they are creating policies.
Many K-12 classroom practitioners feel that policies are created by people who are far
removed from the education sector or have “lost their touch on the reality of what
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

102
teaching is really like,” (Teacher A, survey response, January 20, 2014), even if the
policy-maker has had some experience teaching in the classroom. The second implication
for policy-makers is the need to make policies clear, coherent, and to give guidance on
how to implement the policies, rather than creating the policies and leaving it up to the
schools to figure out how to implement them. The third implication for policy-makers is
the need to make policies that will be flexible and will gain the maximum engagement
from all stakeholders, including school boards, principals, teachers, students, parents, and
the community.
There are implications for schools based on the findings of the study. When the
policy was created, there were people that have worked in the education field who gave
experienced advice. The advisory committee and the subcommittees are comprised of
many educators and others who work directly with students; therefore, the policymakers
intend to directly affect student achievement. Though schools and teachers may feel that
policies “get in the way of teaching,” the policy aims do the opposite. It aims to aide the
teachers to get the best performance from the students and to have students gain academic
success. The OEIB has funded approved achievement compacts and has also provided
support personnel to work directly with schools to support them.
Recommendations for Future Research
In order for this study to be more comprehensive, the following recommendations
are to be considered for future research:
1. It is imperative to interview school superintendents and school principals.
They were the missing link between the Oregon Education Investment
Board and the classroom practitioners who would implement the policy.
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

103
2. The participants in this study were mainly K-12 teachers. There is a need
to look at a wider spectrum of participants. Perhaps sending the survey to
all principals, classroom practitioners, and colleges and university faculty
and interviewing or creating a separate survey for superintendents and
Educational Service Districts, would have created a larger sample
population to formulate a better comparative study.
Concluding Comments
A massive movement of educational reform has continued for over forty years;
however, there is an ongoing disconnect or discord between policy-makers’ intentions
and the classroom practitioners’ implementation. The data for this study focused on four
research questions on how policy information was disseminated, whether or not all
stakeholders are receiving the same information and if there are gaps in the information
dissemination, schools’ perceptions of policy towards improving student achievement,
and recommendations or suggestions to make educational policy and implementation for
improved student achievement more effective. An analysis of the data identified that K-
12 classroom practitioners had knowledge gaps about the policy and information being
received about the achievement compacts, making it difficult to begin implementation of
the policy. The perceptions of policy by K-12 classroom practitioners were not the same
as the perceptions of policy by policy-makers. Policy-makers in this case study may have
the best intentions when making policies, creating the policies that can actually help
students perform and find academic success; and classroom practitioners, usually, have
the same desire as these well-intentioned policy-makers. Therefore, it is in the best
interest of both the policy-makers and classroom practitioners to work together in
creating policies, rather than creating new reforms and policies by reinventing the wheel.
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

104
Accessing the knowledge of classroom practitioners and their best practices, while using
the political power of policy-makers, will enable massive changes in the education school
system. Schools need shared goals about how to get there and consistent support from the
federal government and the state when implementing policies. A clear, directive guide to
implementing policies will also enable the changes the policy-makers have envisioned
when creating the policy. In conclusion, there are four imperatives for effective policy:
cooperation of classroom practitioners and policy-makers to create the policy; adequate
financial resource to enact the envisioned policy; expert personnel supporting schools and
classroom practitioners in effective implementation, with on-going training, and
continued follow-up and assessment of the policy as it is transformed from vision to
educational practice.
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

105

REFERENCES

Alliance for Excellent Education. (2011). Education and the economy: Boosting the
nation’s economy by improving high school graduation rates. Retrieved from
http://www.all4ed.org/files/NationalStates_seb.pdf
Association of Public Television Stations. (2013). Race to the top: early learning
challenge (RTT-ELC) program. Retrieved from
http://www.apts.org/grantcenter/funding-topic/early-childhood-education/race-
top-early-learning-challenge-rtt-elc-progra
Azzam, A. M., Perkins-Gough, D., & Thiers, N. (2006). The Impact of NCLB.
Educational Leadership, 64(3), 94-96.
Bloom, D. E. (2004). Globalization and Education: An Economic Perspective. In M.
Suarez-Orozco (Ed.), Globalization: Culture and education in the new millennium
(pp. 56-77). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Braun, H., Chapman, L., Vezzu, S. (2010). The Black-White achievement gap revisited.
Education Policy Analysis Archives, 18(21), 1-96.
Bureau of Economic Analysis, United States Department of Commerce. (2013, June 26).
GDP growth picks up in first quarter: Third estimate of GDP. Retrieved on July
17, 2013 from
http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/2013/pdf/gdp1q13_3rd_fax.pdf
California Department of Education. (2013). Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR)
results. Retrieved from http://star.cde.ca.gov
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

106
Castillo, S. (2003). 2002-2003 Oregon report card: An annual report to the legislature on
Oregon public schools. Retrieved from
www.ode.state.or.us/data/annreportcard/rptcard203.pdf
Chantrill, C. (2013). United States education spending. U.S. government spending.
Retrieved from
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_education_spending_20.html
Clark, M. (2003). Education reform, redistribution, and student achievement: Evidence
from the Kentucky Education Reform Act. Mathematica Policy Research.
Princeton, New Jersey
Cohen, D. K. (1995). What is the system in systemic reform? Educational Researcher,
24(9), 11-31.
Cohen, M., Barber, M., & Cox, K. (2012). Implementing Common Core State Standards
and assessments: A workbook for states and district leaders. Retrieved from
http://www.achieve.org/files/Workbook_Introduction.pdf
Conley, D. T., & Picus, L. O. (2003). Oregon’s quality education model: Linking
adequacy and outcomes. Educational Policy, 17(5), 586-612.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Department of Defense Education Activity. (2004). Department of defense education
activity: An overview, 2002-2003. Retrieved on July 19, 2013 from
http://www.dodea.edu/aar/2004/pdf/overview2004.pdf
Department of Education. (2011, November). The potential impact of revising the Title I
comparability requirement to focus on school-level expenditures. A Policy Brief
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

107
from the U.S. Department of Education, Policy and Program Studies Service.
Retrieved on July 19, 2013 from http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/title-
i/comparability-requirement/comparability-policy-brief.pdf
Department of Education. (2012, May). Impacts of Title I Supplemental Educational
Services on student achievement. [NCEE 2012-4053]. Retrieved from
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20124053/pdf/20124053.pdf
Department of Education. (2013). The budget for fiscal year 2014. Retrieved on July 17,
2013 from
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2014/assets/educatio
n.pdf
Epstein, D. (2011, September 9). Investing in education powers U.S. competitiveness:
Education funding must be preserved. Center for American Progress. Retrieved
from
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education/report/2011/09/06/10376/inves
ting-in-education-powers-u-s-competitiveness/
Federal Education Budget Project. (2013, June 21). Background & analysis. New
American Foundation. Retrieved on July 17, 2013 from
http://febp.newamerica.net/background-analysis/education-federal-budget
GAO. (United States Government Accountability Office). (2011). Race to the Top:
Reform effects are under way and information sharing could be improved (GAO
Publication No. GAO-11-658). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office.
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

108
GAO. (United States General Accounting Office). (2003). Report to Congressional
requesters: Flexibility demonstration programs: Education needs to better target
program information. Retrieved on July 19, 2013 from
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03691.pdf
Gayathiri, A. (2012, November 27). The 17
th
in global education ranking; Finland, South
Korea claim top spots. International Business Times. Retrieved from
http://www.ibtimes.com/us-17th-global-education-ranking-finland-south-korea-
claim-top-spots-901538
Grant, L. W., Popp, P. A., & Stronge, J. H. (2003). Classrooms with revolving doors:
Recommended practices for middle level and high school teachers of at-risk and
highly mobile students. National Center for Homeless Education. Retrieved from
http://www.sonoma.edu/TRIO-training/research/homeless/eff_teach.pdf
Graves, B. (2011, June 21). Oregon Legislature adopts goals of seeing 40 percent of
Oregonians have a college degree. OregonLive.com. Retrieved from
http://www.oregonlive.com/education/index.ssf/2011/06/oregon_legislature_adop
ts_loft.html
Hanushek, E., (1986). The economics of schooling: production and efficiency in the
public schools. Journal of Economic Literature 24(3), 1141-1178
Hanushek, E. & Woessmann, L. (2010). The high cost of low education performance:
The long-run impact of improving PISA outcomes. Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development. Retrieved from
http://hanushek.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publications/Hanushek%2BWoess
mann%202010%20OECD_0.pdf
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

109
Hechinger, J. (2010, December 7). U.S. teens lag as China soars on international test.
Bloomberg. Retrieved from http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-07/teens-
in-u-s-rank-25th-on-math-test-trail-in-science-reading.html
Hill. H. C. (2001). Policy is not enough: Language and the interpretation of state
standards. American Educational Research Journal, 38(2), 289-318.
Hoyt, W. H. (1997). An evaluation of the Kentucky education reform act. Center of
Business and Economic Research
Huiyao, W. (2013). Good for China, and the rest of the world. The New York Times.
Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/01/21/the-effects-
of-chinas-push-for-education/educated-workers-are-good-for-china-and-the-rest-
of-the-world
Keller, J. (2012). Districts struggling with new achievement compact plans. The Argus
Observer. Retrieved on March 17, 2014 from
http://www.argusobserver.com/news/districts-struggling-with-new-achievement-
compact-plans/article_140dccf4-9734-11e1-b06f-001a4bcf887a.html
Kitzhaber, J. (2013). John Kitzhaber on the 2013 Legislature: It’s been productive, but
we have unfinished business. OregonLive.com. Retrieved from
http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2013/07/john_kitzhaber_on_the_20
13_leg.html#incart_river
Klaauw, W. (2005). Breaking the link between poverty and low student achievement: An
evaluation of Title I. Retrieved from http://www.unc.edu/~vanderkl/brlink.pdf
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

110
Legislative State of Oregon. (2010). Background brief on Database Initiative Project.
Retrieved from
http://www.leg.state.or.us/comm/commsrvs/background_briefs2010/briefs/Educat
ion/DatabaseInitiativeProject.pdf
Linn, R. L. (2005). Fixing the NCLB accountability system. Los Angeles: University of
California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student
Testing.
Lohman, J. (June 4, 2010). Comparing No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top. OLR
Research Report (2010-R-0235). Retrieved from
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/rpt/2010-R-0235.htm
McDonald, S. B. (2013, July 9). Ads use healthy dose of humor. The Register-Guard.
Retrieved from http://www.registerguard.com/rg/news/local/30137052-
169/oregon-cover-ads-health-insurance.html.csp
McKinsey & Company. (2009). The economic impact of the achievement gap in
America’s schools: Summary of Findings-April 2009. McKinsey Quarterly.
Retrieved from http://mckinseyonsociety.com/the-economic-impact-of-the-
achievement-gap-in-americas-schools/
Meinhard, R. (1991, Aug 22). Education by committee in Oregon. Wall Street Journal
(1923 - Current File). Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/135513120?accountid=14749
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: Guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

111
Metz, L. (2010, December 9). American teens falling behind in math, science and
reading. Cambio. Retrieved from http://www.cambio.com/2010/12/09/american-
teens-falling-behind-in-math-science-and-reading/
National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2009). The nation’s report card: 2008
trends in academic progress: executive summary. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pubs/main2008/2009479.aspx
National Center for Education Statistics. (2012).
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2013). About NCTM. Retrieved from
http://www.nctm.org/about/default.aspx?id=166
National Governors Association. (2011). Oregon Governor John A. Kitzhaber, M.D.
Retrieved from http://www.nga.org/cms/home/governors/current-governors/col2-
content/main-content-list/john-a-kitzhaber.html
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State
School Officers. (2013). Common Core State Standards. National Governors
Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers.
Washington, D.C.
National School Boards Association. (n.d.). Part I: Title in perspective: A brief history of
Title I. Retrieved from http://www.nsba.org/bookreports/title1/PartI.htm
Nesbitt, T. (2012). Oregon Education Investment Board: Purpose of Achievement
Compacts. Retrieved on July 16, 2013 from
http://www.oregon.gov/gov/oeib/docs/acguidancedoc.pdf
Obama, B. H. (2010, August 9). Remarks by the President on higher education and the
economy at the University of Texas at Austin. Retrieved on July 17, 2013 from
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

112
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/08/09/remarks-president-
higher-education-and-economy-university-texas-austin
Olson, T. (2013, January 2). Oregon’s private corporate-drive education reform: A primer
and recent history. [OSOS Research of Oregon's Path of Education Reform]
Retrieved from http://oregonsaveourschools.blogspot.com/p/oregon-save-our-
schools-research-of-our.html
Oregon.gov. (2012). Advisory committee to OEIB achievement compact subcommittees.
Retrieved from http://www.oregon.gov/gov/oeib/docs/zzpp.pdf
Oregon.gov. (2013). Achievement compacts: Questions and answers. Retrieved from
http://www.oregon.gov/gov/oeib/docs/pfachievementcompactsqanda.pdf
Oregon.gov. (2013). Oregon health plan. Retrieved from
http://www.oregon.gov/oha/healthplan/Pages/index.aspx
Oregon.gov. (2013). Oregon subcommittees information. Retreived from
http://www.oregon.gov/gov/docs/OEIB/OEIBSubinfo.pdf
Oregon Department of Education. (2004). CIM/CAM/PASS/Diploma requirements and
decision-making models. Retrieved from
http://www.ode.state.or.us/teachlearn/certificates/cam/pdfs/SectionIIPhase1Jan28.
pdf
Oregon Department of Education. (2013). Oregon framework for teacher and
administrator evaluation and support systems. Retrieve from
http://www.ode.state.or.us/wma/teachlearn/educatoreffectiveness/oregon-
framework--for-eval-and-support-systems.pdf
Oregon Education Investment Board. (2011). Oregon Education Investment Board.
Retrieved from
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

113
http://www.oregon.gov/gov/pages/oeib/oregoneducationinvestmentboard.aspx#Or
egon_Education_Investment_Board_(OEIB)
Oregon Education Investment Team. (2011). Oregon Education Investment Team.
Retrieved from
http://www.oregon.gov/gov/pages/oeit/oregoneducationinvestmentteam.aspx
Oregon Legislative Assembly-76th. (2011). Senate Bill 253. Retrieved July 16, 2013
from http://www.leg.state.or.us/11reg/measpdf/sb0200.dir/sb0253.en.pdf
Oregon Legislative Assembly-76th. (2011). Senate Bill 909. Retrieved July 16, 2013
from http://www.oregon.gov/gov/oeit/docs/sb0909.a.pdf
Oregon Legislative Assembly-76th. (2012). Senate Bill 1581. Retrieved July 16, 2013
http://www.leg.state.or.us/12reg/measpdf/sb1500.dir/sb1581.en.pdf
Oregon Revised Statutes. (2011). Chapter 329—Oregon Educational Act for the 21
st

Century; Educational improvement and reform. Retrieved from
http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/329.html
Oregon Schools Boards Association. (2005). Covering education: A reporter's guide to
education in Oregon. Salem, Oregon
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2013). Country statistical
profile: United States. Country statistical profiles: Key tables from OECD. Doi:
10.1787/csp-usa-table-2013-1-en. Retrieved from http://www.oecd-
ilibrary.org/economics/country-statistical-profile-united-states_20752288-table-
usa
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

114
Pearson. (2013). [Table illustration of Overall Index rank and score for nations]. Index of
cognitive skills and educational attainment. Retrieved from
http://thelearningcurve.pearson.com/index/index-ranking
Pittella, R. (2011). No child left behind: A historical study of the roots, passage and
implementation of a far reaching educational policy. (Order No. 3466424,
Capella University). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, , 198. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/884998148?accountid=14749.
(prod.academic_MSTAR_884998148)
Phi Delta Kappan. (2013). Education leaders: Finland and South Korea. Phi Delta
Kappan, 94(5), 6.
Princeton. (2013). Outcome based education. Retrieved from
http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Outcome-
based_education.html
Race to the Top. (2013). Race to the Top fact sheet. Retrieved from
www.cde.ca.gov/sp/cd/rt/documents/rttelcfactsheet.pdf
Resmovits, J. (2013, June 12). No Child Left Behind bill passes Senate committee, but no
end in sight for recasting Bush law. The Huffington Post. Retrieved from
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/12/-no-child-left-behind-
passes_n_3430308.html
Rowan, B., Correnti, R., & Miller, R. J. (2002). What large-scale, survey research tells us
about teacher effects on student achievement: Insights from the “prospects” study
of elementary schools. Teachers College Record, 104(8), 1525-1567.
Rowley, R. L., & Wright, D. W. (2011). No "white" child left behind: The academic
achievement gap between black and white students. The Journal of Negro
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

115
Education, 80(2), 93-107. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/909483874?accountid=14749
Saxton, R. (2012). 2011-2012 Statewide report card: An annual report to the Legislature
on Oregon public schools. Oregon Department of Education. Retrieved from
http://www.ode.state.or.us/data/annreportcard/rptcard2012.pdf
Spady, W. G., & Marshall, K. J. (1991). Beyond traditional outcome-based education.
Educational Leadership, 49(2), 67-72.
Spillane, J. P. (2004). Standards deviation: How schools misunderstand education policy
Supovitz, J. A. (2008). Instructional leadership in the American high schools. In
Effective Teachers Leadership: Using Research to Inform and Reform, ed.
Melinda M. Mangin and Sara Ray Stoelinga. New York: Teachers College Press.
Texas Education Agency. (2013). STARR resources. Retrieved from
http://www.tea.state.tx.us/student.assessment/staar/
The World Bank (2013). Public spending on education, total (% in GDP). Retrieved from
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.XPD.TOTL.GD.ZS
United States Government Printing Office. (2013). Composition of outlays for the
conduct of education and training: 1962–2014. [Table 9.9]. Retrieved from
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collection.action?collectionCode=BUDGET&b
rowsePath=Fiscal+Year+2014&searchPath=Fiscal+Year+2014&leafLevelBrowse
=false&isCollapsed=false&isOpen=true&packageid=BUDGET-2014-
TAB&ycord=822
Vanderstek, C. & Burk, P. (2009). Core values and beliefs of Oregon School Reform.
Retrieved on July 17, 2013 from www.ode.state.or.us/superintendent/…/or-core-
values-and-beliefs-(2).doc
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

116
Venezia, A., Callan, P. M., Finney, J. E., Kirst, M. W., & Usdan, M. D. (2005). The
governance divide: A report on a four-state study of improving college readiness
and success. San Jose, CA: The National Center for Public Policy and Higher
Education.
Walsh, K. & Tracy, C. O. (2004). Increasing the odds: How good policies can yield better
teachers. National Council on Teacher Quality. Retrieved from
http://www.nctq.org/nctq/images/nctq_io.pdf
Washington State. (2013). Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Retrieved from
http://www.k12.wa.us/esea/
Weinbaum, E., & Supovitz, J. (2010). Planning ahead: Making program implementation
more predictable.Phi Delta Kappan, 91(7), 68-71.
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

117
APPENDIX A
Survey Protocol
Research Question 1: How is information about the achievement compacts being
disseminated from policy-maker to schools?

• Who did you hear the achievement compact from?
• Who did you pass this information to?
• How did this information get disseminated to the teachers?

Research Question 2: What are the schools’ perceptions of policy towards
improving student achievement?

• Other comments or suggestions for policy-makers when creating policies that
affect student success.

Research Question 3: Are all stakeholders receiving the same information? If not,
what and where are the gaps in the information dissemination?

• I have heard about the Oregon Education Investment Board (OEIB).
• I have heard about the 40-40-20 goals.
• I have heard about the achievement compacts.
• In which of the following did you receiving information about Oregon Education
Investment Board (OEIB) and/or the achievement compacts?
• I can explain the achievement compacts in detail to others.
• The information I’ve received about the achievement compacts was adequate for
me to begin implementation.
• When a new education policy or mandate is created, which method or methods
are the most effective in obtaining the information so that you can implement it
thoroughly?

Research Question 4: What recommendations emerge to make education policy and
implementation for improved student achievement more effective?

• The information I’ve received about the achievement compacts was adequate for
me to begin implementation.
• When a new education policy or mandate is created, which method or methods
are the most effective in obtaining the information so that you can implement it
thoroughly?
• Other comments or suggestions for policy-makers when creating policies that
effect student success.
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

118
APPENDIX B

SURVEY INSTRUMENT
Questionnaire
1. Please check your position.
a. K-12 Teacher
b. K-12 Administrator
c. K-12 Other (i.e. Coordinator, Counselor, Resource, etc)
d. Higher Education
e. Superintendent

2. I have heard about the Oregon Education Investment Board (OEIB).
a. Yes
b. No

3. I have heard about the 40-40-20 goals.
a. Yes
b. No

4. I have heard about the achievement compacts.
a. Yes
b. No

5. In which of the following methods did you receive information about the Oregon
Education Investment Board (OEIB) and/or the achievement compacts?

a. Principals
b. Meetings/trainings
c. Colleagues
d. Online
e. Other

6. I am knowledgeable about the achievement compacts.
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Disagree
d. Strongly Disagree
7. I can explain the achievement compacts in detail to others.
a. Strongly Agree
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

119
b. Agree
c. Disagree
d. Strongly Disagree

8. The information I’ve received about the achievement compacts was adequate for
me to begin implementation.

a. Yes
b. No

9. When a new education policy or mandate is created, which method or methods
are the most effective in obtaining the information so that you can implement it
thoroughly?

10. Other comments or suggestions for policy makers when creating policies that
effect student success.
OREGON EDUCATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

120
APPENDIX C
Survey Cover Letter
SURVEY COVER LETTER/EMAIL
Date
Dear Oregon Education Investment Board member name,
My name is Saemina Park. I am earning a doctoral degree in Education. The reason for
this email is because I am finishing my dissertation on how the achievement compact
information is disseminated from top down. I am almost done with my degree and will
hopefully graduate in May 2014; however, I need your help.

Could you help me by answering 3 questions, please?

1. Who did you hear the achievement compact from?
2. Who did you pass this information to?
2a. How did this information get disseminated to the teachers?

I do not mind one-word answers. All responses are strictly confidential per the
Institutional Review Board.

Thank you so much for your time and I would greatly appreciate your response.

Sincerely,
Saemina Park

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

An examination of Oregon's achievement compacts as it relates to special education

PDF

The formation and implementation of a regional achievement collaborative

PDF

An examination of Oregon's achievement compacts as it relates to disadvantaged students

PDF

An examination of Oregon’s implementation of literacy and common core state standards: preparing students to be college and career ready

PDF

School accountability and reform in Oregon: effecting system change with Achievement Compacts

PDF

An examination of Oregon’s special education accountability, goal setting, and reform

PDF

An examination of the Oregon state college and career education investment and the Eastern Promise program

PDF

Analysis of STEM programs in Oregon public high schools

PDF

Educational resource allocation at the middle school level: a case study of six middle schools in one California district

PDF

The impact of principal leadership and model schools on state‐wide school reform: case studies of four Oregon elementary model schools

PDF

Hawaii Board of Education's middle grade promotion policy: a policy implementation study

PDF

An examination of resource allocation strategies that promote student achievement: case studies of rural elementary schools in Hawaii

PDF

A relational approach to discipline: a comparative case study of restorative justice implementation in US secondary schools

PDF

Allocation of resources and personnel to increase student achievement

PDF

School-wide implementation of the elements of effective classroom instruction: lessons from high-performing high-poverty urban schools

PDF

The reallocation of human resources to improve student achievement in a time of fiscal constraints

PDF

Educational resource allocation at the high school level: a case study of high schools in one California district

PDF

Culture, politics, and policy implementation: how practitioners interpret and implement the transfer policy in a technical college environment

PDF

Educational resource allocation at the elementary level: a case study of one elementary school district in California

PDF

The role of the superintendent in raising student achievement: a superintendent effecting change through the implementation of selected strategies

Asset Metadata

Creator Park, Saemina (author)

Core Title Oregon education policy implementation: a case study of the achievement compacts information dissemination of the Oregon Education Investment Board

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 08/28/2014

Defense Date 08/28/2014

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag classroom practitioners,education reform,effective policy implementation,OAI-PMH Harvest,Oregon education,policy implementation,policy information dissemination,policymakers,school reform

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Picus, Lawrence O. (committee chair), Crew, Rudolph (committee member), Seelig, Michael (committee member)

Creator Email saemina.park@gmail.com,spluvzu@hotmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-466304

Unique identifier UC11287102

Identifier etd-ParkSaemin-2858.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-466304 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-ParkSaemin-2858.pdf

Dmrecord 466304

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Park, Saemina

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA