Understanding the Education Policymaking Process in the United States

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Some minor edits needed. Note that media are plural. In the South, religion plays a significant role in policy decisions. You may want to add this in the first paragraph

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English is fine, although article is a bit dense. .

Author Response

Thank you for taking the time to review our paper. We appreciate the insightful feedback. and have made edits and revisions for clarity and precision. Highlighted sections throughout the manuscript show major revisions. 

Comment 1: Note that media are plural.

Response 1: Thank you for drawing our attention to the use of media as a singular noun. This has been corrected in section 5.

Comment 2: In the South, religion plays a significant role in policy decisions. You may want to add this in the first paragraph

Response 2: We appreciate this insight. As recommended by the reviewer, we added religion as one of the factors that influence policy decisions in line 35 and left the interpretation open by design so that as contexts shift and change, the information can be applied. 

Comment 3: English is fine, although article is a bit dense. 

Response 3: The article is a bit dense because we wanted a thorough examination of the policymaking process. However, we acknowledge the reviewer's comments and have made edits throughout the article to read more concisely. For example, the policy implementation and the conclusion sections. We divided the implementation section (7.1 to 7.3) to have better defined foci. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an acceptable work, basically well done. There are a few minor factual errors---something common in this field.

For example, on p. 2 the authors say that NCLB sometimes led to budget cuts. To my knowledge this literally never occurred. School budgets increased each year of NCLB, even when controlling for inflation and increasing enrollment. And school closures were rare, and only occurred where local authorities chose that as an option as in Chicago. I believe there are no exceptions to this in any of the 50 states.

On pages 3-4 or possibly later regarding federal, state, and local roles, the authors should note that federal bureaucrats often have considerable leverage over localities by writing regulations governing K-12 schooling, such as in the cases of special education services, school discipline, and Title IX---regarding the latter see https://www.brookings.edu/books/the-transformation-of-title-ix/. Also note that typically less than 10% of education expenditures come from the U.S. government, with states and localities dividing the rest, though the state verses local share varies widely across states. Regarding school boards, you might note that they rarely prioritize academics. See https://www.brookings.edu/articles/school-superintendents-have-no-contractual-obligation-to-improve-learning/.

On pp. 8-9, perhaps under capacity building tools, you should mention the role of testing, perhaps in particular the NAEP, which serves as the “nation’s report card” ( https://hep.gse.harvard.edu/9781682537251/assessing-the-nations-report-card/). These and international tests like the TIMSS have pushed pressure on schools to improve by demonstrating that despite rising inputs, schools have not improved and may have gotten worse, despite smaller family size, less cognitive challenge, and greater wealth, which should lead to broad improvements (https://www.vitalsource.com/products/education-myths-jay-p-greene-v9780742577879). They also show that U.S. schools are only average among industrial and postindustrial countries.

Author Response

Thank you for taking the time to review our paper. We appreciate the insightful feedback and have made edits and revisions, especially for factual accuracy. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding highlighted sections in the manuscript. 

Comment 1: For example, on p. 2 the authors say that NCLB sometimes led to budget cuts. To my knowledge this literally never occurred. School budgets increased each year of NCLB, even when controlling for inflation and increasing enrollment. And school closures were rare, and only occurred where local authorities chose that as an option as in Chicago. I believe there are no exceptions to this in any of the 50 states.

Response 1: Thank you for bringing this error to our attention. We have removed the statement regarding NCLB and budget cuts/ school closures and have replaced it with a few more sentences that we believe more thoughtfully and accurately discuss NCLB and its impact while also making sure to acknowledge the disproportionate impact of NCLB policies on Black and Brown students in low-income, historically marginalized and underserved schools. We hope that the additional sources can help to better support these arguments. These edits are included in lines 49 to 64 of the revised manuscript.

Comment 2: On pages 3-4 or possibly later regarding federal, state, and local roles, the authors should note that federal bureaucrats often have considerable leverage over localities by writing regulations governing K-12 schooling, such as in the cases of special education services, school discipline, and Title IX---regarding the latter see https://www.brookings.edu/books/the-transformation-of-title-ix/. Also note that typically less than 10% of education expenditures come from the U.S. government, with states and localities dividing the rest, though the state verses local share varies widely across states. Regarding school boards, you might note that they rarely prioritize academics. See https://www.brookings.edu/articles/school-superintendents-have-no-contractual-obligation-to-improve-learning/.

Response 2: These suggestions are very relevant to the field of education and are appreciated. As suggested by the reviewer, we added information about the kind of legislation that has been passed by Congress that schools and districts are responsible for implementing on lines 142-144. Additionally, the responsibility of school funding has been integrated into the discussion of the federal, state, and local government actors.

Comment 3: On pp. 8-9, perhaps under capacity building tools, you should mention the role of testing, perhaps in particular the NAEP, which serves as the “nation’s report card” ( https://hep.gse.harvard.edu/9781682537251/assessing-the-nations-report-card/). These and international tests like the TIMSS have pushed pressure on schools to improve by demonstrating that despite rising inputs, schools have not improved and may have gotten worse, despite smaller family size, less cognitive challenge, and greater wealth, which should lead to broad improvements (https://www.vitalsource.com/products/education-myths-jay-p-greene-v9780742577879). They also show that U.S. schools are only average among industrial and postindustrial countries.

Response 3: The importance of testing is appreciated by this team and we are grateful for this comment and include the role of standardized testing under NCLB in line 68. Based on this team's understanding of NAEP, it does not align with the definition of capacity-building tools adopted in this chapter. Rather, standardized tests can align with several of the explained tools depending on the data they collect and if any funding is tied to outcomes. Given that standardized testing can be utilized under several of the tools described in this chapter, our team has decided to not include it in the discussion.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study focuses on several of aspects of the education policymaking process and discusses such aspects as policy adoption, competing goals of education  within education  policymaking.  Particular attention is given to the historical aspects power and racism by discussing changes across different contexts.  The paper provides original and  comprehensive view of the topic with the  adequate number of references that are quoted appropriately. The topic will be of interest  to researchers and policy makers. The authors offer a broad perspective of the topic and outline future prospectus of “ educational equity and more accessible schools for all students but particularly for historically disadvantaged ones, who have traditionally been the most disproportionately excluded. I suggest to consider this paper for publication. The last reference needs to be amended.

Author Response

Thank you for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find below detailed responses to your valuable comments. 

Comment 1: The study focuses on several of aspects of the education policymaking process and discusses such aspects as policy adoption, competing goals of education  within education  policymaking.  Particular attention is given to the historical aspects power and racism by discussing changes across different contexts.  The paper provides original and  comprehensive view of the topic with the  adequate number of references that are quoted appropriately. The topic will be of interest  to researchers and policy makers. The authors offer a broad perspective of the topic and outline future prospectus of “ educational equity and more accessible schools for all students but particularly for historically disadvantaged ones, who have traditionally been the most disproportionately excluded. I suggest to consider this paper for publication. 

Response 1: Thank you for taking the time to review our paper. We appreciate the affirming and insightful feedback. 

Comment 2: The last reference needs to be amended.

Response 2: Thank you for pointing out the error in the last citation. This has been amended number 68 on the reference list. 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This seems for the most part fine, a good summary as one would expect of an encyclopedia piece. I would request two changes, each on or about p. 2. First, NCLB was intended to increase equity by closing achievement gaps, and there is some evidence it did that, which you should at least acknowledge. Second, the article suggests that NCLB cut, or at least did not raise funding. Granted that the U.S. government increases were modest (and in any event the federal government expends just under 10% of education funding. Yet per pupil education funding expanded dramatically in the 1968-2010 period controlling for inflation and the number of students, expanding in all but two years. You need to note this at least in passing; else the work seems misleading. Frederick Hess's edited Stretching the School Dollar covers this as do many other works. 

Author Response

Hello,

Thank you again for your time and commitment to improving this manuscript. See below for details of our revisions. 

Comment 1: First, NCLB was intended to increase equity by closing achievement gaps, and there is some evidence it did that, which you should at least acknowledge.

Response: We appreciate your acknowledgment of and satisfaction with the first round of changes made. To address your remaining concerns, we acknowledge that NCLB was a bipartisan effort. We added citations that can speak to the policy's successes for a more neutral portrayal of the policy.

Comment 2: Second, the article suggests that NCLB cut, or at least did not raise funding. Granted that the U.S. government increases were modest (and in any event the federal government expends just under 10% of education funding. Yet per pupil education funding expanded dramatically in the 1968-2010 period controlling for inflation and the number of students, expanding in all but two years. You need to note this at least in passing; else the work seems misleading. Frederick Hess's edited Stretching the School Dollar covers this as do many other works.  

Response: Along with the changes above, we also edited the section of the summary that discusses how NCLB impacted school funding to reflect the changes requested. In doing so, we added additional information that notes the overall funding increases that were provided through the bill while also still trying to give space to the narratives of the schools and communities that had their curriculum narrowed and schools closed as a result of the policy, (even as an unintended consequence). We also included the work edited by Hess & Osberg (2010) that you suggested and Forte (2010), a piece that we believe to be in conversation with the Hess & Osberg (2010) text to support claims regarding the increased funding and ESEA more broadly.