Cross-sector learning in public policy
Sectors differ, but they
 share social geographies
 must adapt to the same political and
economic environments
 are subjected to the same policy/
management fads
Cross-sector learning in public policy
Cross-sector learning can
 illuminate assumptions


suggest policy innovations



by analogy; distance is good
offer “pilot data” on effectiveness
identify what’s promising; provide cautionary tales
enrich research


point to interesting questions
Inform methods (measurement, design)
NCLB – a case in point




Federal legislation, local discretion
School performance primarily assessed via high
stakes testing
Carrots and sticks, but sticks a prominent feature;
requirement to make AYP reinforced with sanctions
Expectation of rapid improvement


100% proficient by 2014
Relatively little additional funding to accomplish this
NCLB – specifically re: race & ethnicity

Explicit goal of achieving parity in performance


No excuses; rejects the “soft bigotry of low
expectations”


Subgroup reporting rules
Racial isolation, economic inequality, concentrated poverty
not a consideration; little targeted funding
Attainment of an absolute performance level, rather
than improvement in performance*
Illuminate assumptions
Capacity
Process
Outcome
Performance
Reported performance
Carrots and
sticks
Illuminate assumptions
Capacity
Process
Outcome
Performance
Residential segregation
Property tax base financing
Link between race & wealth
Carrots and
sticks
Reported performance
Suggest and “pilot test” policy
innovations
Initial criteria for AYP based on absolute
performance; recent innovations include use
of
 gain scores
 confidence intervals
 multi-year averages
 “differentiated” accountability
Foreshadow consequences
Subgroup reporting rule
 requires schools to pass with all subgroups
 central to equity strategy
 but unintended consequence of identifying
racially diverse schools as failing, due to
propagation of Type I error
“…subgroup reporting rules are analogous to a system that
makes every school flip a coin for each subgroup, and
then giving awards to schools that get heads on every
flip” (Kane and Staiger).
Kane TJ, Staiger DO. “Unintended Consequences ….” in Peterson and West, 2003.
Enrich research
Education research can inform HSR in
 Measurement issues: measuring
improvement
 Analytic approaches: multilevel modeling –
effects at the peer, teacher, school,
neighborhood, school district level



eg impacts of segregation at various levels
Topics: Teacher salaries and teacher quality
Designs (counterfactuals)
End
Q for audience: Journal venues?
Comments: Afterward, or jan.blustein@nyu.edu
Segregation by race/ethnicity
Poverty and race: the typical student
Student racial/ethnic composition and
school performance
Note: SINI is worse than AYP
Kim and Sunderman Educational Researcher (2005)
Avenues for action


More vigorous civil rights law enforcement
Identify issues and challenges faced by chronically
depleted providers/organizations



Identify solutions that work for chronically depleted
providers/organizations, and provide targeted resources
Set realistic goals (time scale; improvement rather
than absolute performance)
Identify and champion those that perform well
against the odds