Winter 2009-2010
Meeting Time: Tuesdays 4:30-6:50pm
Instructor: Meredith Honig mihonig@uw.edu
Location: Thompson 101
Office Hours: By appointment Mondays, Tuesdays, & Wednesdays
Teaching Assistants
Mike DeArmond: dearmond@uw.edu
Patricia (Trish) McNeil: p_mcneil@att.net
Lydia Rainey: lydiar@uw.edu
Sources for required readings:

Honig, M.I. (2006). New directions in education policy implementation: Confronting complexity .
Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Course Go-Post: https://catalysttools.washington.edu/gopost/board/mihonig/14294/
COURSE DESCRIPTION
This policy analysis course starts from the premise that a deep understanding of research on education policy implementation is essential for students across the College of Education and beyond who are concerned about educational improvement. After all, education practitioners of all stripes now face challenging demands to engage in “evidence-based” decision-making and in turn call on policy analysts and other researchers to produce evidence about what works in educational improvement. Yet the line between what works and what does not work is not simple. For virtually any education policy approach, analysts can find evidence that confirms or questions its success. How can education policy analysts make sense of this messy terrain and produce the kinds of rigorous, actionable analyses that can strengthen decision-making in and about educational systems?
This course takes up this broad challenge with a focus on the following questions:

What is implementation, what gets implemented, and why are implementation analyses important to educational improvement?

For decades, research on policy implementation has shown that policy designs shape implementation but so do a host of other factors. What are those other factors that help explain how implementation unfolds? How should policy analysts choose among explanations to ground their analyses?
 What is “good” evidence of policy implementation and how should an analyst use such evidence to inform their implementation analyses and policy recommendations?
Course Goals
This course aims to strengthen your ability to:

Use research on policy implementation to assess implementation opportunities and pitfalls in complex organizational settings;

Collect and use evidence about policy implementation to develop policy recommendations; and

Speak and write knowledgably and well about current education policy topics (e.g., No Child Left
Behind, curricular reform, school reconstitution).
1 EDLPS 575/2010

Scope and Structure
In the first two course meetings we address basic definitions and perspectives that undergird this course.
Key questions include: What is implementation and what gets implemented? Why is implementation analysis important to policy analysis? What have we learned from the past 40 years of research about how education policy implementation plays out? What do good policy analyses do when they treat implementation issues well?
For the remainder of the course we examine various conditions that mediate how implementation unfolds and how to derive recommendations from implementation analyses. Throughout the course we grapple with the kind of evidence an analyst should collect to ground his/her analyses and how to use that evidence in support of an argument about policy implementation and recommendations for action.
Accommodations
To request academic accommodations due to a disability, please contact Disability Resources for
Students, 448 Schmitz, 206-543-8924/V, 206-543-8925/TTY. If you have a letter from Disability
Resources for Students indicating you have a disability which requires academic accommodations, please present the letter to me immediately so we can discuss the accommodations you might need in this class.
If you have questions or concerns about disability accommodations for students do not hesitate to contact me or DRS directly.
GoPost Instructions
I will use GoPost to distribute course readings, make course announcements (e.g., related to inclement weather, readings, etc.), and otherwise to communicate with you. You may also use our GoPost space to communicate with the rest of the class. You are responsible for monitoring our GoPost site for any course postings. Please do the following as soon as possible to ensure you receive timely notification of any postings from me or other members of the class:
1. In your web browser, type in the link to the GoPost for our course: https://catalysttools.washington.edu/gopost/board/mihonig/14294/
2. When prompted, log in with your UW NetID. Then you will be directed to the GoPost space for our course. You will see that I have already posted our course syllabus, the description of written assignments, and the grading rubric as well as the course readings. I also have opened up areas for future discussions and announcements.
3. At the top of the page click on “Profile”.
4. Once on your profile page, click on “notifications” under your login name. If the notifications option does not appear, you may need to post to the site before you have the option of receiving notifications.
Please use the “Blank posts” spot on the site to send a message to the site.
5. Indicate that you would like to receive notification of postings either “immediately” or as a “daily summary.” If you opt for “daily summary”, please manually check the site before class for any last- minute announcements, especially related to inclement weather.
2 EDLPS 575/2010

COURSE REQUIREMENTS AND GRADING
Note: A rubric that specifies standards for grading will be distributed separately.
REQUIREMENTS DUE DATE GRADING
Course Goal Statement
In no more than one single-spaced page, please tell me about yourself by answering the following questions:

What are 1-2 professional experiences you bring to this course?

What are 1-2 goals you have for your participation in the course? Why those?

What do you think might be a focus for your policy analysis project? Why that focus?
Your statement will help me to take a quick inventory of the expertise each of you brings to this course and to understand some of your expectations for our work together this quarter. Please use the statement to think through how you might focus your work in this course to advance your own goals.
*ADVICE: Be selective. Highlight a couple significant points.
*ADVICE: You may find the Radin reading useful in prompting your thinking about your goals related to policy studies.
Class Participation
Participation depends on your attendance and your careful completion of assigned readings. I have developed course lectures, discussions, cases, and other activities with the assumption that you have completed the assigned reading in advance of each class meeting and that you have used the questions in the syllabus to guide your reading.
* ADVICE: Form reading groups (2-3 students) to discuss course readings and questions prior to class meetings. (See Extra Credit below.)
Policy Analysis Paper
See assignment description distributed separately.
Friday
January 8 by 5pm
Each class meeting
50% of final grade
50% of final grade
Extra Credit
Form a discussion group of 2-3 class members. Prior to the class for which the readings have been assigned, meet as a group for at least one hour to review and discuss the readings and the guiding questions in the syllabus. During the meeting each person takes notes to document and verify their engagement in the meeting. Copy all participants’ notes and submit them to Meredith and your TA by 4pm on the Tuesday on which the readings are due. That is, you are meeting, discussing readings and submitting notes in advance of the class session for which the readings have been assigned. Your notes may take a variety of forms but they should indicate who met and how long you met and provide some evidence that you discussed the readings for at least an hour.
See assignment description
6 Tuesdays by 4pm to mihonig@ uw.edu
and your TA
Will raise your final grade by
1/3.
E.g. If your final grade before extra credit is a B+ your final grade would be an A-.
3 EDLPS 575/2010

SCHEDULE OF READINGS & GUIDING QUESTIONS
PART I: Policy Implementation in an Age of Complexity
January 5 Introduction
During this session we will address the following questions about basic course definitions: What is policy? What is policy implementation? What does it mean to understand how policy gets implemented?
Why are implementation analyses essential to policy analysis and educational improvement?
January 12 Introduction continued.
Education Policy Implementation: The state of the field and this course
The Radin and Honig readings address two interrelated trends in policy studies: (1) the evolution of policy analysis as a professional field and (2) advances in knowledge about education policy implementation. We will use these readings to deepen our understanding of these trends and to discuss their implications for the work of policy analysts, especially when it comes to understanding implementation dynamics. Please come to class prepared to discuss the following questions.

According to Radin, what are major differences between policy analysis in the early 1960s and policy analysis today? In particular, who tended to be policy analysts in the 1960s and where did they work? Who tends to do policy analysis today and where do they work?

According to Radin, what are the implications for the training of policy analysts?
 What do you think are the implications of Radin’s argument for what you need to know and be able to do given your goals for yourself related to policy and policy implementation?
My introductory chapter, “Complexity and policy implementation,” provides a history of policy implementation research and summarizes lessons learned about implementation through several phases of this research.

What are those lessons?

Why do you think early implementation studies rested on assumptions that variation in implementation (and other deviations from policy designers’ intentions) is problematic?

How has education policy implementation research shifted its focus?

Do educational leaders find variation any less problematic today? Why or why not?

What are 2-3 implications of “complexity” for contemporary policy analysis?
Looking at the syllabus and assignment description and reflecting on Honig and Radin:

In what ways does the organization and approach of this course reflect the arguments in the Honig and Radin articles?

In what ways does the main policy analysis assignment for this course reflect those lessons?

What questions do you have about the purpose and structure of the assignment?
Radin, B.A. (1997). Presidential address: The evolution of the policy analysis field: From conversation to conversations. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 16 (2), 204-218.
Honig, M.I. (2006). Complexity and policy implementation: Challenges and opportunities for the field, (pp. 1-24). In M.I. Honig (Ed.), New directions in education policy implementation:
Confronting complexity . Albany, NY: The State University of New York Press.
EDLPS 575 Written Assignments Sheet
4 EDLPS 575/2010

PART II: CONDITIONS THAT MEDIATE AND HELP EXPLAIN
IMPLEMENTATION OUTCOMES
January 19 Behavioral assumptions of policy tools
As the authors for this week highlight, implementation sometimes does not play out as policy designers intend if their policy designs rest on the wrong underlying behavioral assumptions. Please come to class prepared to discuss the following questions based on the readings:

What are policy tools?

Which policy tools do the authors identify in the readings?
 What do the authors mean by “behavioral assumptions of policy tools” and how do those assumptions matter to implementation?

What are the behavioral assumptions of each of the policy tools discussed in the readings for this week?

The authors wrote their pieces in the late 1980s. What other tools might they include in their catalog if they were writing today?
McDonnell, L.M., & Elmore, R.F. (1987). Getting the job done: Alternative policy instruments.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 9 (2), 133-152.
Schneider, A. & Ingram, H. (1990). Behavioral assumptions of policy tools. Journal of Politics , 52 ,
510-529.
January 26 Economics: The importance of costs, self-interest, incentives, and context
Various implementation analyses such as those we read for this week take an economic approach to implementation and assume that specific factors highlighted in micro-economic theory mediate implementation. Please use each of the readings for this week to answer the following questions:

What are the economic factors that the authors highlight as consequential to implementation?
Which of those factors relate to policy, people, and places and how the three interact to produce implementation outcomes?

What kinds of evidence do economic analyses of implementation seem to rely on to support their arguments?

What kinds of recommendations stem logically from an economic analysis?

What do you think are the pros and cons of taking an economic approach to implementation analyses in education?
Loeb, S., & McEwan, P.J. (2006). An economic approach to education policy implementation (pp.
169-186). In M.I. Honig (Ed.), New directions in education policy implementation: Confronting complexity . Albany, NY: The State University of New York Press.
Mintrop, H., & Sunderman, G. (2009). Predictable failure of federal sanctions-driven accountability for school improvement—And why we may retain it anyway. Educational Researcher, 38 (5), 353-
364.
Wohlstetter, P., Datnow, A., & Park, V. (2008). Creating a system for data-driven decision-making:
Applying the principal-agent framework. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 19(3), 239-
259.
5 EDLPS 575/2010

February 2 Politics & Social Capital
Politics and social capital are two other sets of conditions that mediate implementation. While they differ from each other, both focus on certain types of relationships among people as essential to how implementation plays out. Based on this week’s readings:

What are the factors that political and social capital approaches to examining implementation each highlight as consequential to implementation outcomes? How do those factors help reveal how people who take a political or social capital perspective tend to see policy, people, and places interacting to produce implementation outcomes?

What kinds of evidence does a political analysis of implementation rely on? A social capital analysis?

What kinds of recommendations stem logically from each analysis?

What do you think are the pros and cons of taking an each of these approaches to implementation analyses in education?

Drawing on implementation lessons discussed in this class so far: How would you design a reconstitution policy to improve the quality of implementation? How would you define “highquality” implementation and what would it take to achieve implementation at that level?
Malen, B. (2006). Revisiting policy implementation as a political phenomenon: The case of reconstitution policies. In M.I. Honig (Ed.), New directions in education policy implementation:
Confronting complexity (pp.83-104). Albany, NY: The State University of New York Press.
Smylie, M., & Evans, A.E. (2006). Social capital and the problem of implementation. In M.I. Honig
(Ed.), New directions in education policy implementation: Confronting complexity (pp.187-208).
Albany, NY: The State University of New York Press.
Orr, M. (1998). The challenge of school reform in Baltimore: Race, jobs, and politics. In C.N. Stone
(Ed.). Changing urban education (pp. 93-117). Lawrence, MS: University Press of Kansas.
February 9 (1) Comparing economic, political, and social capital analyses
(2) Good policy writing
Case materials to be distributed. We will dismiss class at 6:15pm due to the Geoffrey Canada lecture.
February 16 Socio-cultural Factors
Like political explanations of implementation, socio-cultural explanations also emphasize issues of power but in a distinctly different way. The readings for this week each take a socio-cultural approach to understanding implementation. The Schneider & Ingram and Dumas pieces emphasize how socio-cultural dynamics become embedded in policy designs in ways that are particularly consequential to policy outcomes. The Anyon and Pollock pieces describe in some detail how those socio-cultural dynamics in policy design as well as in personal relationships and local contexts or places play out in schools. Please read each piece carefully and come prepared to discuss how each piece treats the following questions:

What are the factors that a socio-cultural approach to implementation highlights as consequential to implementation outcomes? How do those factors help reveal how people who take a sociocultural perspective tend to see policy, people, and places interacting to produce implementation outcomes?
(continued)
6 EDLPS 575/2010


On what kinds of evidence does a socio-cultural analysis of implementation depend?

What kinds of recommendations stem logically from a socio-cultural analysis of implementation?

What do you think are the pros and cons of taking a socio-cultural approach to implementation analyses in education?
Schneider, A., & Ingram, H. (1993). Social construction of target populations: Implications for politics and policy. The American Political Science Review, 87 (2), 334-347.
Dumas, M.J., & Anyon, J. (2006). Toward a critical approach to education policy implementation:
Implications for the (battle) field. In M.I. Honig (Ed.), New directions in education policy implementation: Confronting complexity, (pp. 149-168). Albany, NY: The State University of New
York Press.
Anyon, J. (1997). Ghetto schooling: A political economy of urban educational reform . New York,
NY: Teachers College Press, 3-38.
Pollack, M. (2001). How the question we ask most about race in education is the very question we most suppress. Educational Researcher , 30 (9), 2-12.
February 23 & March 2 Cognition
In their classic studies of street-level bureaucrats, Weatherley and Lipsky argue that complexity of implementers’ professional demands and their ability to manage those demands are primary influences on implementation.

According to Weatherley and Lipsky, on what strategies do street-level bureaucrats tend to draw to help them cope with that complexity?
The case of Mrs. O reveals with a classroom-based example how teachers lack of understanding of new complex policy demands leads them to respond to those demands in particular and particularly limited ways.

What did the policy in the Mrs. O case ask Mrs. O to do in her classroom?

How did Mrs. O respond in this case?

How does Cohen explain her response?
Spillane et al., Coburn, and Hill elaborate on these dynamics—what implementation researchers now call cognitive constraints on individual decision-making that impact implementation.

What are the factors that a cognitive approach to examining implementation highlights as consequential to implementation outcomes? How do those factors help reveal how people who take a cognitive perspective tend to see policy, people, and places interacting to produce implementation outcomes?

What kinds of evidence does a cognitive approach to implementation call for to support its arguments?

What kinds of recommendations stem logically from a cognitive analysis?

What do you think are the pros and cons of taking a cognitive approach to implementation analyses in education?
Weatherley, R., & Lipsky, M. (1977). Street-level bureaucrats and institutional innovation:
Implementing special-education reform. Harvard Education Review , 47(2), 171-197.
(continued)
7 EDLPS 575/2010

Cohen, D.K. (1990). A revolution in one classroom: The case of Mrs. Oublier. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12 (3), 311-329.
Spillane, J.P., Reiser, B.J., Gomez, L.M. (2006). Policy implementation and cognition: The role of human, social, and distributed cognition in framing policy implementation. In M.I. Honig (Ed.), New directions in education policy implementation: Confronting complexity (pp. 47-64). Albany, NY: The
State University of New York Press.
Coburn, C.E. (2001). Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate reading policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23 (2), 145-170.
Hill, H.C. (2006). Language matters: How characteristics of language complicate policy implementation. In M.I. Honig (Ed.), New directions in education policy implementation:
Confronting complexity, (pp. 65-82). Albany, NY: The State University of New York Press.
March 9
To be determined
Wrap Up
8 EDLPS 575/2010