becker dissertation excerpted

8/7/2019 Becker Dissertation Excerpted

1/24

DIGITAL EQUITY IN EDUCATION ANDSTATE-LEVEL EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY POLICIES:

A MULTI-LEVEL ANALYSIS

by

Jonathan D. Becker

Dissertation committee:

Professor Aaron Pallas, SponsorProfessor Dale MannProfessor Lawrence DeCarlo

Submitted in partial fulfillment of therequirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

under the Executive Committee of The GraduateSchool of Arts and Sciences

Columbia University

2003


2/24

B. THE STATE AS THE UNIT OF EDUCATIONAL POLICY ANALYSIS

Education technology is now a particularly centralized domain of educational

policy increasingly within the purview of state education agencies, not unlike many other

areas of education policy. That is to say, in a governance system of American

education that might be characterized as a perpetual balance between local education

agencies and more centralized authority, the current balance of power rests more on

the side of centralization, with states being held most accountable. Thus, to place a

discussion of digital equity in education and state education technology policy in

context, it is important and helpful to first understand how this shift in authority has

occurred more generally.

Adoption and implementation decisions within the arena of educational policy

generally, and learning technology policy in particular, occur amidst the constant debate

over the locus of power and control over education. The Tenth Amendment to the

United States Constitution states, The powers not delegated to the United States by

the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States

respectively, or to the people. This amendment was the last addition to the Bill of

Rights, which was insisted upon by the states in the constitutional ratification process.

Amongst other areas, the states have interpreted this amendment as effectively leaving

power and control over education in their hands rather than the federal governments.

State responsibility for education developed over the course of the nineteenth

century, and now all 50 state constitutions sanction education as a public good and

require compulsory school attendance of all young people. In addition to the usual

constitutional guarantees of a thorough or efficient public education system, states


3/24

have control over the system of taxation that funds public schooling. Still, much of the

power of public education is delegated to the more than 15,000 local school districts

throughout the country. Include the fact that the federal government has not ceded total

control over education to the states, and the result is the multi-layered, fragmented

governance structure over public education in the United States.

Thus, in our democratic society there continues to be great debate about the

precise role of the American states in our nations multi-layered, fragmented system of

public education. Furthermore, there is considerable disagreement about how much

influence state authorities should have on what is taught in public schools and how

those schools should be financed and evaluated.

1. LOCAL CONTROL OF EDUCATION

While Americans have long been politically and philosophically committed to the

ideals of local control of education, the definition and organization of local control has

been fluid and a frequently debated dynamic. Philosophically, local control was often

justified by application of either John Lockes view that legitimate governmental

concerns were restricted to the protection of life, liberty and property, or to the principle

of subsidiarity which holds that it is unjust to assign to a greater and higher

association what lesser and subordinate associations can do (Messner 1951, p. 103).

Therefore, in one sense, there is the argument that local control means authority at the

most decentralized level possible. Interpreting Lockes philosophy or the principle of

subsidiarity to the extreme, proponents of true local control believe that the state


4/24

should not interfere in matters of public education where local communities can

adequately carry out that responsibility (Theobald & Bardzell, 2000).

In fact, for most of our nations history, the balance between state responsibility

and local control slanted heavily towards the latter. The earliest system of common

schools was clearly governed exclusively through local control and financed primarily by

local funds. As late as 1929-30, for example, at the height of local control, 83% of all

revenue for public elementary and secondary schools was locally generated (NCES

1999). Remaining funds came from the states.1 It is uncertain, though, whether high

levels of local funding created the inclination toward local control or whether high levels

of local funding were just an expression of Americas long-standing and deeply

embedded fear of big government. As Theobald and Bardzell (2000) argue, local

control of schools was the natural consequence of the American struggle for

independence.

Our non-centralized, federal system of government is based on the FoundingFathers unwillingness to trust central government with the supervision of thepeoples liberties. In a like fashion, a non-centralized, local system of schoolfunding could find its basis in Americans unwillingness to trust centralgovernment with the supervision of their childrens education (pp. 4-5).

However, commitments to ideals such as subsidiarity notwithstanding, local

control might also simply mean that education is outside the jurisdiction of the federal

government, and power over educational policy is, therefore, delegated to the states via

the tenth amendment to the Constitution. This latter definition of local control has

clearly carried the day in recent years. That is, for a host of reasons, over the last half-

century, and the last two decades in particular, the initiative in deciding educational

1As a point of comparison, in academic year 1994-95, 43.8% of school funds were local and

46.8% came from the states (NCES, 1999).


5/24

policy has shifted away from local school boards to the state level. As Kirst (1987)

wrote, [n]ow state government officials create educational policies, and local groups

react to them (p. 22).

Before examining those reasons, however, it should be mentioned that while

state education policy activism has increased relative to local education agencies, there

has been no change in the legal relationship between states and districts. The

relationship between states and local governments is not federal, but unitary (Fowler,

2000). In a unitary government, multiple levels of government exist, but only the central

government has sovereign power. Within states, therefore, local education agencies

operate within a policy framework established by the state; and, although local

education policy makers have considerable discretion, in the end they are accountable

to the state. As a result, states have the legal authority both to create and abolish

school districts. They also have the power to develop education policies at the state

level and require local districts to adhere to them. Moreover, they have the legal right to

take over local districts that they consider failures and operate them until they meet

state standards. However, until 25 or 30 years ago, states were willing to let public

education remain a state authority locally administered (Fowler, 2000, p. 126). Today,

however, they are no longer content to abdicate their constitutional authority; instead,

they are asserting their legal rights that they have always had. So, there is nothing new

about the legal status of school districts relative to the states; it has not changed.

However, the states approach and activity in discharging their constitutional

responsibility for providing public education has changed (Fowler, 2000).


6/24

2. THE TRANSFER OF POWER TO THE STATES

There have been a number of reasons proffered as to why, over the last half-

century, and the last two decades in particular, the initiative in deciding educational

policy has shifted away from local school boards to the state. One factor contributing to

this power shift was the new federalism of the 1970s that pushed much of the

educational responsibility that the federal government had collected in the 1960s back

to the states (Theobald and Bardzell, 2000). At the same time, a second factor was

landmark school finance litigation, such as San Antonio Independent School District v.

Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1973), which sought to narrow or eliminate existing disparities in

spending across school districts. Stymied by the federal judiciary, advocates of

educational equity turned to state courts, resulting in increased activism in educational

policy on the part of state courts. Bull (2000) argues that demographic, social and

economic changes have made increased state control more acceptable to political

leaders and their constituents. Finally, Fowler (2000) suggests that over the last few

decades, state governmental agencies and officials developed increased capacity,

became more representative, and, therefore, became more legitimate. These are just a

few of the many factors contributing to the increase in state authority over education

policy, and they are discussed in more detail below.

a. New Federalism

Throughout history, the federal government has concentrated on areas of major

national concern. Prior to 1950, education was not an area of policy concentration for

the federal government. The typical approach of the federal government to education

was to stimulate action through a national commission report or some other decree by a


7/24

respected source. The Report of the Committee ofTen in 1893, for example, sought to

standardize secondary education for pre-collegiate students. Then, in 1918, The

Cardinal Principles of Secondary Education targeted students who would take jobs

directly after school (Firestone, Fuhrman, & Kirst, 1991). These reports represented the

extent of the involvement of the federal government in education up to the second half

of the twentieth century.

However, inspired by Sputnikand the burgeoning Cold War, the federal

government began to establish a stronger presence in educational policy in the 1950s.

The National Defense Education Act represented the federal governments first serious

foray into the governance of curriculum (Lewis & Maruna, 1999). Brown v. Board of

Education (1954) symbolized the federal governments involvement in educational

policy through the judiciary, and began a wave of federally-initiated educational reforms

stressing equal educational opportunities for all children. The Brown decision was

followed by the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which became a means of enforcing the

desegregation lawsuits that arose in the wake ofBrown. Additionally, state education

departments became the administrators of new federal initiatives such as Title V and

Title VI of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (Fuhrman & Elmore, 1990).

By the 1980s, the emphasis of federal education policy shifted from equity and

opportunity to excellence and performance. The reform efforts of the 1980s were

characterized by national commission reports and state legislative and executive action.

The commission reports, such asA Nation at Risk(National Commission on Excellence

in Education, 1983), established a series of targets and directions for change. State


8/24

actions provided the mandates, incentives, and resources to ensure local action

(Firestone, Fuhrman, & Kirst, 1991).

At the same time, landmark school finance litigation, such as Serrano v. Priest

(1976) and Robinson v. Cahill(1973), sought to narrow or eliminate existing disparities

in spending across school districts. Educational equity lawsuits had been stymied by

the federal court system (see, e.g., San Antonio Independent School District v.

Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1973) where the claim that education is a fundamental right

protected by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was denied).

Therefore, advocates of educational equity turned to state courts for interpretations of

state constitutions educational provisions.2 The judicial response to cases such as

these promised to push states towards providing a larger share of public school

revenues. This change in the revenue stream created clear implications for state

regulatory prerogatives: those who pay the piper call the tune (Fuhrman & Elmore,

1990).

b. Increased capacityand legitimacy ofstate governments

Thus, actions in the federal legislature and judiciary over the last half of the

twentieth century forced increased responsibility for educational policy upon the states.

This new federalism and the increased power for states over education might have

been problematic had state governments not developed the legitimacy and capacity to

exercise such power. For throughout most of American history, though states had

considerable legal and constitutional authority, they lacked the capacity to exercise it

2See e.g. Robinson v. Cahill, 62 N.J. 473, 303 A.2d 273 (1973); Serrano v. Priest, 18 Cal.3d 728,

135 Cal.Rptr. 345, 557 P.2d 929 (1976); Rose v. The Council for Better Education, Inc., 790 S.W.2d 186(Ky. 1989); Edgewood Independent School District v. Kirby, 777 S.W.2d 391 (Tex. 1989);Abbott v.Burke, 119 N.J. 287, 575 A.2d 359 (1990)


9/24

(Fowler, 2000). As Fowler (2000) writes, glaring defects were apparent in all three

branches of state government (p. 129).

Governors in many states, for example, could not serve long enough to build

power or carry out programs, had small staffs, and usually lacked significant control

over budgetary processes and could not veto legislation. State legislatures were less

respected than governors, as most were very unrepresentative. Rural areas were

greatly over-represented, while urban ones were correspondingly underrepresented, yet

districts were rarely redrawn. State legislatures were therefore typically dominated by

white [professionals] who promoted the interests of their rural constituents and opposed

needed modernization as too expensive (Fowler, 2000, pp. 129-20). State court

systems were no better than the executive and legislative branches of state

government. They were very disjointed, with a complicated structure consisting of many

types and levels of courts, making coordination nearly impossible. In addition, state

judges were often unqualified politicians whose decisions were frequently based on the

interests of their supporters rather than on the law (Fowler, 2000).

However, as Fowler (2000) points out, during the last four decades of the

twentieth century, state government was transformed. Several national forces

converged to enhance state power, both overall and particularly with respect to

educational policy. First, as a result of two U.S. Supreme Court decisions, Baker v.

Carr(1962) and Reynolds v. Sims (1964), state governments were forced to re-draw

their voting districts in conformity with the one person, one vote principle. These

cases, in combination with the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, made it more

difficult for states to restrict the voting rights of African-Americans and citizens from


10/24

other minority groups. Therefore, state governments not only became more

representative of the population that they served, but more importantly, gained a new

legitimacy (Fowler, 2000).

Second, as of 1996, 40 states had either heavily amended their constitutions or

adopted new ones resulting in a strengthening of all three branches of state government

(Van Horn, 1996). For example, as of the mid-1950s, 21 states limited governors to a

single two-year term, and in 17 others they were limited to a single four-year term. By

1996, all but two of the states had four-year terms for governors, and all but one permit

governors to serve two consecutive terms (Fowler, 2000). State legislative branches

were strengthened by the lengthening of legislative sessions and the development of

larger, more professional staffs. State court systems have been consolidated and

streamlined, and judicial activity is coordinated by a professional court administrator in

most states. These constitutional and legal reforms of state government have

increased their legitimacy in the eyes of the citizens and the capacity of state

governmental agencies to attend to increased responsibilities (Fowler, 2000).

Within education, two major changes took place. First, the federal government

realized that the state departments of education (SDEs) were generally too weak and

understaffed to carry out their increased responsibilities adequately. As a result,

programs were developed to strengthen SDEs, funding their expansion and thereby

giving more power to the executive branch of state government. As these federally

fortified SDEs administered the new federal programs, those who worked in them

gained experience and visibility in their states. Gradually, they felt competent to take on

other forms of educational oversight as well (Goertz, 1995).


11/24

Second, whereas state governments had historically operated in relative isolation

from each other, intergovernmental lobbying groups that allow state governments to

work together to influence state and national policy have developed and flourished.

Organizations such as the National Governors Association (NGA), the National

Conference of State Legislatures, and the Council of State Governments facilitate the

exchange of information among state leaders and provide a means both for

coordinating state policy change and lobbying in Washington (Bowman and Kearney,

1986).

The intergovernmental lobby in education is spearheaded by the Education

Commission of the States (ECS). This organization is a policy network set up by the

National Governors Conference in 1966. Headquartered in Denver, and financed by

both the federal government and foundations, ECS convenes a national meeting on

education policy every year that state school superintendents, governors, state

legislators, and other top leaders attend (Fowler, 2000).

In addition to ECS, there are intergovernmental organizations that represent

state-level education leaders such as state boards of education and state

superintendents of education. The National Association of State Boards of Education

(NASBE) is a nonprofit, private association that represents state and territorial boards of

education. NASBEs principal objectives include strengthening state leadership in

educational policymaking, promoting excellence in the education of all students,

advocating equality of access to educational opportunity, and assuring continued citizen

support for public education (National Association of State Boards of Education

[NASBE], 2003).


12/24

The Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) is a nationwide, nonprofit

organization composed of public officials who lead the departments responsible for

elementary and secondary education in the states, the U.S. extra-state jurisdictions, the

District of Columbia, and the Department of Defense Dependents Schools. In

representing chief education administrators, CCSSO works on behalf of the state

agencies that have primary authority for education in each state. Recently, a group of

state education leaders broke off from CCSSO and created an alternative organization,

the Education Leaders Council (ELC). Originally started in 1995 by five state

superintendents of education, the ELC now includes eight chiefs and about a dozen

state school boards, as well as other state and federal officials. It supports strong

accountability systems linked to rigorous standards, more flexibility for states and

districts in spending federal aid, and charter schools (Keegan & Root, 1996).

c. Demographic, Socialand Economic Changes

Finally, in addition to new federalism and the increased capacity of state

governments, Bull (2000) argues that a number of demographic, social, and economic

changes have made this increased state control over education acceptable to our

political leaders and their constituencies. As one example, Bull (2000) suggests that

increased mobility possibilities for families creates an expectation that children will

receive a comparable education no matter where they happen to attend school.

Similarly, there is a belief among the citizenry that inadequate education circumstances

threaten our nations ability to compete in the global economy. In sum, the generally

held belief amongst the citizenry is that it is now too risky for local schools to depart too

significantly from those in other cities, states, or even countries.


13/24

Second, according to Bull (2000), other changes have tended to erode the social

trust upon which local control of schools is based (p. 24). That is, certain factors have

diminished the electorates public confidence in local authority over education. For

instance, with the aging of the population, a much smaller proportion of Americans are

parents of school-age children. Therefore, fewer local citizens have direct knowledge of

the schools upon which to base their conviction in the value of what is occurring therein,

and fewer feel an obligation to support schools that are not serving their children. This

erosion of confidence might be demonstrated by public opinion polls such as the Phi

Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll Of the Public's AttitudesT

oward the Public Schools, wherein

respondents have tended to give low grades to public schools nationally. In the 34th

annual poll just released, 70% of respondents gave the public schools in the nation as a

whole a grade of C or lower (Rose & Gallup, 2002).3

A similar effect has arisen from the increased segregation of cities by economic

status and as a result by ethnicity.

On the one hand, the existence of distinct suburban and urban school districtsmay lead suburbanites to know little about urban schools and, thus, to seek toenforce on them the same model of education that exists in the suburbsOn theother hand, these same considerations may also lead urban communities tobelieve that they are being systematically deprived of resources and otheradvantages enjoyed by suburban schools (Bull, 2000, pp. 24-25).

In other words, both groups of citizens may be willing to relinquish their local control for

the potential benefits that a uniform or consistent state definition of schooling might offer

3However, as Loveless (1997) argues, the behavior of the American public belies its attitudes.

That is, several behavioral indicators suggest increased rather than decreased confidence in publicschools, including decreased dropout rates, limited interest in private alternatives to public schools, andincreased government funding of education.


14/24

for urban schools, perhaps additional resources, and for suburban schools, likely the

recognition and promulgation of their mode of schooling.

These are just a few of the many factors contributing to the increase in state

authority over education policy. While the reasons are debatable, the fact that state

education agencies are now, more than ever, considered the leverage point for

education policy is not. As one small example, the state-level contribution to overall

educational spending has increased from around 17% in 1930 to almost half today

(NCES, 1999). Further, over the last three decades, as depicted in figure 1 below,

states governments have surpassed local governments as a source of revenue for

public elementary and secondary education.

Figure 1. Sources of revenue forpublic elementaryand secondaryschools: 197071to 199899

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Statistics ofState School Systems; Revenues and Expenditures for Public Elementary and SecondaryEducation; and Common Core of Datasurveys.

Therefore, in light of the new role of states, regardless of ones position on

federalism, it is currently unwise to ignore states as educational policy makers.


15/24

References

Adelman, N., Donnelly, M., Dove, T., Tiffany-Morales, J., Wayne, A., & Zucker, A.

(2002). The integrated studies of educational technology: Professional

development and teachers use of technology. Menlo Park, CA: SRI

International.

American Association of University Women (AAUW) Educational Foundation

Commission on Technology, Gender and Teacher Education. (2000). Tech-

Savvy: Educating girls in the new computer age. Washington, D.C.: AAUW

Educational Foundation Research.

Armstrong, A., & Casement, C. (2001). The child and the machine: How computers put

our children's education at risk. Beltsville, MD: Robins Lane Press.

Arnold, C., Kaufman, P. & Sedlacek, D. (1992). School effects on educational

achievement in mathematics and science: 1985-86. Washington: U.S.

Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics.

Arnold, C.L. (1995). Using HLM and NAEP data to explore school correlates of 1990

mathematics and geometry achievement in grades 4,8, and 12: Methodology and

results. Washington: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for

Education Statistics.

Attewell, P. (2001). The first and second digital divides. Sociology of Education, 74(3),

252-59.

Becker, H.J. (2000). Findings from the teaching, learning, and computing survey: Is

Larry Cuban right? Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 8 (51). Retrieved

November 7, 2002, from http://epaa.asu/epaa/v8n51.


16/24

Berger, M.C. & Toma, E.F. (1994). Variation in state education policies and effects on

student performance. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 13(3), 477-

491.

Bowman, A. & Kearney, R.C. (1986). The resurgence of the states. New York:

Prentice Hall, Inc.

Bryk, A.S. & Raudenbush, S.W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and

data analysis methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Bull, B. (2000). Political philosophy and the balance between central and local control

of schools. In N.D. Theobald & B. Malen (Eds.), Balancing local control and state

responsibility for K-12 education (pp. 21-46). Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.

Carvin, A. (Ed.). (2000). The e-rate in America: A tale of four cities. Washington:

Benton Foundation, Communications Policy and Practice Program.

Cattagni, A., & Farris-Westat, E. (2001). Teacher use of computers and the Internet in

public schools and classrooms: 1994-1999. Stats In Brief. National Center for

Education Statistics (NCES). Retrieved April 12, 2003 from

http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2001071 .

Cheong, Y.F., Fotiu, R.P., & Raudenbush, S.W. (2001). Efficiency and robustness of

alternative estimators for two- and three-level models: The case of NAEP.

Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 26(4), 411-429.

Christensen, K. & Gladstone, P. (1983, November/December). ELs third annual survey

of the states. Electronic Learning, 37-53.


17/24

Cohen, J. (2002). AM Help. Washington: American Institutes for Research.

Cohen, J. & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression / correlation analysis for the

behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Coleman, J.S., Campbell, E.Q., Hobson, C.J., McPartland, J., Mood, A.M., Weinfeld,

F.D., & York, R.L. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington: U.S.

Government Printing Office.

Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold & underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: a review of

state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1), 1-49.

Dayton, J. (2000). Recent litigation and its impact on the state-local power balance:

liberty and equity in governance, litigation, and the school finance policy debate.

In N.D. Theobald & B. Malen (Eds.), Balancing local control and state

responsibility for K-12 education (pp. 93-120). Larchmont, NY: Eye on

Education.

DeCarlo, L.T. (2003). Using the PLUM procedure of SPSS to fit unequal variance and

generalized signal detection models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments,

& Computers, 35(1), 49-56.

Dickard, N. (2002). Edtech 2002: Budget challenges, policy shifts and digital

opportunities. In N. Dickard (Ed.), The sustainability challenge: Taking edtech to

the next level(pp. 15-20). Washington: Benton Foundation.

Ed tech gets slight spending boost, but many key programs lose funding. (2002,

January 2). Education Technology News, 19(1), 3.


18/24

Electronic Learning. (1981, November/December). ELs second annual survey of the

states. Electronic Learning. Electronic Learning, 62-71.

Firestone, W.A., Fuhrman, S.H. & Kirst, M.W. (1991). State educational reform since

1983: Appraisal and the future. Educational Policy, 5(3), 233-250.

First, P.F., & Hart, Y.Y. (2002). Access to cyberspace: The new issue in educational

justice. Journal of Law & Education, 31(4), 385-411.

Fowler, F.C. (2000). Converging forces: Understanding the growth of state authority

over education. In N.D. Theobald & B. Malen (Eds.), Balancing local control and

state responsibility for K-12 education (pp. 123-146). Larchmont, NY: Eye on

Education.

Fuhrman, S.H. & Elmore, R.F. (1990). Understanding local control in the wake of state

education reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12, 82-96.

Glass, G.V. & Hopkins, K.D. (1996). Statistical methods in education and psychology

(3rd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Goertz, M.E. (1995). Systemic reform in Michigan. Studies of Systemic Reform,

Volume II: Case Studies. New Brunswick, NJ: Consortium for Policy Research in

Education, Rutgers University.

Green, T.F. (1982). Excellence, equity, and equality. In Shulman & Sykes, (Eds.),

Handbook ofTeaching and Policy, 318-341.

Grissmer, D., Flanagan, A., Kawata, J., & Williamson, S. (2000). Improving student

achievement: What state NAEP test scores tell us. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.


19/24

Hanushek, E.A. & Taylor, L.L. (1989). Alternative assessments of the performance of

schools: Measurement of state variations in achievement. The Journal of Human

Resources, 25, 179-201.

Healy, J.M. (1999). Failure to connect: How computers affect our childrens minds

and what we can do about it. New York: Touchstone Books

Idaho Council for Technology in Learning. (1999). The Idaho technology initiative: An

accountability report to the Idaho legislature on the effects of monies spent

through the Idaho Council forTechnology in Learning. Boise, ID: The State

Division of Vocational Education, The State Department of Education, Bureau of

Technology Services.

James, T. (1991). State authority and the politics of educational change. Review of

Research in Education, 17, 169-224.

Johnson, E.G. (1989). Considerations and techniques for the analysis of NAEP data.

Journal of Educational Statistics, 14(4), 303-334.

Johnson, E.G. (1992). The design of the National Assessment of Educational

Progress. Journal of Educational Measurement, 29(2), 95-110.

Johnson, E.G., & Rust, K.F. (1992). Population inferences and variance estimation for

NAEP data. Journal of Educational Statistics, 17(2), 175-190.

Keegan, L.G. & Root, J. (1996, February 21). Why we formed the education leaders

council. Education Week, Retrieved on August 29, 2002 from

http://www.edweek.org/ew/ewstory.cfm?slug=22keegan.h15 .

Kirst, M.W. (1987). The crash of the first wave. Bacharach, 85, 20-29.


20/24

KPMG Consulting. (2000). Ohio SchoolNet Commission education technology

evaluation: Year two. Columbus, OH: KPMG Consulting.

Kreft, I.G.G., De Leeuw, J., & Aiken, L.S. (1995). The effect of different forms of

centering in hierarchical linear models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 30, 1-

21.

Krueger, A.B. (2000). The digital divide in educating African-American students and

workers (working paper #434). Retrieved August 16, 2002 from Princeton

University, Industrial Relations Section (IRS) Web site:

http://www.irs.princeton.edu/pubs/working_papers.html

Kulik, J.A. (1994). Meta-analytic studies of findings on computer-based instruction. In

E.L. Baker and H.F. ONeil, Jr. (Eds.). Technology assessment in education and

training. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Labaton, S. (2001, February 7). New F.C.C. chief would curb agency reach. The New

YorkTimes, p. B1.

Lee, J. (1998). State policy correlates of the achievement gap among racial and social

groups. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 24(2), 137-52.

Lemke, C. & Shaw, S. (1999). Education technology policies of the 50 states: Facts and

figures. Santa Monica, CA: Milken Exchange on Educational Technology, Milken

Family Foundation.

Lewis, D.A. & Maruna, S. (1999). The politics of education. In V. Gray, R.L. Hanson, &

H. Jacob (Eds.). Politics in the American states: A comparative analysis (7th ed.,

pp. 393-433). Washington: Congressional Quarterly Books.


21/24

Loveless, T. (1997). The structure of public confidence in education. American Journal

of Education,105, 127-59.

Mann, D., Shakeshaft, C., Becker, J. & Kottkamp, R. (1999). West Virginia story:

Achievement gains from a statewide technology initiative. Santa Monica, CA:

Milken Family Foundation.

Market Data Retrieval (2001). MDRs school directories 200-2001,

23rd print edition. Shelton, CT: Market Data Retrieval

McDonnell, L.M., & Elmore, R.F. (1987). Alternative policy instruments (ERIC

Document Reproduction Services No. 293218).

Menard, S. (2001). Applied logistic regression analysis (2nd ed.; Sage University Papers

Series, Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, No. 106). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Messner, J. (1951). Freedom as a principle of social order. The Modern Schoolman,

28(2), 97-110.

Milken Family Foundation. (1998). The Milken Exchange state-by-state education

technology policy survey. Santa Barbara, CA: Milken Family Foundation.

Mitchell, D.E. & Encarnacion, D.J. (1984). Alternative state policy mechanisms for

influencing school performance. Educational Researcher, 13(5), 4-11.

Monk, D.H. (1990). Educational finance: An economic approach. New York: McGraw-

Hill.

NAACP Education Department (2001). NAACP call for action in education. Baltimore,

MD: NAACP Education Department. Retrieved on February 24, 2002 from

http://www.naacp.org/work/education/educalltoactn2.pdf .


22/24

National Association of State Boards of Education. (2001). Any time, any place, any

path, any place: Taking the lead on e-learning policy. Alexandria, VA: NASBE.

National Association of State Boards of Education. (2003). NASBE Website. Retrieved

April 13, 2003 from

http://www.nasbe.org/Organization_Information/Org_Belief.html .

National Center for Education Statistics. (1999). Digest of education statistics, 1998

(NCES No. 1999036). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.

Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, state and utopia. New York: Basic Books.

Osborne, J.W. (2000). Advantages of hierarchical linear modeling. Practical

Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 7(1), 1-6.

Raudenbush, S., Bryk, A., Cheong, Y.F., Congdon, R. (2001). HLM 5: Hierarchical

linear and nonlinear modeling. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International,

Inc.

Raudenbush, S.W., Fotiu, R.P., & Cheong, Y.F. (1998). Inequality of access to

educational resources: a national report card for eighth-grade math. Educational

Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20(4), 253-267.

Rose, L.C., & Gallup, A.M. (2002). The 34th annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll

of the public's attitudes toward the public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(1), 41-

56.

School Lunch Program Website (last updated February 27, 2003). Retrieved on March

10, 2003 from http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/Lunch/default.htm.

Silverstein, G., Frechtling, J., & Miyaoka, A. (2000). Evaluation of the use of technology

in Illinois public schools: Final report. Rockville, MD: Westat.


23/24

Sivin-Kachala, J. & Bialo, E.R. (1999). 1999 research report on the effectiveness of

technology in schools (6th ed.). Washington: Software & Information Industry

Association.

Snijders, T. & Bosker, R. (1999). Multilevel analysis: an introduction to basic and

advanced multilevel modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Solomon, G., Allen, N.J., & Resta, P. (Eds.). (2003). Toward digital equity: Bridging

the divide in education. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Southeastern Regional Council for Educational Improvement. (1983). Schooling &

Technology, Volume 1: State-level policy initiatives. North Carolina: SERCI.

Stoll, C. (1999). High tech heretic: Why computers dont belong in the classroom and

other reflections by a computer contrarian. New York: Doubleday.

Stone, D. (1997). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making. New York:

W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.

Swanson, C.B., & Stevenson, D.L. (2002). Standards-based reform in practice:

Evidence on state policy and classroom instruction from the NAEP state

assessments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(1), 1-27.

Theobald, N.D. & Bardzell, J. (2000). Introduction and overview: Balancing local control

and state responsibility for K-12 education. In N.D. Theobald & B. Malen (Eds.),

Balancing local control and state responsibility for K-12 education (pp. 3-18).

Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.

U.S. Department of Commerce. (2000). Falling through the net: Toward digital

inclusion. Washington: U.S. Department of Commerce.


24/24

U.S. Department of Education. (1999). Technology Literacy Challenge Fund: Report to

Congress. Washington: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and

Secondary Education.

Van Horn, C.E. (1996). The state of the states (3rd ed.). Washington: Congressional

Quarterly Books.

Volman, M., & van Eck, E. (2001). Gender equity and information technology in

education: The second decade. Review of Educational Research, 71(4), 613-34.

Walzer, M. (1983). Spheres of justice. New York: Basic Books.

Wenglinsky, H. (1998). Does it compute?T

he relationship between educational

technology and student achievement in mathematics. Princeton, N.J.:

Educational Testing Service Policy Information Center.

Wiburg, K.M., & Butler, J.F. (2003). Creating educational access. In G. Solomon, N.

Allen, & P. Resta (Eds.) Toward digital equity: Bridging the divide in education

(pp. 1-13). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Zhao, Y. & Conway, P. (2001). Whats in, whats out: an analysis of state educational

technology plans. Teachers College Record, ID Number: 10717. Retrieved

February 14, 2003 from http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentID=10717.

becker dissertation excerpted

Documents