Bureaucracy and Democracy

Accountability and Performance

Steven J. Balla, William T. Gormley

• Publisher: CQ Press
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781506348902
• Edition: 4
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: American Government
• Index: Politics & International Relations

Given the influence of public bureaucracies in policymaking and implementation, Steven J. Balla and William T. Gormley assess their performance using four key perspectives—bounded rationality, principal-agent theory, interest group mobilization, and network theory—to help students develop an analytic framework for evaluating bureaucratic accountability. The new Fourth Edition provides a thorough review of bureaucracy during the Obama and Trump administrations, as well as new attention to state and local level examples and the role of bureaucratic values.

1 Bureaucracies as Policymaking Organizations

For decades, policymakers have confronted three interrelated challenges in elementary and secondary education: (1) finding a way to render public schools more accountable to parents, taxpayers, and other vital constituencies; (2) determining how to improve the performance of public schools so that the confidence of a long-disillusioned citizenry is at last restored; and (3) determining how public schools can best help narrow the achievement gap between whites and minorities, the latter of whom depend especially heavily on the school system for advancement and success.

Two recent presidents, George W. Bush and Barack Obama, placed considerable emphasis on performance measurement and accountability, especially in education policymaking. President Bush signed into law the historic No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), which required standardized tests for students in grades 3 through 8 and which imposed penalties on schools that failed to reach performance thresholds as measured by these tests. NCLB also required states and school districts to publish annual statistics on the performance of certain subgroups, including low-income students, disabled students, and racial minorities. The hope was that the public spotlight would lead to tangible improvements in educational outcomes for these students in particular.

President Obama also promoted performance measurement and accountability in education. As part of the Race to the Top initiative, he offered substantial grants to states that adopted certain education reforms, one of which was to establish a system for evaluating teachers based on the performance of their students on standardized tests, after controlling for student characteristics and, in some instances, baseline test data. This approach, known as value-added modeling, was aimed at inaugurating a new strategy for evaluating teachers, which would judge them not on their educational credentials or their seniority but rather on the success of their students. The Obama administration also encouraged states to adopt the Common Core, a set of standards originally proposed by state officials, which sought to specify learning goals for different subjects in different grades and, more broadly, to encourage “critical thinking” skills in U.S. classrooms.¹

According to independent assessments, these interventions changed the landscape of K–12 education in the United States. One study found that NCLB boosted math scores for elementary school students.² Another study found that the achievement gap between blacks and whites narrowed in some states but widened in others during the years immediately following passage of NCLB. As the authors put it, “In states facing more subgroup-specific accountability pressure, more between-school segregation, and larger gaps prior to the implementation of the policy, NCLB appears to have narrowed white-black and white-Hispanic achievement gaps; in states facing less pressure, less segregation, and smaller pre-existing gaps, NCLB appears to have led to a widening of white-black and white-Hispanic achievement gaps.”³ A third study found that the Race to the Top influenced state education policies, especially the policies of states that won a Race to the Top grant but also the policies of states that applied for such a grant but didn’t get one.⁴ The study did not fully probe which favored policies were more likely to be adopted by the states. By the end of the Obama presidency, the number of states with some version of teacher performance pay had increased, and forty-two states had adopted the Common Core standards. Some of this was undoubtedly due to strong encouragement from U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan.

The education accountability movement, however, has had its critics. After a brief honeymoon period, NCLB triggered substantial negative reactions from state and local officials, who complained about unrealistic expectations and inadequate funding. Teacher morale declined, and elementary school teachers argued that NCLB left them little time to teach content not emphasized by standardized tests.⁵ Parents also joined the chorus of critics. In New York and other states, parents complained that their children were focusing so much on standardized tests that actual learning was taking a back seat. In 2015, some 20 percent of New York state students opted out of standardized tests.⁶ In Delaware, Florida, Ohio, Oregon, and other states, parents and public officials fought for the right to exclude their children from standardized tests.⁷ In response to growing criticism of the Common Core, a handful of states backed away from these standards. Other states, like New York, delayed the implementation of “high-stakes” teacher assessments in which teachers would be evaluated based in part on their students’ performance on standardized tests linked to the Common Core.⁸ The growth of high-stakes tests led one prominent critic, Diane Ravitch, to recommend that all parents opt out of all high-stakes standardized tests.⁹

As opposition from teachers and parents mounted, Congress responded. In 2015, Congress passed the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), which effectively repealed President Bush’s NCLB and which voided certain practices used by the Obama administration to influence state and local education policymaking. Under the new law, states will still be required to conduct annual reading and mathematics tests in grades 3–8 and once in high school. However, states will be free to scale back the role those tests play in measuring school progress.¹⁰ States and school districts will still be required to transform their poorest-performing schools, but they will be able to design and implement their own intervention strategies, so long as there is some evidence to back them up. States will also be free to eliminate teacher evaluations based on students’ standardized test scores. Under the Obama administration, such practices were expected as a quid pro quo for states requesting a waiver of federal education requirements. More broadly, the new law bars the U.S. secretary of education from requiring or encouraging any particular set of standards, such as the Common Core.¹¹

President Donald Trump has promised to open up a new chapter in performance and accountability in education. Under the direction of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, the Trump administration has pledged to invest billions of dollars in charter schools and private school tuition vouchers. Supporters see such school choice as offering opportunities to low-income students and families.¹² Opponents, by contrast, argue that school choice takes resources away from teacher training, after-school programs, and public schools in general—all without proven results.¹³ These ongoing twists and turns in federal education policy illustrate the extent to which bureaucratic accountability and performance have become important issues in public debates.

In this book, we evaluate the operation of public bureaucracies—such as schools, school districts, and education departments—as policymaking organizations in the American democratic system. In this opening chapter, we provide an introduction to the book’s basic approach, which is to use several social scientific theories to guide an inquiry into accountability and performance, two key standards by which agencies are judged. This introduction is organized around three core questions:

• WHY ARE ACCOUNTABILITY AND PERFORMANCE IMPORTANT IN UNIQUE WAYS IN PUBLIC BUREAUCRACIES? Although accountability is vital in all sectors of society, it takes on distinct meanings when authority is exercised by teachers and other public servants. Such decision makers are empowered to serve not shareholders or boards of directors but families and the public.
• WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENT FORMS OF ACCOUNTABILITY, AND HOW HAVE THEIR USE AND EFFICACY CHANGED OVER TIME? In recent years, elected officials at all levels of government have sought to make school systems more accountable to political, as opposed to professional, concerns. The imposition of such external standards has important implications for teacher quality, satisfaction, and retention, all of which are in turn linked closely with student achievement.
• WHY HAS PERFORMANCE BECOME SUCH AN IMPORTANT STANDARD BY WHICH TO EVALUATE PUBLIC BUREAUCRACIES? Outputs, such as the amount of instructional time devoted to reading, and outcomes, such as student performance on standardized tests and high school graduation rates, have long been vital to education policy. But measuring these facets of performance is difficult, and it is even harder to demonstrate an unambiguous link between specific school activities and the growth and development of different types of children.

In addressing these questions, the chapter lays the foundation for a systematic inquiry into public bureaucracies, organizations where some of society’s most fundamental decisions are made.

The Contours of Public Bureaucracy

As the uncertainty surrounding the ultimate effects of No Child Left Behind so vividly demonstrates, many of the policy decisions that most deeply affect people’s lives are made within public bureaucracies. A public bureaucracy is an organization within the executive branch of government, whether at the federal, state, or local level. Such organizations run the gamut from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks, to the Integrated Waste Management Department of Orange County, California.

As Figure 1.1 illustrates, the federal executive branch consists of dozens of public bureaucracies. Fifteen of these bureaucracies are cabinet departments, including the Department of Homeland Security, the first addition to the cabinet since 1989. Some noncabinet bureaucracies are referred to as independent agencies, as they are structured to operate with relative autonomy from White House authority. The Federal Reserve System is a prominent example of such an organization. Despite their designation, however, not all independent agencies actually enjoy such autonomy. For example, presidents of all political stripes closely monitor and influence the priorities and decisions of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Figure 1.1 The Government of the United States

Source: Ben’s Guide to U.S. Government, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., http://bensguide.gpo.gov/files/gov_chart.pdf (accessed July 25, 2011).

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), created in 1906, is one of many important agencies located within the Department of Health and Human Services. The FDA’s primary responsibility is to ensure the safety of the nation’s food, drugs, and cosmetics. The FDA also inspects blood banks and biologics manufacturing firms. In addition, the agency monitors the safety of medical devices through its Bureau of Medical Devices. Figure 1.2 provides an overview of the FDA’s organization. An administrator appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate heads the FDA, overseeing a workforce of approximately 10,000 employees and a budget of about $2 billion.¹⁴ Approximately 1,100 employees are investigators or inspectors who inspect about 15,000 facilities per year. The FDA’s workforce is better educated than most, with more than 2,000 scientists on staff.

Figure 1.2 Organizational Chart of the Food and Drug Administration

Source: Ben’s Guide to U.S. Government, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., http://bensguide.gpo.gov/files/gov_chart.pdf (accessed July 25, 2011).

Accountability and Performance in Public Bureaucracies

Because of the importance of their decisions, bureaucracies from the FDA to local school systems are acc...