Geospatial Analysis

The purpose of this analysis is to trace policy development—policy flows—spatially (and visually) in order to track points of origin, routes of dissemination, and points of appropriation (or implementation). This is particularly important in a decentralized schooling system like the United States has. This form of analysis, as we have and will continue to see in our readings, has not been done systematically, but through this analysis, we will better understand how policies flow to and from implementers, namely teachers and principals. We will be using the My Maps feature of Google Maps or Google Earth to conduct this analysis. Your group’s geospatial network analysis is due on 6 March by class time; please provide a link and embed your map on a page you create for the analysis on this website, and include a written summary of the analysis below the map. Submit the geospatial analysis in draft form.

The process of creating a Google map

Google has a series of instructions and videos to help you work with Google Maps. In addition to the basic features, such as setting pins and drawing lines to trace flows, My Maps allows people to collaborate with one another on a particular map. This means that you can work with a partner remotely and asynchronously, and I will be able to trace how each of you is working. You will need a Google account to work with My Maps, and you can create one here.

What you should include on your map and in your annotations and summary

1. Map
1. Use colored lines and pins or symbols to visually parse information, such as the direction of the policy flow, the stakeholders, the policy level, etc.
2. Use annotations to convey important information:
1. a complete source citation
2. a summary of the source content
3. a list of stakeholder directly and implicitly addressed in the source
2. Summary
1. patterns and anomalies that you have found
2. a discussion of these patterns and anomalies in light of the secondary research conducted for the policy history written for Wikipedia
3. address:
1. How do the policy history and geospatial analysis play off of one another?
2. What research do you still need to conduct for the comprehensive 3-P analysis?

An example of a geospatial analysis by Kate Dachille and Erica Austin

(please note they had different guidelines, but this should give you an idea of what can be done)

Summary

The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) was inspired by President George W. Bush’s real accountability and enforcement (as the latest version of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as critical components designed to hold state and local government to ESEA requirements. (Manna, 2006, pp. 472). In essence, accountability through performance standards and annual testing was the focal point of the nation’s education reform efforts. Standardized testing has been employed by the upper levels of the political hierarchy to measure lower levels (states, districts, teachers) to produce desired student achievement results. The NCLB policy alludes to implicit lack of confidence in the state government’s ability to guarantee high student achievement. This policy provides federal officials with opportunity to secure more control over education policy (implementation and its accountability components). However, the complex nature of policy movement and implementation is fueled by the web of policy stakeholders at multiple levels. Federal policy makers are not aware of all of the issues that serve as barriers in reaching goals set by the NCLB.

This map shows the flow of the standardized testing provisions of No Child Left Behind. It presents a historical view as well as an implementation lens. The red pins delineate the role of the federal government. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act was signed by Lyndon Johnson in Stonewall, Texas in 1965. The federal government is marked again in Washington, DC when President Bush signs NCLB in 2002. The red pin in Washington, DC also acts as the point of origin for NCLB as it branches out to each state government who applies for the funds and implements the tenets of the legislation in yellow. If more time and resources allowed, yellow lines would branch out to each individual school district, then to schools, then to teachers, then to parents and students to show how each stakeholder is directly affected by the legislation’s origin in Washington, DC. Each line color corresponds to the stakeholder in which it originates to exemplify the influence of that particular stakeholder.

The presentation of the map in this manner reinforces the power held by policy makers in DC when you can visually see how all of the lines collect in the nation’s capital. The distance of states from Washington, DC, the size of states and the size of major cities and towns in each state also gives a visual representation to how difficult it is to formulate a policy that will be implemented the same way in such distinct states.

Important moments in time are also marked on the map in a linear fashion. Stakeholders that have highly influenced that point in the legislative history of NCLB are marked at each point. Dark blue pins are used to show policy makers/politicians. Turquoise pins are used to show decisions made by school districts. The purple pin shows a private sector stakeholder. Next time, in order to make the map more clear, we would utilize layering or two separate maps.

Using these points in history, the map illuminates power dynamics within states. For example, ESEA and NCLB both have strong ties to the state of Texas. Given the political atmosphere in Texas and Texas’ history in education, one can gather important details about NCLB. Additionally, it is interesting to look at the political affiliation of those senators and representatives that originally sponsored the bill and the state of education in each of those states. To garner even more information, it might be interesting to view a layered map of NCLB that not only shows how the policy flows, its history and key stakeholders, but perhaps the political stance of each state or legal action made against NCLB in each state. While most of its early supporters were Republicans, Democrats like Ted Kennedy quickly stood behind NCLB. He specifically supported the provisions that emphasized minority groups. Revealing reasons for support or opposition can paint a different picture of the legislation.

During the process of researching these key moments in NCLB’s history, we identified other stakeholders that we should have included in our stakeholder analysis. For example, there was quite a bit of literature on the Business Roundtable, a group of CEOs and their influence on this particular piece of legislation. Additionally, the map allowed us to add further historical perspective to our policy that we missed during our review of only nine sources for the original historical analysis. While our sources largely demonstrated a general frustration with the standardized testing provisions of No Child Left Behind, during this exercise we also identified states that have been successful in implementing NCLB, such as Illinois. A further look into how this state has enforced NCLB and what successes it has accomplished may provide further insight into best practices.

Overall, the three analyses that we have conducted thus far are illustrating different sides of NCLB and fill different gaps in information that we may have come across.While we read about the role of the federal government in this policy, seeing how each line branches to each state in the geographical analysis provides clarity on how the policy actually moves. Additionally, the historical analysis provided more concrete opinions on NCLB. While the map’s presentation is helpful in understanding key moments in the policy’s history, reading the direct sources and opinions and how those have changed and developed over time has increased our understanding of the underlying issues. Lastly, the map and the historical analysis have connected the work that we did on each stakeholder. We are better able to understand the main stakeholders and the power that they can harness when we are reading newspaper articles in which they are featured or are analyzing the locations in which NCLB is based because we did that analysis first.

Nonetheless, there is still research to be done in order to fully understand the policy for our 3-P analysis. We need to explore some of the law suits that have been filed in states against NCLB. We also need to understand suggested adjustments and edits to the standardized testing provisions of NCLB that are currently being proposed during this period before reauthorization. We also need to explore some “best practices” and understand how the federal government can leverage resources to effectively collaborate with state officials and other stakeholders in making the standardized testing provisions of NCLB a useful tool in improving the quality of education in the United States.

Sources:

Greene, J., Winters, M., Forster, G. (2003). Testing High Stakes Tests: Can We Believe the Results of Accountability Tests? Retrieved May 21, 2011 from http://www.manhattan-institute.org

Manna, P. (2006).Control, Persuasion, and Educational Accountability: Implementing the No Child Left Behind Act Retrieved May 28, 2011 from http://epx.sagepub.com.proxyau.wrlc.org/content/20/3/471.full.pdf+html

Century Foundation. (2001). Can Separate Be Equal? The Overlooked Flaw at the Center of the No Child Left Behind Act. Retrieved May 22, 2011 from http://www.tcf.org.

Map