In the late 1980s and mid-1990s, states began working to decrease the level of regulation of public education. Operating under the assumption that greater school autonomy is an important spur to school improvement, policymakers tried a variety of approaches to regulatory flexibility.
This article examines the evolution of deregulation from limited waiver programs to charter programs and new performance-based accountability systems that include broad-scale deregulation. Early deregulation programs were so limited in design that they had very modest results, but policymakers are finding expanded efforts very difficult to achieve. Many of the same political forces and habits of practice that limited early efforts continue to pose barriers to deregulation. Underlying the barriers is a historic, continuing uncertainty about the state role and about how states should relate to districts of varying types.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BierleinL., & MulhollandL. A. (1994). Charter schools: A glance at the issues.Tempe, AZ: Morrison Institute for Public Policy.
2.
Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy. (1986). A nation prepared: Teachers for the 21st century (The Report of the Task Force on Teaching as a Profession). New York: Carnegie Corporation.
3.
Center for Policy Studies. (1994). (A Start on) A directory of persons interested in ‘charter’ laws.Saint Paul, MN: Author.
4.
CluneW. A. (1993). The shift from equity to adequacy in school finance. The World and I, 8 (9), 389–405.
5.
CohenD. K., & SpillaneJ. P. (1993). Policy and practice: The relations between governance and instruction. In FuhrmanS. H. (Ed.), Designing coherent education policy: Improving the system (pp. 35–95). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
6.
CorcoranT. (1994). Transforming professional development for teachers: A guide for state policy -makers. Working paper prepared for the National Governors Association.
7.
CronbachL. J., BradburnN. M., & HorvitzD. G. (1994). Sampling and statistical procedures used in the California learning assessment system. Report of the Select Committee, Palo Alto, CA.
8.
ElmoreR. F. (1994). “Getting to scale” with good practice. Working paper for the CPRE Research Forum on Incentives in Education.
9.
ElmoreR. F., & FuhrmanS. H. (1995). Opportunity to learn and the state role in education. Teachers College Record, 96, 432–457.
10.
FuhrmanS. H. (1993). The politics of coherence. In FuhrmanS. H. (Ed.), Designing coherent education policy: Improving the system (pp. 1–34). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
11.
FuhrmanS. H., & ElmoreR. F. (1990). Understanding local control in the wake of state education reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12 (1), 82–96.
12.
FuhrmanS. H., & ElmoreR. F. (1992). Takeover and deregulation: Working models of new state and local regulatory relationships.New Brunswick, NJ: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
13.
FuhrmanS. H., with FryP. (1989). Diversity amidst standardization: State differential treatment of districts.New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Policy Research in Education.
14.
FuhrmanS. H., FryP., & ElmoreR. F. (1992). South Carolina's flexibility through deregulation program: A case study.New Brunswick, NJ: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
15.
General Accounting Office. (1993). Systemwide education reform.Washington, DC: Author.
16.
General Accounting Office. (1994). Regulatory flexibility in schools: What happens when schools are allowed to change the rules? Washington, DC: Author.
17.
HetrickB. (1994). Effects of state deregulation on federally funded educational programs. Paper prepared for the U.S. Department of Education.
18.
Holmes Group. (1986). Tomorrow's teachers: A report from the Holmes Group.East Lansing, MI: Author.
19.
KoretzD. (1994). The Vermont portfolio assessment program: Findings and implications.Washington, DC: RAND Institute on Education and Training.
20.
LittleJ. W. (1993). Teachers’ professional development in a climate of educational reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15 (2), 129–138.
21.
MassellD., & FuhrmanS. H. (1994). Ten years of state education reform: Update with four case studies.New Brunswick, NJ: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
22.
MayhewD. (1974). The electoral connection.New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
23.
McDonnellL. M., & ElmoreR. F. (1987). Getting the job done: Alternative policy instruments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9 (2), 133–152.
24.
McDonnellL. M., & McLaughlinM. W. (1982). Education policy and the role of the states.Santa Monica: RAND.
25.
McLaughlinM. W. (1987). Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9 (2), 171–78.
26.
MohrmanS. A. (1994). High-involvement management in the private sector. In MohrmanS. A., & WohlstetterP. (Eds.), School-based management: Organizing for high performance (pp. 25–52). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
27.
National Governors’ Association. (1986). A time for results.Washington, DC: Center for Policy Research and Analysis.
28.
National Governors’ Association. (1991). From rhetoric to action: State progress in restructuring the education system.Washington, DC: Author.
29.
PicusL. O., HertertL., & Van KirkA. (1993). Texas core report.New Brunswick, NJ: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
30.
PurkeyS. C., & SmithM. (1983). Effective schools: A review. Elementary School Journal, 83 (4), 428–452.
31.
SmithM. S., & O'DayJ. (1991). Systemic school reform. In FuhrmanS. H., & MalenB. (Eds.), The Politics of Curriculum and Testing (pp. 233–267). Bristol, PA: Falmer Press.
32.
State Education Assessment Center. (1994). State education accountability reports: Results of CCSSO survey (Draft).Washington, DC: Author.
33.
Washington State Board of Education. (1993). Report to the legislature on schools for the Twenty-First Century Program.Olympia: Author.
34.
Washington State Senate. (1987). Senate bill 991, 1987: S991, sec 109. Olympia, WA.
35.
WongK. K. (1994). Governance structure, resource allocation, and equity policy. In Darling-HammondL. (Ed.), Review of research in education (pp. 257–289). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
