This article examines the shift in the locus of decision-making authority across more than 25 years of policy efforts to improve teaching effectiveness. Previously the province of local government, states assumed the lion’s share of authority for teaching policy during the 1980s and 1990s. As states and the federal government rose to education policy dominance, powerful extragovernmental actors—the business community in the 1980s and 1990s, philanthropic foundations in the last decade—captured much of the policy conversation and put their respective stamps on the teacher policy agenda. Their influence has rivaled, arguably at times eclipsed, that of elected government officials. This article explores this still-evolving phenomenon. We find that the current federal government-foundation nexus seems to be strengthening. Although it is too soon to tell whether this relationship is permanent or ephemeral, it is clear that its impact on state and local teaching policy is already significant.
Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy. (1986). A nation prepared: Teachers for the 21st century (Report of the Task Force on Teaching as a Profession). New York, NY: Author.
Committee for Economic Development. (1985). Investing in our children: Business and the public schools. New York, NY: Author.
4.
DeMarraisK.SuggsC. (2011). Critical contributions: Philanthropic investment in teachers and teaching. Atlanta: University of Georgia and Kronley and Associates. Retrieved at http://kronley.com/documents/CriticalContributions.pdf
FergusonR. (1991). Paying for public education: New evidence of how and why money matters. Harvard Journal on Legislation, 28, 465-498.
7.
FirestoneW.FuhrmanS.KirstM. (1989). The progress of reform: An appraisal of state education initiatives. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University, Center for Policy Research in Education.
HessR. (2005). Inside the gift horse’s mouth: Philanthropy and school reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(2), 131-137.
10.
HirschE.KoppichJ. E.KnappM. S. (1998). What states are doing to improve the quality of teaching. Seattle: University of Washington, Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.
11.
KahlenbergR. (2007). Tough liberal: Albert Shanker and the battle over schools, unions, race, and democracy. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
12.
KearnsD. (1988). Help to restructure education from the bottom up. Harvard Business Review, 66(6), 70-75.
KoppichJ. (2001). Investing in teaching. Washington, DC: National Alliance of Business.
15.
National Center for Alternative Certification. (2011). Alternative teacher certification: A state by state analysis. Retrieved from http://www.teach-now.org/overview.cfm.
16.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Report of the Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
17.
National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. (1996). What matters most: Teaching for America’s future. New York, NY: Author.
PiphoC. (1988). Information and state education policy makers. Education Week, 7(31), 29.
22.
PrinceC. (2008). The other 69 percent: Designing performance-based pay systems for teachers of non-tested subjects and grades, English language learners, and students with disabilities. Washington, DC: Center for Educator Compensation Reform. Retrieved from http://cecr.ed.gov/guides/other69Percent.pdf
SandersW.RiversJ. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future student achievement. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Value-added Research and Assessment Center.
25.
SmithM.SmithM. (2009). Research in the policy process. In SykesG.SchneiderB.PlankD. (Eds.), Handbook of education policy research. New York, NY: Routledge.
The Teaching Commission. (2004). Teaching at risk: A call to action. New York, NY: Author.
28.
ZinthJ. D. (2010). Teaching quality: Evaluation and effectiveness. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States. Retrieved from www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/86/21/8621.pdf
