This article suggests some consequences of program equity for educational policy and practice. Consequences are described in terms of needed investments in policy and practice-the stakes-that are risked in order to achieve high minimum levels of student performance. Stakes go up for policy and practice both because program equity demands support for high minimum performance outcomes, along with a new and more challenging implementation standard, and because delivering these outcomes requires that implementing decisions and actions be coordinated across a fragmented educational system. Program equity implementation thus requires simultaneous top-down and bottom-up change strategies that promote goal alignment, capacity building, and direct support for change. Implementation contributions of various policy instruments and professional practices are explored. A new implementation structure-teacher networks-is proposed as a means of linking and managing top and bottom change strategies. The potential of networks rests on their ability to combine externally developed standards with classroom experiences to produce the incremental learning that improves both policy and practice, feeding back the problems of new standards to central authorities and facilitating teachers' learning and instructional practice.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abbott v. Burke, 575 A.2d 359,400 (N.J. 1990).
2.
Adams, J. E., Jr. (1992). Policy implementation through teacher professional networks: The case of Math A in California. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University.
3.
Benson, C. S.
(1991). Definitions of equity in school finance in Texas, New Jersey, and Kentucky.Harvard Journal on Legislation, 28, 401-421.
4.
Clune, W. H.
(1992). New answers to hard questions posed by Rodriguez: Ending the separation of school finance and educational policy by bridging the gap between wrong and remedy.Connecticut Law Review, 24, 721-755.
5.
Clune, W. H.
(1993a). The best path to systemic educational policy: Standard/centralized or differentiated/decentralized?Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15, 233-254.
6.
Clune, W. H.
(1993b). School finance reform: The role of the courts (CPRE Finance Briefs FB-03-2/93). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University, Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
7.
Commission on Chapter 1.
(1992). Making schools work for children in poverty: A new framework prepared by the Commission on Chapter 1. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education.
8.
Corcoran, T. B.
(1990). Schoolwork: Perspectives on workplace reform in public schools. In M. W. McLaughlin, J. E. Talbert, & N. Bascia (Eds.), The contexts of teaching in secondary schools: Teachers' realities (pp. 142-166). New York: Teachers College Press.
9.
Cuban, L.
(1984). How teachers taught: Constancy and change in American classrooms 1890-1980. New York: Longman.
10.
David, J. L.
, & Goren, P. D. (1993). Transforming education: Overcoming barriers. Washington, DC: National Governors' Association.
11.
Elmore, R. F
(1987). Implementation [Review of The political hand: Policy implementation and youth employment programs]. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 6, 278-279.
12.
Elmore, R. F.
, & McLaughlin, M. W. (1988). Steady work: Policy, practice, and the reform of American education. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
13.
Ford, M. E.
, & Ford, D. H. (1987). Humans as self-constructing living systems: Putting the framework to work. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
14.
Fuhrman, S.
(in press). Challenges in systemic reform (CPRE Policy Briefs). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
15.
Fuhrman, S.
, Clune, W. H., & Elmore, R. F. (1988). Research on education reform: Lessons on the implementation of policy.Teachers College Record, 90, 237-257.
16.
Fullan, M. G.
, & Miles, M. B. (1992). Getting reform right: What works and what doesn't.Phi Delta Kappan, 73,745-752.
17.
Goggin, M. L.
, Bowman, A. O'M., Lester, J. P., & O'Toole, L. J., Jr. (1990). Implementation theory and practice: Toward a third generation. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman/Little Brown Higher Education.
18.
Guthrie, J. W.
, Garms, W. I., & Pierce, L. C. (1988). School finance and education policy: Enhancing educational efficiency, equality, and choice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
19.
Hawley, W. D.
(1978). Horses before carts: Developing adaptive schools and the limits of innovation. In D. Mann (Ed.), Making change happen (pp. 224-253). New York: Teachers College Press.
20.
Honig, B.
(1988). The key to reform: Sustaining and expanding upon initial success.Educational Administration Quarterly, 24, 257-271.
21.
Huberman, M.
, & Miles, M. (1984). Innovation up close: How school improvement works. New York: Plenum.
22.
Kentucky General Assembly.
(1990). House Bill 940.
23.
Kirst, M. W.
, & Jung, R. (1980). The utility of a longitudinal approach in assessing implementation.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 2, 17-34.
24.
Levin, H. M.
(1987). Accelerated schools for disadvantaged students.Educational Leadership, 44(6), 19-21.
25.
Lieberman, A.
, & McLaughlin, M. W. (1992). Networks for educational change: Powerful and problematic.Phi Delta Kappan, 73, 673-677.
26.
Lieberman, A.
, & Miller, L. (1991). Revisiting the social realities of teaching. In A. Lieberman & L. Miller (Eds.), Staff development for education in the '90s: New demands, new realities, new perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 92-109). New York: Teachers College Press.
27.
Little, J. W.
(1990). Conditions of professional development in secondary schools. In M. W. McLaughlin, J. E. Talbert, & N. Bascia (Eds.), The contexts of teaching in secondary schools: Teachers' realities (pp. 187-223). New York: Teachers College Press.
28.
Maclntyre, A.
(1986). The multiple sources of statutory ambiguity. In D. H. Shumavon & H. K. Hibbeln (Eds.), Administrative discretion and the implementation of public policy (pp. 66-88). New York: Praeger.
29.
Mazmanian, D. A.
, & Sabatier, P. A. (1989). Implementation and public policy (2nd ed.). Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
30.
McLaughlin, M. W.
(1987). Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9, 171-178.
31.
McLaughlin, M. W.
(1990). The RAND change agent study revisited: Macro perspectives and micro realities.Educational Researcher, 19(9), 11-16.
32.
McLaughlin, M. W.
(1991). Enabling professional development: What have we learned? In A. Lieberman & L. Miller (Eds.), Staff development for education in the '90s: New demands, new realities, new perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 61-82). New York: Teachers College Press.
33.
McLaughlin, M. W.
, & Talbert, J. E. (1993). How the world of students and teachers challenges policy coherence. In S. H. Fuhrman (Ed.), Designing coherent education policy: Improving the system (pp. 220-249). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
34.
Murphy, J.
(1991). Restructuring schools: Capturing and assessing the phenomenon. New York: Teachers College Press.
35.
National Governors' Association.
(1993, January 31). Strategic investment: Tough choices for America's future. Backgrounder. NGA, Education Policy Studies Office.
36.
Odden, A.
(1991). New patterns of education policy implementation and challenges for the 1990s. In A. Odden (Ed.), Education policy implementation (pp. 297-327). Albany: State University of New York Press.
37.
Peterson, P. E.
, Rabe, B. G., & Wong, K. K. (1986). When federalism works. Washington, DC: Brookings.
38.
Porter, A. C.
(1993). School delivery standards.Educational Researcher, 22(5), 24-30.
39.
Rose v. Council for Better Education, Inc., 790 S.W. 2d 186 (Ky. 1989).
40.
Sabatier, P. A.
(1986). Top-down and bottom-up approaches to implementation research: A critical analysis and suggested synthesis.Journal of Public Policy, 6, 21-48.
41.
Sarason, S. B.
(1990). The predictable failure of educational reform: Can we change course before it's too late?San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
42.
Slavin, R. E.
(1988). On research and school organization: A conversation with Bob Slavin.Educational Leadership, 46(2), 22-29.
43.
Smith, M. S.
, & O'Day, J. (1991). Systemic school reform. In S. Fuhrman & B. Malen (Eds.), The politics of curriculum and testing (pp. 233-268). Philadelphia, PA: Falmer.
44.
Stone, D. A.
(1988). Policy paradox and political reason. New York: HarperCollins.
45.
Winter, S.
(1990). Integrating implementation research. In D. J. Palumbo & D. J. Calista (Eds.), Implementation and the policy process: Opening up the black box (pp. 19-38). New York: Greenwood.
