School Districts Matter: Local Educational Authorities and State Instructional Policy

Abstract

Local school districts do not figure prominently in contemporary school reform efforts that are primarly centered at the state and school levels of the system. This article explores ways in which school districts matter in current instructional reform efforts. The article examines haw two local school districts responded to an expanding state role in instructional policy making, documenting the way in which instructional policy making at the state and district levels expanded in tandem, frequently attempting to guide the same aspects of teachers' work Further, the case studies illustrate that state and local policies do not always support similar notions about instruction.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Berman, P. (1980). Thinking about programmed and adaptive implementation: Matching strategies to situations. In H. Ingram & D. Mann (Eds.), Why policies succeed or fail (pp. 205-227). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Berman, P. , & McLaughlin, M. (1977). Federal programs supporting educational change. Vol. 7, Factors affecting implementation and continuation. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

Cantor, L. (1980). The growing role of states in American education. Comparative Education, 6(l), 25-31.

Cohen, D. K. (1982). Policy and organization: The impact of state and federal educational policy on school governance. Harvard Educational Review, 52, 474-499.

Cohen, D. K (1989). Teaching practice: Plus ça change. In P. W Jackson (Ed.), Contributing to educational change: Perspectives on research and practice (pp. 27-84). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.

Cusick, P. A. (1983). The egalitarian ideal and the American high school. New York: Longman.

David, J. (1990). Restructuring in progress: Lessons from pioneering districts. In R Elmore (Ed.), Restructuring schools: The next generation of educational reform (pp. 209-250). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Elmore, R. F. , & McLaughlin, M. W (1988). Steady work: Policy practice, and the reform of American education. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

Floden, R. , Porter, A. , Alford, L. , Freeman, D. , Irwin, S. , Schmidt, W , & Schwille, J. (1988). Instructional leadership at the district level: A closer look at autonomy and control. Educational Administration Quarterly, 24, 96-124.

10.

Fuhrman, S. H. , & Elmore, R F. (1990). Understanding local control in the wake of state education reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(1), 82-96.

11.

Hannaway, J. , & Sproull, L. (1978-1979). Who's running the show? Coordination and control in educational organizations. Administrator's Notebook, 27, 1-4.

12.

Majone, G. , & Wildavsky, A. (1979). Implementation as evolution. In Implementation: How great expectations in Washington are dashed in Oaklad (2nd Edition, pp. 177-194). Berkeley: University of California Press.

13.

O'Day, J. , & Smith, M. (1993). Systemic reform and educational opportunity. In S. Fuhrman (Ed.), Designing coherent education policy: Improving the system. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

14.

Porter, A. , Floden, RP , Freeman, D. , Schmidt, W , & Schwille, J. (1988). Content determinants in elementary school mathematics. In D. Grouws , T. Cooney , & D. Jones (Eds.), Effective mathematics teaching. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

15.

Rowan, B. (1983). Instructional management in historical perspective. Educational Administration Quarterly, 18, 43-59.

16.

Smith, M. , & O'Day, J. (1991). Systemic school reform. In S. H. Fuhrman & B. Malen (Eds.), The politics of curriculum and testing (pp. 233-267). New York: Falmer.

17.

Spillane, J. (1993). Interactive policy-making: State instructional policy and the role of the school district. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan.