This article examines state and local government relations in education by considering the influence of one state's standards-based reform initiatives on policy making in the Local Education Agency (LEA) using data from nine school districts. Although state standards initiatives prompted all nine LEAs to ensure that the topics covered in their policies matched the state's standards, the author shows that the influence of standards on LEA policy making was much weaker and inconsistent when it came to the more substantive and complex content and pedagogical changes advanced by state standards. Based on this analysis, the author argues that the local capacity and the local will for complex instructional reform need to be understood in interaction. Further more, the author considers how the tension between state policy instruments as played out in LEAs, coupled with instability in state politics, undermined the influence of state standards on LEA policy making.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Barbeau, E. J.
(1989, September) Mathematics for the public. Paper presented at a meeting of the International Commission on Mathematical Instruction, University of Leeds, UK.
2.
Bardach, E.
(1980). Implementation studies and the study of implements. Paper presented at the 1980 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association.
3.
Bardach, E.
(1982). Self-regulation and regulatory paperwork. In E. Bardach & R. Kagan (Eds.), Social regulation: Strategies for reform (pp. 315-340). San Francisco: Institute for Contemporary Studies.
4.
Boyd, B.
(1976). The public, the professionals, and educational policy making: Who governs?Teachers College Record, 77(4), 547-549.
5.
Cohen, D.
(1996). Standards-based school reform: Policy, practice, and performance. In H. Ladd (Ed.), Holding schools accountable (pp. 99-127). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
6.
Cohen, D. K.
, & Ball, D. L. (1990). Relations between policy and practice: A commentary. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3), 249-256.
7.
Cohen, D. K.
, & Barnes, C. A. (1993). Pedagogy and policy, and conclusion: A new pedagogy for policy? In D. K. Cohen, M. W. McLaughlin, & J. E. Talbert (Eds.), Teaching for under- standing: Challenges for policy and practice (pp. 207-275). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
8.
Cohen, D. K.
, & Spillane, J. P. (1992). Policy and practice: The relations between governance and instruction. Review of Research in Education, 18, 3-50.
9.
Cuban, L.
(1993). How teachers taught: Constancy and change in American classrooms, 1890-1990 (2nd. ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
10.
Duschl, R.
(1990). Restructuring science education: The importance of theories and their development. New York: Teachers College Press.
11.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis
. (1990). Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3). Quarterly publication of the American Educational Research Association.
12.
Firestone, W. A.
(1989). Using reform: Conceptualizing district initiative. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(2), 151-164.
13.
Fuhrman, S.
(1994). Challenges in systemic reform: Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University.
14.
Fullan, M.
(1991). The new meaning of education change. New York: Teachers College Press.
15.
Glaser, B.
, & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
16.
Goertz, M. E.
, Floden, R. E., & O'Day, J. (1995). Studies of education reform: Systemic reform. Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University.
17.
Green, T.
(1983). Excellence, equity, and equality. In L. Shulamn & G. Sykes (Eds.), Handbook of teaching and policy (pp. 318-341). New York: Longman.
18.
Hiebert, J.
, Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Fuson, K., Human, P., Murray, H., Olivier, A., & Wearne, D. (1996). Problem solving as a basis for reform in curriculum and instruction: The case of mathematics. Educational Researcher, 25(4), 12-21.
19.
Little, J.
(1993). Teachers' professional development in a climate of educational reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(2), 129-151.
20.
McDonnell, L. M.
, & Elmore, R. F. (1987). Getting the job done: Altemative policy instruments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,9(2), 133-152.
21.
McLaughlin, M.
(1990). The Rand Change Agent Study revisited: Macro perspectives and micro realities. Educational Researcher, 19(9), 11-16.
22.
McLaughlin, M.
, & Shepard, L. (1995). Improving education through standards-based reform. Stanford, CA: National Academy of Education, Stanford University.
23.
Meyer, J.
, & Rowan, B. (1978). The structure of educational organizations. In M. Meyer& Associates (Eds.), Environments and organizations (pp. 78-109). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
24.
Michigan State Board of Education
. (1990). Michigan's essential goals and objectives for mathematics education. Lansing, MI: Author.
25.
Michigan State Board of Education
. (1992). Model core curriculum outcomes. Lansing, MI: Author.
26.
Miles, M.
, & Huberman, M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: A source book of new methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
27.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA.: Author.
28.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
. (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA.: Author.
29.
Peshldn, A.
(1993). The goodness of qualitative research. Educational Researcher,22(2),24-30
30.
Pressman, J. L.
, & Wildavsky, A. (1984). Implementation. Berkeley: University of California Press.
31.
Price, J. N.
, & Ball, D. L. (1997). "There's always another agenda": Marshaling resources for mathematics reform. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 29(6), 637-666.
32.
Resnick, L.
(1991). Shared cognition: Thinking as social practice. In L. Resnick, J. Levine, & S. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 1-20). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
33.
Romberg, T.
(1983). A common curriculum for mathematics. In G. D. Fenstermacher & J. Goodlad (Eds.), Individual differences and the common curriculum (pp. 121-159). Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education.
34.
Schwille, J.
, Porter, A., Floden, R., Freeman, D., Knappen, L., Kuhs, T., & Schmidt, W. (1983). Teachers as policy brokers in the content of elementary school mathematics. In L. Shulman & G. Sykes (Eds.), Handbook of teaching and policy (pp. 370-39 1). New York: Longman.
35.
Smith, M. S.
, & O'Day, J. (1991). Systemic school reform. In S. Fuhrman & B. Malen (Eds.), The politics of curriculum and testing (pp. 233-267). New York and Philadelphia: Falmer.
36.
Spillane, J. (in progress). Cognition and policy implementation: Local policy-makers and the mathematics reform.
37.
Spillane, J. P.
(1996). Districts matter: Local educational authorities and state instructional policy. Educational Policy, 10(1).
38.
Spillane, J. P.
(1998a). A cognitive perspective on the LEA's role in implementing instructional policy: Accounting for local variability. Educational Administration Quarterly, 34(1), 31-57.
39.
Spillane, J.
(1998b). The progress of standards-based reforms and the non-monolithic nature of the local school district: Organizational and professional considerations. American Educational Research Journal, 35(1), 63-87.
40.
Stake, J.
(1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
41.
Stone, D.
(1988). Policy paradox and political reason. Boston: Little, Brown.
42.
Thompson, C. L.
, Spillane, J. P., & Cohen, D. K. (1994). The state policy system affecting science and mathematics education in Michigan.Michigan Statewide Systemic Initiative Policy and Program Review Component.
43.
U.S. Department of Education
. (1994). Goals 2000: Educate America Act. Washington, DC: Author.
44.
Weiss, J. A.
(1990). Ideas and inducements in mental health. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 19(2), 1-23.
45.
Wilson, S. M.
, Peterson, P. L., Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1996). Learning by all. Phi Delta Kappan,77(7), 468-476.
46.
Zeigler, L.
, & Jennings, M. (1974). Governing American schools: Political interaction in local school districts. North Scituate, MA: Duxbury.
