This study investigates an assumption used to legitimate charter school legislation, namely that such schools will reduce regulatory constraint burdening schools and school personnel. Reformers and policymakers have argued that charter schools will increase teacher empowerment and enable teachers to better carry out their education functions. Testing this assumption by comparing empowerment levels of charter school teachers with noncharter school teachers, the study casts doubt on the assumption. Post hoc analyses are used to examine teacher characteristics and school contextual information in pursuit of possible explanations for the hypothesis’ failure. Two findings are suggestive. There appears to be an interaction between the length of teacher experience and the school type. Low experience teachers in charter schools are not empowered, whereas in noncharter schools, experience is unrelated to teacher empowerment. Additionally, analysis by school shows teacher empowerment to be much more variable both within and among charter schools, when compared to noncharters.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BierleinL. A., & MulhollandL. A. (1994). Comparing charter school laws: The issue of autonomy (Policy Brief). Tempe: Arizona State University Press.
2.
BlauP. M., & ScottW. R. (1962). Formal organizations: A comparative approach.Scranton, PA: Chandler Publishing.
3.
BomottiS., GinsbergR., & CobbB. (1999). Teachers in charter schools and traditional schools: A comparative study. EPAA. Retrieved April 1999, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v7n22.html.
4.
BuechlerM. (1996). Charter schools: Legislation and results after four years (PR-813). Indianapolis: Indiana University.
5.
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: Author.
Connecticut State Department of Education. (1992). Connecticut task force on charter schools report. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 024 818).
9.
DatnowA., HirschbergD., & WellsA. S. (1994, April). Charter schools: Teacher professionalism and decentralization. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
10.
DunstC., TrivetteC., & DealA. (1988). Enabling and empowering families: Principals and guidelines for practice.Cambridge: Brookline Books.
11.
ForsythP. B., & DanisiewiczT. J. (1985). Toward a theory of professionalization. Work and Occupations, 12(1), 59–76.
GibboneyR. A., & GouldJ. M. (1977). Staff development and educational renewal through dialogue in two school systems: A conceptual and empirical assessment (Technical Report No. 143). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
14.
JickT. D. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 602.
15.
KeedyJ. L. (1992). An intellectual empowerment perspective to school restructuring for student cultural diversity in the 21st century. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED356538)
16.
LightfootS. L. (1986). On goodness of schools: Themes of empowerment. Peabody Journal of Education, 63(3), 9–28.
17.
MaeroffG. I. (1988). The empowerment of teachers.New York: Teachers College Press.
18.
MarksH. M., & LouisK. S. (1997). Does teacher empowerment affect the classroom? The implications of teacher empowerment for instructional practice and student academic performance. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(3), 245–275.
19.
MarksH. M., & LouisK. S. (1999). Teacher empowerment and the capacity for organizational learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(supplement), 707–750.
20.
McDonaldJ. P. (1997). Redesigning school: Lessons for the 21st century.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
21.
McGreeK. (1995). Redefining education governance: The charter school concept.Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.
22.
MckenzieF. D. (1989). The implications and rewards of teacher empowerment. Preparing schools for the 1990s. Metropolitan Life.
23.
MulhollandL. A., & BierleinL. (1993). Charter schools: A glance at the issues. Policy brief. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED363009)
24.
NathanJ. (1996a). Charter schools: Creating hope and opportunity for American education.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
25.
NathanJ. (1996b). Possibilities, problems, and progress: Early lessons from the charter movement. Phi Delta Kappan, 78, 18–23.
26.
ParsonsT. (1960). Structure and process in modern societies.New York: Free Press.
27.
RappaportJ. (1981). In praise of paradox: A social policy of empowerment over prevention. American Journal of Community Psychology, 9(1), 1–25.
28.
RappaportJ. (1987). Terms of empowerment/exemplars of prevention: Toward a theory for community psychology. American Journal of Community Psychology, 15(2), 121–144.
29.
RinehartJ. S., ShortP. M., ShortR. J., & EckleyM. (1998). Teacher empowerment and principal leadership: Understanding the influence process. Educational Administration Quarterly, 34(supplement), 630–649.
30.
RowanB. (1995). The organizational design of schools. In BacharachS. B., & MundellB. (Eds.), Images of schools: Structures and roles in organizational behavior (pp. 11–42). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
31.
SandidgeR. F., RussoC. J., HarrisJ. J.III, & FordH. H. (1996). School-based decision making American style: Perspectives and practices throughout the United States. Interchange, 27(3-4), 313–329.
32.
SarasonS. B. (1998). Charter schools: Another flawed educational reform?New York: Teachers College Press.
33.
ShortP. M. (1994a). Defining teacher empowerment. Education, 114(4), 488–492.
34.
ShortP. M. (1994b). School empowerment through self-managing work teams: Leader behavior in developing self-managing work groups in schools. Education, 114(4), 493–502.
35.
ShortP. M., & GreerJ. T. (1989). Increasing teacher autonomy through shared governance: Effects on policy making and student outcomes.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
36.
ShortP. M., & GreerJ. T. (1997). Leadership in empowered schools: Themes from innovative efforts.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill–Prentice Hall.
37.
ShortP. M., & RinehartJ. S. (1992). School participant empowerment scale: Assessment of levels of empowerment within the school environment. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52, 951–960.
38.
SmylieM. A., LazarusV., & Brownlee-ConyersJ. (1996). Instructional outcomes of school-based participative decision making. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 18(3), 181–198.
39.
WallR., & RinehartJ. S. (1998). School based decision making and the empowerment of secondary school teachers. Journal of School Leadership, 8(1), 49–64.
40.
WellsA. S., GrutzikC., & CarnochanS. (1996, April). Underlying policy assumptions of charter school reform: The multiple meanings of a movement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York City.
41.
WhiteP. A. (1992). Teacher empowerment under “ideal” school-site autonomy. Educational Evaluation & Policy Analysis, 9(1), 69–82.
42.
WohlstetterP., WenningR., & BriggsK. L. (1995). Charter schools in the United States: The question of autonomy. Educational Policy, 9(4), 331–358.
