University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Education reform: Variables associated with establishing policies and authorizing funding for elementary and secondary education

(USC Thesis Other)

Education reform: Variables associated with establishing policies and authorizing funding for elementary and secondary education

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content EDUCATION REFORM: VARIABLES ASSOCIATED WITH ESTABLISHING POLICIES AND AUTHORIZING FUNDING FOR ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION by Jacqueline J. Garrett A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE SCHOOL OF POLICY, PLANNING, AND DEVELOPMENT UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION (DOCTOR OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT STUDIES) August 2002 Copyright 2002 Jacqueline J. Garrett R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. UMI Number: 3094410 Copyright 2002 by Garrett, Jacqueline J. All rights reserved. ® UMI UMI Microform 3094410 Copyright 2003 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SCHOOL OF POLICY, PLANNING, AND DEVELOPMENT UNIVERSITY PARK LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90089 This dissertation, written by under the direction of h.&.f... Dissertation Committee, and approved by all its members, has been presented to and accepted by the Faculty of the School of Policy, Planning, and Development, in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF P UBLIC AD MINIS TRA TION Dean Date.... DISSERTATION COMMITTEE Chairperson R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. DEDICATION For my parents John and Gallic Garrett; you instilled in all your children—John, James, Joan, Janette, Josephine, and me—that getting a good education is a necessity. Although you are gone, your love and teachings linger. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My extreme gratitude goes to my Chair, Doctor Charles I. Cicchetti, and the rest of my Committee, Doctor Robert Carter, Professor Emeritus, and Mr. Dan Flanagan, Jr., an expert in the field of education finance. I am indeed indebted to you for your patience, knowledge, direction and guidance. Without your support, this would not have been possible. I would like to express my appreciation to my daughter, Tomika Bell Marshall, for not only being there for me through this entire process, but also for all her computer help. I also want to thank my son-in-law, Charles C. Marshall, for his support and encouragement. Last, but not least, I want to thank all of my prayer partners for claiming the victory of my success long before I did. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. TABLE OF CONTENTS DEDICATION .............................................................................................. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................................................... iii LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................ viii LIST OF FIGURES............................................................................................ x ABSTRACT .............................................................................................. xi Chapter I. INTRODUCTION AND OUTLINE.................................................. 1 Introduction.................................................'................................ 1 Outline.......................................................................................... 9 Definition of Terms....................................................................... 11 II. THE PROBLEM AND LITERATURE REVIEW ............................. 16 Statement of the Problem ............................................................. 16 Literature Review......................................................................... 18 Historical Background ................................................................. 19 Theoretical Perspectives............................................................... 31 Rational Choice..................................................................... 31 Public Choice......................................................................... 35 Systems.................................................................................. 38 Theory of Democratic Administration ................................. 40 Incrementalism....................................................................... 43 Federalism............................................................................. 45 Economic ............................................................................. 48 Ideology ................................................................................ 52 Privatization........................................................................... 55 Governmental Arrangements ............................................ 57 Private-Sector Arrangements......................................... . 59 iv R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. ffl. THE HYPOTHESIS AND ANALYSES............................................ 63 Introducing the Hypothesis.......................................................... 63 The Hypothesis ........................................................................... 65 Analyses.................... 65 Analyzing Pertinent Aspects of the Public School Choice Movement............................................................ 70 Mechanisms Associated with Public School C hoice............ 80 Alternative Programs or P a th s.......................................... 80 Demonstration or Targeted Choice Programs 82 Charter Schools..................................................................... 83 Magnet Schools..................................................................... 89 School-Based Management.................................................. 91 Privatizing Elementary and Secondary Education ....................... 92 Private School Choice................................................................... 93 Mechanisms Associated with Private School Choice................... 94 Independent Schools ............................................................ 94 Vouchers............................................................................... 95 Home Schooling ................................................................... 101 Private Scholarships............................................................... 112 Divergent Entrepreneurial Ventures...................................... 113 Analyzing the Attributes of a Paradigm........................................ 117 Evidence to Look for in Recognizing a Shifting Paradigm 119 Traditional Variables Viewed as Significant in Shaping Education Reform Perspectives................................... 126 Symbolic Status or Symbolism.............................................. 127 Ideology Linked to Political Advantage............................... 128 Efficiency............................................................................... 130 Effectiveness......................................................................... 133 Change American Education to Create a Better National Image ............................................................... 135 Emerging Variables Viewed as Significant in Shaping Education Reform Perspectives....................... 138 E quity.................................................................................... 139 Empowerment....................................................................... 141 Accountability....................................................................... 144 Autonomy............................................................................. 150 Economy................................................................................ 152 v R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. IV. PROPOSAL ....................................................................................... 156 Purpose of the Study.................................................................... 156 Research Question ....................................................................... 156 Importance of the Research.......................................................... 157 Research Design........................................................................... 158 Research Methods ....................................................................... 159 Elite or Expert Interviews............................................................ 164 Units of Analyses and Sources of Information............................. 167 Document Review ....................................................................... 168 Limitations................................................................................... 168 V. PO LIC Y .............................................................................................. 169 Introduction................................................................................. 169 Federal R o le................................................................................. 172 States’ Role ................................................................................. 179 Local Role ................................................................................... 184 Influence of the Constitution and the C ourts............................... 187 Financial Influence ....................................................................... 198 VI. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS.................................................... 217 Findings ........................................................................................ 217 Cleveland’s Choice Program ................................................ 218 Milwaukee’s Choice Program .............................................. 223 Examples and Evaluations of Prominent Studies................... 229 Major Arguments of Proponents and Opponents Evaluating School Choice ................................................ 236 Proponents ....................................................................... 236 Opponents......................................................................... 239 Prominent Voices Representing Popular Views ................... 243 A Representation of Unions’ V iew s................................. 243 A Representation of Religious Organizations’ Views .... 246 A Representation of Teachers’ Views ............................. 247 A Representation of Individuals’ Voices........................... 247 A Representation of the Bush Administration’s Views . . . 247 Presentation and Evaluation of Findings from the Elite Interviewing Instrument............................................ 248 Summary of Part I Responses .......................................... 248 Summary of Part II Responses.......................................... 252 vi R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Summary of Part HI Responses........................................ 282 Summary of Part IV Responses........................................ 288 Evidence of a Shifting Paradigm............................................ 289 Conclusion................................................................................... 294 Recommendations......................................................................... 299 Perspectives on How Stakeholders Can Develop an Effective Path for Future Reforms .................... 300 Educators ............................................................................. 302 Legislatures........................................................................... 302 Minority Leaders................................................................... 304 Parents.................................................................................... 306 Unions.................................................................................... 307 Further Research........................................................................... 308 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY......................................................................... 310 APPENDICES I. CRS Report .............................................................................. 327 II. The Elite Interviewing Instrument............................................. 341 III. Respondents to the Elite Interviewing Instrument .......... 347 IV. Part I of the Elite Interviewing Instrument................................ 353 V. Part III of the Elite Interviewing Instrument ............................ 365 VI. Part IV of the Elite Interviewing Instrument ............................ 381 vii R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. LIST OF TABLES 1. Voucher Attempts..................................................................................... 101 2. Distribution of Students............................................................................. 106 3. Reasons for Home Schooling.................................................................... 109 4. Percentage of Home-Schooled Students................................................... 110 5. Sources of Information ............................................................................. 167 6. Resource Development and Support—Elementary and Secondary Education......................................................................... 174 7. Revenues for Public Elementary and Secondary Schools ........................ 202 8. Summary of Education Expenditures Per Student ................................... 203 9. Pro- and Anti-Choice Arguments.............................................................. 243 10. Part II of the Elite Interviewing Instrument—Responses Identifying Variables that the Federal Government “Does Consider” Significant in Deciding Policy and Funding Amounts.......................................... 254 11. Part II of the Elite Interviewing Instrument—Responses Identifying Variables that the Federal Government “Should Consider” Significant in Deciding Policy and Funding Amounts . ................... 258 12. Part II of the Elite Interviewing Instrument—Variables Placed in Rank Order by Number for What Respondents Believe the Federal Government “Does Consider” When Deciding Policy and Funding Amounts................................................................................ 261 viii R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 13. Part II of the Elite Interviewing Instrument—Variables Placed in Rank Order by Number for What Respondents Believe the Federal Government “Should Consider” When Deciding Policy and Funding Amounts............................................................................... 262 14. Part II of the Elite Interviewing Instrument—Variables Placed in Rank Order by Variable Name for What Respondents Believe the Federal Government “Does Consider” When Deciding Policy and Funding Amounts............................................................................... 264 15. Part II of the Elite Interviewing Instrument—Variables Placed in Rank Order by Variable Name for What Respondents Believe the Federal Government “Should Consider” When Deciding Policy and Funding Amounts.............................................................. 267 ix R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. LIST OF FIGURES 1 . Expenditures Per Student in Government Schools—International Comparisons ................................................................................... 30 2. Students in Public and Private Schools................................................... 62 3. Summary of Legal Status of Home Schooling ...................................... 103 4. Estimate of the Number of Home-Schooled Students............................ 105 5. The Sigmoid Curve ................................................................................ 125 6. Flowchart of Data Analyses Procedures................................................ 163 7. Pictorial Rankings (1-10) of What the Federal Government “Does Consider” When Deciding Policy and Funding............................... 270 8. Pictorial Rankings (1-10) of What the Federal Government “Should Consider” When Deciding Policy and Funding............................... 276 x R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. ABSTRACT Educating young people is a major responsibility of adult society. It is a service that deals directly and intimately with people. An aspect of the broad education reform arena is the school choice issue. School choice correlates to past, current, and future educational reform efforts. It embodies budgeting, and budgeting is all about governing. This study identifies traditional as well as emerging variables that dictate the way that the federal government sets policies and authorizes appropriations. It differentiates what education experts or elites consider significant in deciding policy and allocating funding from what federal policymakers consider significant. The intersections between the two spheres of influence are demonstrative of the volatility existing in this field of study. The question that this study addresses is if emerging variables in education reform have effectuated a paradigm shift in the way the federal government establishes policies and authorizes funding for elementary and secondary education. Relevant theories representing diverse stakeholders’ perspectives are presented as a way of helping us to understand and clarify the who, what, and why concerning this issue. Political stances are conveyed. The roles of local, state, and xi R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. federal governments are specified. The influence of the Courts and the Nation’s finances as it relates to funding elementary and secondary education is expostulated. A variety of other factors impacting how education reform has developed in this Nation are explored. Evidence of a shifting paradigm as well as future trajectory is examined. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION AND OUTLINE Introduction The issue of education reform is currently receiving attention from many segments of society. This interest spam from the White House and Congress to educators, the press, parents, churches, and others. The variables used to describe and consider various aspects of elementary and secondary education have gradually evolved. Terms, such as school choice, privatization, vouchers, empowerment, etc., imply different things to different stakeholders. This study was structured to address the developments of education reform over time. It focuses on traditional variables as well as emerging variables linked to various aspects of reform. It examines what the federal government is perceived as considering significant in authorizing funding for elementary and secondary education against what others knowledgeable about educating our youth consider significant. This inquiry was timely because rapid changes have led to confusion and tremendous differences of opinions on the effectiveness of the various mechanisms currently being implemented to fix what Is wrong with the American system of 1 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. public education. Theoretical perspectives were presented to assist in understanding how and why this issue has progressed over time. Policy roles and responsibilities associated with federal., state, and local governments were explored. The importance of the judicial system and the impact of its decisions throughout history were explored. The influences of financial considerations were described. The impact of unions and private school choice was analyzed. In 1986, in its first major pronouncement ever on education, the National Governors’ Association announced that governors were very interested in public school choice. “America is a land of choices. . . . Thus, it is ironic that. . . there is so little choice in the public school system. . . . [We recommend permitting] families to select from among...public schools in their state . . . with tax funds following the students.” The Choice Controversy, edited by Peter W. Cookson, Jr. (1992), states that few educational reforms have ignited the public imagination as much as “school choice,” and few reforms have aroused so much public controversy. School choice is a policy perspective, but it is also a philosophical and political perspective. Without doubt, school choice has become infused with emotion, because it is a reform issue that goes directly to the heart of an American dilemma. It asks the question: “What is the correct balance between individual and family freedom and the rights of the community?” The school choice controversy engages us at several levels; it touches 2 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. our beads as welt as our hearts and compels us to ask questions about the fundamental purposes of education. Education reform is not just about school choice or school improvement; it is also a metaphor for how we should live our lives. The question that this dissertation addresses is: Have emerging variables in education reform effectuated a paradigm shift in the way the federal government establishes policies and authorizes funding for elementary and secondary education? Federal policy, for the most part, and for most endeavors, including education, is a consequence of political interactions among three components known as the iron triangle: (1) executive branch agencies, (2)congressional committees, and (3) interest groups. The actions and interactions among these entities will be explored. Traditionally, schools provided the minimum basic education needed by an individual to function in society. Schooling has expanded, however, to include vocational education, special education for physically and economically disadvantaged students, bilingual education, sex education, etc. Specific assumptions about funding, conscious or unconscious, define courses of action that, when chosen, precede tactical decisions. There is a growing schism between the abstraction of budgeting theories and the experience of budgeting as a practice. The complexity and ambiguity of practice do not lend itself to the neat segmentation of decisions governed by technical rationality or, 3 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. alternatively, the utility-maximizing process. The demand side asks the question of whether the consumers of education should be given the central role of choosing their education. The supply side of the issue poses the question of whether the suppliers in education should be given the autonomy to respond to the consumers in a flexible way (Pearson, 1993). Traditional as well as current variables used by the federal government to decide policy and establish fending levels for elementary and secondary education at the national level will be identified, defined, and analyzed. In order to more comprehensively understand the dynamics of this issue, theoretical perspectives of diverse stakeholders’ perspectives are presented. A determination will be made regarding the underlying assumptions traditionally used to set policy and fend education programs at the elementary and secondary levels and whether the onslaught of attention currently surrounding this issue has already facilitated a paradigm shift or if a paradigm shift is imminent. The lack of relative success in the 1960's and 1970's in creating public school systems that are more economical, more efficient, more effective, more responsive, and a host of other determinates catering to various constituents’ demands have stimulated calls for structural revisions and radical reforms. Many of these alterations would not simply change the bureaucratic layering of American education but would more dramatically shift fundamental decision-making processes. Two of the most radical proposals are vouchers and tuition tax credits. 4 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Schools are political entities. Ballot initiatives to provide vouchers for elementary and secondary school children failed in California, Wisconsin, and Ohio. Nevertheless, the campaign for the federal government to provide funding for educational vouchers has not subsided. Losses at polls may have slowed the crusaders’ momentum, but it is unlikely to squelch the campaign altogether. During the 2000 elections, both Democrats and Republicans claimed that they were making education a national priority. Both parties vied to be seen as proponents of education. They realized that voters believe it is important to improve our system of education. The parties’ approaches varied greatly. The Democrats’ proposal substantially increased funding for all levels of education and new initiatives, such as an early reading program and aid for school construction. They opposed vouchers and tax aid for private school tuition and were wary of the effect of block grants. In contrast, Republicans proposed aid for private school tuition, vouchers, and collapsing current programs into block grants. In addition, Republicans generally- opposed Clinton’s new initiatives in elementary and secondary education and proposed minimal increases in education funding. The first legislation that President George W. Bush sent to Congress upon taking office was an education reform initiative. When he unveiled his education plan to improve America’s schools to Congress in January 2001, vouchers were included. He stated that he was making education Ms first major policy initiative. The plan he submitted mirrored Ms campaign platform: a $47.6 billion plan 5 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. designed to shape up failing schools; increase the student-testing regimen; hand districts more control over federal dollars; and make sure all children could read by age nine. President Bush provided several provisions for school choice, including a $200 million Education Certificate Program Support Fund and a $30 million fund for the creation of National School Choice Demonstration Projects. The President wanted to require annual state reading and math tests for students in every grade in order to gather reliable data on “who’s falling behind and who needs help.” In the President’s plan, failing schools had three years to get up to standards, so that pupils were able to achieve, before federal funds are stripped for other uses, such as vouchers. He wanted legislation enacted by summer, 2001, so that school districts would have time to implement reforms for the 2001-2002 academic year; that did not happen. Democrats, led by Senators Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Evan Bayh of Indiana, unveiled an alternative to the President’s education plan. Their proposal was similar; however, it included increasing funding, making schools accountable, and focusing on reading. Their proposal directed funds more toward poor schools and omitted private school vouchers. On May 24, 2001, Senator James M. Jeffords of Vermont stated that a significant part of the reason why he decided to switch from the Republican party and declare himself an independent was because of the educational reform issue. An 6 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. excerpt from Ms statement as published by the Washington Post (May 25, 200!) stated: Looking ahead, I can see more and more instances where I’ll disagree with the President on very fundamental issues—the issues of choice, the direction of the judiciary, tax and spending decision, missile defense, energy and the environment, and a host of other issues—large and small. The largest for me is education, I come from the state of Justin Smith Morrill, a U.S. Senator from Vermont who gave America its land grant college system. His Republican Party stood for opportunity for all, for opening the doors of public school education to every American. Now for some success seems to be measured by the number of students moved out of the public schools. In a speech given to the Committee for Education Funding on September 13, 2001, Jeffords stated: “We must invest in each child’s education as if our future depends on it—because it does.” Congress has given final approval (December 18, 2001) on what is being hailed as landmark education legislation. President Bush hails its passage and says that he wiE sign the biE early in 2002. The following are salient components of the bill, as reported by the Washington Post (December 19, 2001): 1. Authorizes $26.5 billion in K-12 education spending for fiscal 2002, $8 billion more than the previous year. The amount is $4 billion more than President Bush requested and $6 billion less than what Senate Democrats requested. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2. Schools mast raise all students to “proficient” in reading and math in the next twelve years. Schools must close gaps in scores between wealthy and poor students and White and minority students. 3. Requires annual tests in reading and math for every child in grades three through eight. Schools whose scores fail to improve two years in . a row can receive more federal funds. If scores still fail to improve, low- income students can receive money for tutoring or transportation to another public school. Staff changes can be required after a school fails to improve for six years. 4. Churches or other religious groups can provide tutoring and after-school programs. However, the legislation does not provide for vouchers to attend private or religious schools, as Bush proposed. 5. States must ensure within 4 years that all teachers are qualified in their subject area. 6. Schools must develop periodic “report cards” showing a school’s standardized test scores compared with local and state scores. The reports will also show two-year trends in scores and compare the percentage of qualified teachers in a school with other schools. 7. Provides $1 billion per year for five years to improve reading to ensure every student can read by the third grade. 8 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 8. Allows states to use a small portion of federal funds as they wish. A pilot program frees a small number of states and school districts from most restrictions on spending. 9. Schools must test students with limited English skills to ensure they are proficient in English after three consecutive years of attending school in the United States. 10. Provides money to help schools form partnerships with colleges and universities to improve math and science instruction. 11. Provides aid to build new charter schools and help existing ones. The current pause, perhaps reversal, in the trend in public education at the elementary and secondary levels offers an opportunity to reexamine the variables or factors that the federal government considers significant and those that they should consider significant in setting policy and authorizing funding. Outline Chapter 1 (Introduction and Outline) lays out the research and speaks briefly to its findings. The question addressed by this dissertation is posed. Salient points of the “No Child Left Behind Act,” recently signed into law, are itemized. Definitions of terms are introduced. Chapter 2 (The Problem and Literature Review) contains the statement of the problem. The literature review commences by offering an historical background followed by theoretical perspectives. Chosen relevant theories include: (1) Rational 9 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Choice, (2) Public Choice, (3) Systems, (4) Theory of Democratic Administration, (5) Incrementalism, (6) Federalism, (7) Economic, (8) Ideology, and (9) Privatization. Chapter 3 ( The Hypothesis and Analyses) presents the hypothesis. Analyses were performed on: (1) pertinent aspects of the public school choice movement, (2) mechanisms associated with public school choice, (3) salient aspects regarding privatizing elementary and secondary education, and (4) mechanisms associated with private school choice. Attributes of a paradigm were analyzed as well as evidence to look for in recognizing a shifting paradigm. All variables, traditional as well as emerging, were analyzed. Traditional variables identified as significant In shaping education reform perspectives are: (1) symbolism, (2) ideology, (3) efficiency, (4) effectiveness, and (5) national image. Emerging variables identified as significant in shaping education reform perspectives are: (1) equity, (2) empowerment, (3) accountability, (4) autonomy, and (5) economy. Chapter 4 (Proposal) defines the proposed study. The purpose of the study Is addressed. The research question is posed. An explanation of the importance of the research, the design, and the methodology used to conduct it are put forth. The method used to conduct the elite or expert Interviews is explained. The units of analyses, sources of Information, document review, and limitations are spelled out. Chapter 5 (Policy) analyzes financial policies—past as well as current. It distinguishes the policy for the federal role, the states’ role, and the local role. The 10 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. influence of the Constitution and the courts is also specified. The influence of financial considerations is discussed. Chapter 6 (Findings and Conclusions) details germane studies from various sources. Findings from Cleveland’s Choice Program and Milwaukee’s Choice Program are evaluated. Examples and evaluations of other prominent studies and major arguments of proponents and opponents evaluating school choice are also put forth. Prominent voices representing popular views, such as: (1) unions, (2) teachers, (3) individual voices, and (4) the Bush Administration’s views, are detailed. An exhaustive presentation and evaluation of findings from the Elite Interviewing Instalment are imparted. Lastly, evidence of a shifting paradigm, conclusions, recommendations, and suggestions for further research are provided. Definition of Terms Alternative Paths. This term refers to a system by which the school or school system makes it possible for individual students to study and earn diploma credits through a variety of external learning experiences. Block Grants. Block grants are federal grants to states that provide a high degree of flexibility in the ways in which aid may be used, perhaps coupled with more specific requirements for accountability in terms of outcomes. They are frequently proposed as the outcome for a consolidation of several existing federal education programs. Under a block grant, school choice might be an explicitly 11 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. authorized use,, a required use (perhaps of some specified portion of funding), or a precondition for participation (i.e., federal funds are available only to those implementing choice plans). (Note: Among the options considered by the 104th thru 106* Congresses was the consolidation of several federal education programs into a single source of assistance that could be used more broadly and more flexibly than the assistance that might be provided under the individual antecedent programs.) At times, choice programs have been explicitly included among the authorized uses of funds under these block grant proposals, or the authorities are sufficiently open for choice to be supported without explicit mention. Child Benefits. Cochran v. Board of Education (1930) spoke to these types of standards. An example of a child benefit is transportation; state support for textbooks also constitute a child benefit. Creaming. The best and the brightest are skimmed away from inner city schools and accepted into suburban schools as a result of vouchers. Differentiation of Products and Services. Education is a service industry; as such, it is not immune to changes affecting consumption patterns in our economy as a whole. The increasing demand for specialized educational services outside of regular school is a reflection of consumer attitudes as a whole. Educational Choice. This phrase refers to the broader, more inclusive concept, which includes vouchers or tuition tax credits. It refers to choice of public or private schools. 12 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Empowerment. This term refers to the power to do something. Moreover, it is the power to do something without making huge sacrifices or disrupting one’s life. It is normally a matter of degree, not an absolute. Home Schooling. This phrase refers to any effort to meet compulsory education statutes by instruction in a family residence. In other words, it refers to both a process and a site. Independent Schools. This phrase refers to all schools that are not government-funded, regardless of the ultimate sources of their funding. Magnet Schools. Magnet schools, charter schools, and other kinds of experimental schools have been established as a way to integrate district schools. Educational Market. This phrase refers to all the private and public schools in a school district. Private Schools. This phrase refers to schools operated by non-governmental entities and charges tuition. Privatization. This term refers to the transfer of activities conducted by public employees to the private sector. Public Schools Being Operated by Governmental Entities. Funded through compulsory taxation, they charge no tuition. Thus, any student, regardless of economic status, may attend. Reform. This terra means to correct by change; minimally, it is a proposed change. 13 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. School-Based Management, This phrase refers to a decentralized organizational structure in which certain powers and decisions, conventionally reserved to central office personnel (including school boards), are reserved to actors at the site level. School Choke, This phrase includes various options designed to provide maximum flexibility to parents and students in choosing educational settings. It includes inter- and intra-district transfers, magnet schools, schools within schools, alternative schools, charter schools, home schooling, and vouchers. Tax Benefits, Advocates of federal support for school choice may turn to the federal income tax system in order to provide tax benefits—deductions, credits, or exemptions from taxation of certain income—for families paying tuition or related costs for K-12 education. (Note: During the 1995-2000 period, Congress considered amending the federal income tax code to provide support for K-12 choice.) Both the 105* and 106* Congresses moved but failed to enact legislation to provide tax benefits for families saving for K-12 expenses, including those at private sectarian schools. The specific target of this action—the education Individual Retirement Account (IRA)—was first enacted by the 105th Congress. In the 105th and 106* Congresses, bills were introduced that would have provided federal income tax credits for amounts spent by families for elementary and secondary education. They did not pass. 14 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Tuition Tax Credits. Axe credits returned to parents for some or all of the money they spend on tuition or other education-related costs by reducing their tax liability to the state when they file their income tax returns? It is not a tax deduction but a credit. This mechanism enfranchises households as decision-making units regarding education services. It does not entail a government regulation of non- public schooling. Federal or state provisions would permit parents to deduct all or, as more commonly proposed, a portion of non-public school tuition payments as a credit against federal or state personal income tax obligations. Such tax credits can be graduated in terms of schooling level—for example, a larger dollar tax credit for secondary school tuition than for elementary-—or by taxpayer income bracket—for example, proportionally lower tuition payment allowed as a credit against the tax obligation of upper-income taxpayers. Vouchers. This term refers to placing in parents’ hands a fixed sum of money for each child for the purpose of paying tuition at any public, parochial (church-affiliated), or private school. It also refers to the transfer of public funds to private and/or church-affiliated schools. Vouchers permit a greater amount of public regulation of education than do tuition tax credits and, to this degree, are the least radical of the two reforms. 15 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. CHAPTER II THE PROBLEM AND LITERATURE REVIEW Statement of the Problem The general confidence in public schools is down, and the pressure for reform is building. Consequently, scholars, political officials, the media, and the public have paid a great deal of attention to the topic of education reform. Although an enormous amount of rhetoric is available, it does not present a cohesive picture of a very complex and intricate subject. Government support of public schools is deemed necessary based on the “education for democracy” proposition (Cohn, 1970). This proposition asserts that a stable democracy must have a literate citizenry, and education provides the leadership necessary for the perpetuation of the democracy. The most commonly cited reasons for government involvement in education include: (1) the state protection of minors, (2) the externalized effect or benefit to society, (3) the role of education in making democracy work, (4) equality of opportunity, (5) the quest for common values, and (6) the effect of education on economic growth. According to Fliegel (1993), Gerstner (1994), and Lieberman (1990), the educational establishment, the business community, and the public at large have all 16 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. reached the unanimous conclusion that public schools have a problem. The conclusion that schools are failing to fulfill their primary academic mission has created many attempts to reform our educational institutions. A method of instituting change throughout the elementary and secondary education systems is school choice. The school choice issue has the potential of changing conventional intergovernmental relationships in education and shifting the paradigm of longstanding educational arrangements. Many believe that various aspects of education reform, such as school choice, education vouchers, tuition tax credits, etc., will have tremendous negative effects on the public education system. Others believe that they will have positive effects on the system and cause the system to improve. While almost everyone recognizes the significance of education, there is tremendous debate about whether its provision is a public or private responsibility. Recent attention in the elementary and secondary areas has focused on whether a market-based approach to education improves educational quality more than the traditional monopoly-based system of public education. The family, which continues to be the basic social unit, is recognized as having the greatest concern and responsibility for educating our youth. No other social unit is better able to care for a child’s well-being, or to listen to a child’s concerns, or is sufficiently small enough to respond consistently to each child’s interest. Whether government ought to provide assistance in the form of education 17 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. vouchers or tax assistance to help some or all parents send their elementary and secondary school children to out-of-district, public schools or private schools, including sectarian institutions, has become a recurring and politically charged issue at the federal, state, and local levels. Where this issue stands now is a major concern in assessing the status of elementary and secondary education in the United States. The principal aspect of the problem that this study confronts is whether the school choice movement has shifted the paradigm dominating how the federal government views its role in determining national policy and providing funding to educate our children. The opening sentence of A Nation at Risk, the 1983 report on American education, states: “All, regardless of race, or class, or economic status, are entitled to a fair chance and to the tools for developing their individual powers of mind and spirit to the utmost ” How to attain that goal is fundamentally the crux of the problem. Literature Review At first glance, when reviewing education reform literature, it is difficult to distinguish the participants by their stance on the issue. To understand this phenomenon, it is necessary to explore the “whys” behind their stance. The target population, the rhetoric, the topology, and the policy participants are changing so rapidly that it is hard to keep things straight. By the mid 1980s, school choice began 18 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. to enjoy unprecedented support by such unlikely groups as liberal policy scholars, urban educators, Black parents, and state governors. Lowi (1969) writes about the central elements of liberal political theory, most notably the assumptions that individuals are inherently self-interested, individualistic, and competitive; that decisions are fair if they are agreed on; and that the role of government is to protect individual rights. From the political perspective known as pluralism or “interest group liberalism,” he states that representative government occurs as various groups compete to influence political outcomes. The end product of pluralism is some semblance of the public interest. Accordingly, group conflict, competition, and bargaining can typify the political process (Lindblom, 1977; Ventriss, 1991; both quoted in Lynn & Wildavsky, 1990). Historical Background This is not a new issue; it dates back at least two centuries, often based on rather different foundations. Calls for choice have come from various points on the political spectrum. In The Rights o f Man, Thomas Paine (1791) advocated a voucher plan for the poor of ten shillings a year for six years, which included half a crown a year for paper and spelling books. Adam Smith (in Waldo, 1992) also supported a voucher-style family choice plan but emphasized it as an efficient way of letting the market’s creative energy stimulate stuffy pedagogues. John Stuart Mills (1947, in Cookson, 1992) advocated a voucher program for those in need but stressed personal liberty in arguing against the state actually providing the education. Mills went on to 19 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. say: “A general state education, is mere contrivance for molding people to be exactly like one another. . . . [It] should only exist, if it exists at all, as one among many competing experiments.” In 1955, economist Milton. Friedman first put forward Ms provocative proposal in The Role o f Government in Education. He delineated a full-fledged system of school vouchers in minimizing the role of government in education and replacing public schools with privately run institutions supported by taxes. Several decades ahead of Ms time, Friedman anticipated not only the voucher debate, but also the rise of private entrepreneurs as education providers, as well as the spread of charter schools—all of which would change the face of American education at the close of the century. A disciple of Adam Smith, Friedman was a firm believer in the power of the market to meet human needs on the basis of voluntary association without interference from public authority. Having earned Ms professional reputation in economics for Ms work on monetary theory, the Nobel laureate was convinced that unencumbered competition motivates private entrepreneurs toward a Mgh level of performance and the efficient delivery of goods and services at a reasonable cost. He was troubled by the dominance of a government-run bureaucracy in education that he believed perpetuated mediocrity and placed private schools at a competitive disadvantage for resources. 20 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Friedman believed that, as long as government-run institutions had an exclusive claim on public dollars, there were relatively few families that could realistically afford to consider private alternatives, and there was little incentive for public schools to improve. He envisioned a more diversified educational marketplace. Some schools would be run by private entrepreneurs for a profit, while others would be operated by nonprofit organizations to cany out more specialized educational missions. He offered the possibility that such voluntary organizations as the Boy Scouts or the YMCA might eventually start their own schools. The government would set minimum standards of operation for providers, as it does for the food industry, for example, but would not be directly responsible for running any schools. In the end, the viability of an institution would be determined by its ability to attract customers who would exchange their government-appropriated vouchers for the educational services the school provided. He warned that if government were to get aggressively involved in guaranteeing the same quality of life for all people, its intervention would inevitably compromise individual freedom (Viteritti, 1999). Although Friedman expected his ideas to provoke controversy, he could never have appreciated the cultural clash that was sparked when he confronted the education profession with the concept of a free market. Friedman understood the distinctions between competing definitions of equality. He carefully delineated between equality of opportunity, which he favored, and equality of results, which made him uncomfortable. He endorsed educational vouchers as a more efficient way 21 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. to provide education on both the elementary and secondary levels. He believed that voucher plans would result in competition between schools for students and that this competition would have positive effects on educational achievement. He writes that government should fond elementary and probably most secondary education because of its “neighborhood effects.” Some economists refer to such effects as “positive externalities” or “public goods.” These are effects that cannot be provided to A without simultaneously providing a benefit to B. An example is national defense; it is impossible to protect A from invasions without also protecting B from them. Although A and B both benefit from national defense, neither can be expected to purchase it individually. First, neither could afford it. Second, inasmuch as each benefits when national defense is paid for by others, each has an incentive to be a “free rider.” For this reason, we rely on taxes raised through our political system to finance national defense. Similar reasoning led Friedman to accept government support for education, albeit up to somewhat lower grade levels than is the practice today (Liebennan, 1989). Chubb and Moe’s book, Politics, Markets, and American Schools (1990), propelled the issue of school choice further into the spotlight. It proposed a variation of Milton Friedman’s market model. Instead of using the term “voucher,” they introduced the term “scholarship.” They advocated a system of education where private schools would be permitted to compete with public schools for students and 22 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. dollars. Their model was highly accepted by political scientists who advocated an interest group model of decision making. However, it struck a raw nerve in the anatomy of the educational establishment. As they explained: When it comes to educational decision making, particularly at the state and local levels where effective authority resides, the most powerful political groups by far are those with vested interests in the current institutional system: teachers’ unions and myriad associations of principals school boards, superintendents, administrators and professionals—not to mention education schools, book publishers, testing services, and many institutional status quo. (Viteritti, 1999) Since the Supreme Court’s 1935 Pierce decision assured private schools’ the right to exist, those voicing support for choice programs has grown. A 1 Shanker (1970) reportedly complained that this motley “anti school coalition” included: Parochial school interests who see it as a source of money; political conservatives who feel nothing should be public if it can be private; Southern Whites trying to weasel out of desegregation; Black separatists; businessmen looking for a new market in education; middle-class parents who want a subsidy for their escape into private schools in suburbia; and liberal new left anarchists. (Johanek, 1992) Since World War II, the government has been getting more and more involved with various aspects of private life. Examples of this can be found in the housing area through FHA-financed loans for private housing and public housing projects; in health care through Medicare and Medicaid; and in education through the GI Bill and the Stafford loan program. The Office of Education, while a part of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW), had its own separate relationships with Congress 23 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. and its interest groups. The formal organization chart showed a Commissioner of Education reporting to an Assistant Secretary for Education who reported to the Secretary of HEW. The Commissioner of Education’s responsibilities grew in scope and size. Budget decisions, legislative drafting, evaluations, regulation development as well as other functions grew as well. During the first wave of reforms, which extended from the late 1970s, academic standards for students and teachers were emphasized. State after state, in their attempts to improve education, put together a plethora of reforms (Finn & Rebarber, 1992). These reforms were studied and debated and became associated with effective instruction. Strict disciplinary policies, tighter graduation requirements, rigorous certification programs for teachers and even discussions about the length of the day and school year all became benchmarks of first-wave reforms (Liebennan, 1993, in Guthrie, Garms, 8c Pierce, 1988). Throughout this period of educational change, some have argued that raising standards and performance for students and teachers was attempted through the use of bureaucratic enforcement (Boyer, 1983; Goodlad, 1983; Sizer, 1984, in Guthrie, Garms, & Pierce, 1988). The proliferation of regulations attempting to codify educational outcomes was substantial. A case in point: The original law establishing Title I in 1965 was a nine-page document; but, during first-wave reforms, it swelled to a document of 174 pages of rales and regulations. TMs hierarchical method of 24 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. educational reform produced weak effects that never actually solved the problems inherent in the system (Chubb & Moe, 1990). According to many educational leaders, attempts to restructure the school system in this country using the old paradigm has not created lasting reform. Finn and Rebarber (1992) and Murphy (1991) question how new models of governance, authority, and empowerment could become a reality, when their emergence was not predicated on fundamental changes in the system. As the debate continues, Raywid (1991) and Chubb and Moe (1990) contend that institutional reform must be a key element in improving our educational system. Decisions made locally that will empower teachers may only come about when and if the public school shifts the locus of control from the state house to the school house. For reforms to be effective today, we may need to change the ideal of finding a “one best system” for all children (Tyack, 1974, in Guthrie, Garms, & Pierce, 1988). Beginning in the late 1970s, several factors came together to review interest in school choice. School choice cuts across ideological boundaries in a way that fundamentally undermines the Democrats’ New Deal coalition. Bush staffers noted how supportive liberal policy scholars, Black parents, and Catholic prelates have been of school choice (Olson, 1991, in Guthrie, Garms, & Pierce, 1988). It became a major demand of several conservative foundations and policy groups under the rubric of tuition tax credits rather than the isolated proposal of one intellectual. 25 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. The Heritage Foundation called for legislation allowing private school, tuition to be credited against federal income taxes. Conservatives hoped that expanding private schooling would help dismantle government and unleash economic growth. They increasingly argued during the 1970s that the growth of government over the last few decades fundamentally undercut economic growth. Rising expenditures meant higher taxes on corporations and the upper class, leaving less money for investment. Raising expenditures for social programs also weakened workers’ incentives to work hard, especially at low wages. The solution was to privatize state activities by having the private sector take over government services. Because public schools are one of the central agencies of government, conservatives particularly targeted them for retrenchment (Gardner, 1985; Heatherly, 1991; Sowell, 1981, in Guthrie, Garms, & Pierce, 1988). In the case of the religiously-oriented New Right, distaste for public schooling was also motivated by cultural animus. New Right conservatives believed that public schools undermined moral values by failing to have prayer in the schools and by promoting “value free” education. They also failed to prepare children adequately by offering curricular “frills” that detracted from the “basics” of mathematics, science, English, and United States history. Gardner (1985), Mazzoni and Sullivan (1986), and Olson (1987) believe that it was due to the influence of conservative ideas, that various business organizations advocated school choice in several states, including Minnesota, 26 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Indiana, Louisiana, California, and Florida (National Center for Education Statistics 1997-1999). The Nixon Administration argued against program proliferation. Instead, his Administration proposed consolidation of programs into large block grants. The Democratic Congress, at that time, argued for specific programs in response to specific problems. Between 1983 and 1984, the Reagan Administration repeatedly submitted legislation to Congress, providing for federal tax credits to parents paying private school tuition. Like Nixon, he advocated block grants. Unfortunately for conservatives, this legislation aroused passionate opposition and failed to pass. Conservatives found that their new fervor for school choice was enough to put it on the political agenda but not enough to get it passed. If it was to be made into law, school choice had to find a wider circle of advocates. Realizing this, conservatives decided to repackage school choice in a form that its opponents might find more palatable or at least harder to oppose. In the first installment of this new campaign, the Reagan Administration introduced a bill to provide vouchers to low-income youth to purchase remedial education at whatever school, public or private, they chose. This proposal neatly neutralized one of the most frequent objections to tuition tax credits—that they only really served the interests of those wealthy enough to have substantial income tax bills. As a result, a conservative proposal for school choice began to lose the elitist hue it had in many liberals’ eyes. 27 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. George Bush, Sr., contributed to this effort by packaging private school choice initially as public school choice. According to then-White House Chief of Staff, John Sunimu, Bush deliberately framed his initial call for parental choice in terms of public school choice in order to make the general idea of choice palatable first before coming out in favor of his ultimate goal—private school choice (Olson, 1991). The Gallup Polls showed that the public’s ratings of its local public schools have remained basically stable since 1984. This followed a low point in 1983, when the poll was conducted, just after A Nation at Risk was released by the National Commission on Excellence in Education and was widely publicized by the media (Elam, 1990). In a 1991 Gallup Poll of the public’s attitudes toward the public schools, only 21 percent of the people polled gave the Nation’s schools a grade of A or B, but 62 percent favored public school choice. In the same Gallop Poll, people gave their local schools much higher grades than they gave the Nation’s schools. The public school parents polled expressed enormous confidence in the school their oldest children attended. In other words, my public school is fine, but all the rest are failing. As Elam, Ross, and Gallup (1991) said: “The most plausible explanation for these disparities is that the more firsthand knowledge one has about the public schools, the more favorable one’s perception of them. In short, familiarity with the public schools breeds respect.” 28 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. In October 1991, the Bush Administration released a report by the National Education Goals Panel revealing that United States’ students were at the bottom of the class in comparison to other comparable nations. In 1992, the Education Department released statistics illustrating per-pupil expenditures for comparable nations. Figure 1 reveals that, when it comes to funding, this Nation is near the top of the list. 29 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. §000' 4000 ' 3000 - 2000 1000 - 4 6 4 4 4640 ____ 2697 ______________ . _____ .... _ ....................... ........ ............................... I l 2487 ** 2413 2243 tilMATBP} snzER U B m ®BPt c i i m 1963 n m m 1675 H 1Y M f l r n n FIGURE 1 EXPENDITURES PER STUDENT IN GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS—INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONS Source: U.S. Department o f Education (1992, July). Cited in John Hood, Righting the rithmetic. Reason (1994, January). C O o Theoretical Perspectives Theories are presented as a way of .making sense of the issue. Theories are concerned with the dynamics of human activity. Abraham Kaplan (1964) observed: “To engage in theorizing means not just to leam by experience but to take thought about what is there to be learned.” (Glazerman, 1998). Bernard Bass (1960) described the importance of theorizing this way: In any science, our aim is to understand the phenomena we study. We understand a phenomenon when we are able to account for it by means of a set of principles, principles which are sufficiently general to apply in various combinations to other phenomena. We check our principles through testing the accuracy of our predictions, using the principles. Finally, we may achieve control over the phenomena by appropriately using the principles. Rational Choice Elinor Ostrom, in “A Behavioral Approach to the Rational Choice Theory of Collective Action: Presidential Address, American Political Science Association” (1998), writes that one of the most powerful theories used in contemporary social sciences— -rational choice theory—helps us understand the human as a self- interested, short-term maximizer. Models of complete rationality have been highly successful in predicting marginal behavior in competitive situations in which selective pressures screen out those who do not maximize external values, such as profits in a competitive market or the probability of electoral success in party competition. These models help us to explain arguments regarding educational vouchers and how competitive markets as well as party competition are relevant to 31 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. the issue. An example of how this theory is used in the debate to fond elementary and secondary education programs within education is by replacing the prevailing mode of funding with one emphasizing school choice. Thin models of rational choice have been unsuccessful in explaining or predicting behavior in one-shot or finitely-repeated social dilemmas in which the theoretical prediction is that no one will cooperate. In repeated social dilemmas, standard rational choice models predict a multitude of equilibria ranging from the very best to the very worst of available outcomes without any hypothesized process for how individuals might achieve more productive outcomes and avert disasters. Substantial evidence from experiments demonstrates that cooperation levels for most one-shot or finitely repeated social dilemmas far exceed the predicted levels and are systematically affected by variables that play no theoretical role in affecting outcomes. Field research also shows that individuals systematically engage in collective action to provide local public goods, such as education funding or manage common- pool resources, without an external authority to offer inducements or impose sanctions. Simply assuming that individuals use long-range thinking to achieve the goal of establishing and/or maintaining continued mutual cooperation Is not a sufficient theory either (Pruitt & Kimmel, 1977). It does not explain why some groups fail to obtain joint outcomes easily available to them or why initial cooperation can break down. We now have enough scholarship for multiple 32 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. disciplines to expand, the range of rational choice models that we use. For at least five reasons, we need to formulate a behavioral theory of bounded rational and moral behavior. Following is a summary of Ostrom’s five main reasons. .First, behavior in social dilemmas is affected by many structural variables, including the size of a group, heterogeneity of participants, their dependence on the benefits received, their discount rates, the type and predictability of transformation processes involved, the nesting of organizational levels, monitoring techniques, and the information available to participants. In theories that predict either zero or 100 percent cooperation, in one-shot or finitely-repeated dilemmas, structural variables do not affect levels of cooperation at all. A coherent explanation of the relationship between structural variables and the likelihood of individuals solving social dilemmas depends on developing a behavioral theory of rational choice. This will allow scholars who stress structural explanations of human behavior and those who stress individual choice to find common ground, rather than continue the futile debate over whether structural variables or individual attributes are the most important. Second, scholars in all the social and some biological sciences have active research programs focusing on how groups of individuals achieve collective action. An empirically supported theoretical framework for the analysis of social dilemmas would integrate and link their efforts. Essential to the development of such a framework is a conception of human behavior that views complete rationality as one 33 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. member of a family of rationality models rather than the only way to model human behavior. Competitive institutions operate as a scaffolding structure so that individuals who fail to team how to maximize some external value are no longer in the competitive game (Alchian, 1950; Clark, 1995; Satz & Ferejohn, 1994). If all institutions involved strong competition, then the thin model of rationality used to explain behavior in competitive markets would be more useful. Models of human behavior based on theories consistent with our evolutionary and adaptive heritage need to join the ranks of theoretical tools used in the social and biological sciences. Third, sufficient work by cognitive scientists, evolutionary theorists, game theorists, and social scientists in all disciplines (Axelrod, 1984; Boyd & Richardson, 1988, 1992; Cook & Levi, 1990; Guth & Kliemt, 1995; Sethi & Somanathan, 1996; Simon, 1985, 1997) on the use of heuristics and norms of behavior, such as reciprocity, has already been undertaken. It is now possible to continue this development toward a firmer behavioral foundation for the study of collective action to overcome social dilemmas. Fourth, much of our current public policy analysis—particularly since Garrett Hardin’s evocative paper, The Tragedy o f the Commons (1968)—-is based on an assumption that rational individuals are helplessly trapped in social, dilemmas from which they cannot extract themselves without inducement or sanctions applied from the outside. 34 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Many policies based on this assumption have been subject to major failure and have exacerbated the very problems they were intended to ameliorate (Arnold & Campbell, 1986; Baland & Platteau, 1996; Morrow & Hull, 1996). Policies based on the assumptions that individuals can leam how to devise well-tailored rales and cooperate conditionally when they participate in the design of institutions affecting them are more successful .in the field (Berkess, 1989; Bromley, 199.2; Ellickson, 1991; Feeny, 1990; McCay & Acheson, 1987; McKean & Ostrona, 1995; Pickerton, 1989; Voder, 1994). Fifth, the image of citizens we provide in our textbooks affects the long-term viability of democratic regimes. Introductory textbooks that presume rational citizens will be passive consumers of a political life—the masses—and focus primarily on the role of politicians and officials at a national level—the elite—do not inform future citizens of a democratic polity of the actions they need to know and can undertake. While many political scientists claim to eschew teaching as the normative foundation of a democratic polity, they actually introduce a norm of cynicism and distrust without providing a vision of how citizens could do anything to challenge corruption, rent seeking, or poorly designed policies (Ostrom, 1998). Public Choice This theory is primarily deductive and draws its analytical tools from formal logic and probability theory, as well as economics (Abrams, 1980) and focuses on the 35 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. decision rales and non-market decision-making arrangements for public economies as distinguished from market economies (Ostrom, 1977). Public choice theorists hypothesize that individuals operating in public economies behave rationally, as do individuals in market economies. A rational individual, “is simply one who has a consistent set of preferences to a set of alternatives” (Abrams, 1980). Rational individuals attempt to satisfy ordered preferences by decisions and actions. In the public realm, therefore, the voter chooses parties and candidates whose positions on the issues are closer to his or her own (Downs, 1957). Public choice and traditional public administration have a common interest in governmental performance measured by efficiency, though not invariably by the same measurement tests. According to Vincent Ostrom (1974) public administration has tended to judge efficiency indirectly by an administrative structure criterion: “The greater the degree of specialization, professionalization, and linear organization in a unitary chain of command, the greater the efficiency.” To the public choice school, efficiency is most appropriately measured by a cost calculus—“accomplishment of a specifiable objective at least cost, or a higher level of performance at a given cost.” A public sector depicted by diversity, fragmentation, and overlap can be quite efficient (Ostrom, 1973) and capable of optimizing citizen preferences. Derivable from public choice theory are implications and prescriptions that constitute major, and in some instances radical, departures from conventional 36 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. thinking or public administration professionalism. Movement from bureaucratic administration and toward democratic administration changes the criteria of exemplary practices and the direction of public administration research and training. Most fundamentally, with the identification and satisfaction of citizen preference as the predominant concern, government policymakers are examining anew constitutional order and federalism as they study alternative means of service production in the realm of education reform in the form of vouchers or school choice. Choice theory-—privatization, vouchers, and voluntary initiatives—was applied by local, state, and national government during the 1970s and 1980s, partly because of the pressures on public finances, but also because of the availability of the solutions (Rabin, Hildreth, & Miller, 1988). This theory has been criticized for supporting vested interests and for underestimating the implication for the rights of minorities (Goiembiewski, 1977; Ostrom, 1977; Baker, 1976). It sets forth a model of interrelated assumptions about values, norms, and appropriate questions and methods; it is to a considerable degree a Twentieth-Century version of evolutionary theory. According to Homans (1950), evolutionists place primary emphasis on linked stages of socioeconomic and cultural development; the structural-functional theorists focus on the homoeostatic or balancing mechanisms by which societies maintain a uniform state. As the dominant social-change orientation in American social science for the past half-century or so, this theory and its refined version of systems theory has powerfully influenced 37 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. American views of how educational systems function, why they change, as well as what are the appropriate and valid educational-reform goals, strategies, tactics, and funding that support various education programs. The sociologist Talcott Parsons (195.1, 1966, 1970) has written extensively from both evolutionary and structural-functional perspectives concerning patterns, maintenance, and change in education. As such, a social system is in moving equilibrium and authority exists when the state of the elements that enter the system and of the relations between them, including the behavior of the leaders is such that disobedience to them will be followed by changes in order for elements to bring the system to the state that the leader would have wished it had reached if the disobedience had not taken place. For structural functional theorists, inequality (as reflected by social and educational stratification) arises basically out of the needs of societies, not out of the vested inequality. This is beneficial to all, since individual survival is contingent on the survival and well-being of society. Systems Educational practices are not phenomena that are isolated from one another; rather, for a given society, they are bound up in the same system, all the parts of which contribute toward the same end. Widespread efforts to apply notions of systems theory to describe and predict educational-change phenomena are concerned with developing systems analysis as a technique for decision-making. General system theory represents an attempt to build on the fields of biology, cybernetics, 38 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. information, and cxsmmimication theory in order to move beyond the conceptual and explanatory limitations of structural-fimctional theory (Bertalanfiy, 1962; Cadwallader, 1968). The systems theory perspectives have been used in the diagnosis and planning of national educational-reform efforts and, in this regard, can be used to illustrate causes and effects (Adams, 1970; Elboim-Dror, 1970). Fox and Schachter and Fox (1975) have attempted to refine and advance systems theory in ways that will permit dynamic decisions of stmctural-change processes that can relate to educational funding decisions. The problem with this, they contend, largely lies with limitations applied to traditional input-output analysis, which carries with it the burdens of: (1) the assumption of linearity; (2) the requirements of quasi-stationary time series and of data, good in quantity and quality; (3) its intrinsically descriptive, nonproductive characteristic, i.e., it has no provision for predicting structural change; (4) its assumption of the United States economy as a normative goal of development; and (5) its positivist orientation, that is, it provides no insight into mechanisms of the socio-economy—it is a black-box, operational method (Guthrie, Ganns, & Pierce, 1988). According to Gideon. Doron, “Policy Sciences: The State of the Discipline” (1992), utilization of the concepts and properties of systems theory concerning synchrony and dynamics could help to explain general aspects of a policy system’s structure, function, process, and outcomes. From a different perspective, the systems approach may assist policymakers and managers in developing public policies and 39 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. ways of implementing them. Systems theory can assist in establishing a rationale for establishing funding for education reform by suggesting a relationship between structure and process for time periods. It can help identify system parts and their boundaries and can propose types of processes and characteristics of processes in complex systems, such as equilibrium phase transitions and instability. Theory of Democratic Administration This theory, in the mind of Ostrom and Ostrom (1974) draws from the work of public choice theorists and argues for the development of multi-organizational arrangements in the public sector that resemble public enterprises operating with considerable independence and based in significant measure on the mobilization of client support. The client support concept is one of the basic premises producing support for supplying funding for education vouchers to be paid to schools where parents choose to send their children. The basic unit—the enterprise—would operate at the lowest level consistent with the nature of its work. Notions of hierarchy and centralization, long central to mainstream public administration, no longer appear workable in all situations. Indeed, they no longer even appear to be the most efficient mechanisms for the distribution of public goods. In their place, Ostrom proposes the following premises in this theory: 1. Individuals who exercise the prerogative of government are neither more nor less corruptible than their fellow men. 40 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2. The exercise of political authority—a necessary power to do well—will be usurped by those who perceived an opportunity to exploit such powers to their o w e advantage and to the detriment of others, unless authority is divided and different authorities are so organized as to limit and control one another. 3. The structure of a constitution allocates decision-making capability among a community of persons. A democratic constitution defines the authority inherent in both the prerogatives of persons and the prerogative of different governmental offices, so that the capabilities of each are limited by the capability of others. The task of establishing and altering organizational arrangements in a democratic society is to be conceived as a problem in constitutional decision making. 4. The provision of public goods and services depends upon decisions taken by diverse sets of decision makers, and the political feasibility of each collective enterprise depends upon a favorable course of decisions in all essential decision structures over time. Public administration lies within the domain of politics. 5. A variety of different organizational arrangements can be used to provide different public goods and services. Such organizations can be coordinated through various multi-organizational arrangements, including 41 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. trading and contracting to mutual advantage, competitive rivalry, adjudication, as well as the power of command in limited hierarchies. 6. Perfection in the hierarchical ordering of a professionally trained public servant accountable to a single center of power will reduce the capability of a large administrative system to respond to diverse preferences among citizens for many different public goods and services and to cope with diverse environmental conditions. 7. Perfection in the hierarchical organization accountable to a single center of power will not maximize efficiency as measured by the least cost expended in time, effort, and resources. 8. Fragmentation of authority among diverse decision centers with multiple veto capabilities within any one jurisdiction and the development of multiple, overlapping jurisdictions of widely different scales are necessary conditions for maintaining a stable political order, which can advance human welfare under rapidly changing conditions. William T. Gromley, Jr. (1997) argues that from a democratic theory perspective, we should care not only about results, e.g., lower taxes or better services, but also about the political process, e.g., stronger local control or wider citizen participation. The emphasis on empowerment is especially apt, because so many of the efficiency studies are inconclusive. 42 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Incrementalism Dahl and Lindblom (1953), and especially Lindblom (1959, 1961, 1965, and 1979, In Guthrie, Ganns, & Pierce, 1988), developed a theory that has influenced inquiry Into decision making by a generation of disciples and opponents. This theory prescribes that a model of rational-comprehensiveness was unrealistically optimistic about the possibilities of human cognition. Values cannot be specified in the abstract, because there Is disagreement among individuals about values, and even disagreement within one’s own value set. Values must be traded off one against the other. Because values conflict and tradeoffs are necessary, values are really only identified in a relative sense when decisions are made. In fact, it is in the making of decisions In concrete situations that values are clarified and chosen. This approach called for a successive limited comparison, and the “branch” method, “disjointed incrementalism” or simply “incrementalism.” Goals are selected partly on the basis of what is attainable. Thus, means and ends are not distinct. The test of a good policy is not that it Is the most appropriate one from a means-ends standpoint, but that it attracts broad political support. The emphasis on a consensus reflects the prevailing value of political stability and a profound faith in the ability of pluralism to bring about societally beneficial outcomes. Analysis Is limited, and some alternatives and outcomes are neglected. Finally, there is a reduced reliance on theory, because good theory does not exist in most areas of social policy. Instead, the decision alternatives considered are those which are similar to the status quo and 43 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. differ only incrementally from each other. The search for alternatives is, therefore, limited. An important feature of this theory is its mixture of both descriptive and normative elements. Lindblom began by defining an ideal process to demonstrate how decisions are actually reached by a much different process, and he concluded that, sometimes implicitly, the incremental process is superior because of its adaptation to consensual character. Lindblom argues that, lacking any clear criterion, a consensus should determine what decision option is the best to follow under any given set of circumstances. That is, the budget tends not to change very much from one year to the next. The process changes only marginally as well. Any large-scale changes that have been attempted have not progressed any further than the political system would allow. The least challenged part of incremental budget theory is its description of budget outcomes. Philip G. Joyce (1993) writes that budgeting is highly conservative. A budgeting system that promoted reforms, rather than constraining them, would allow for many more substantial changes from year to year. Promoting change, however, necessitates a process that is flexible. The recent history of the budget process is one of decreasing flexibility, mainly resulting from the need to keep elected officials from taking actions that are not perceived to be in their electoral interest but which would increase the federal budget deficit. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Federal funding for educational vouchers has the potential of introducing large-scale changes; thus, for some policymakers, their adoption may present a problem. A policy consideration affecting current educational reform efforts are if there are enough empirical data to constitute gigantic shifts, or does a more savvy approach lie in incremental steps and continued research. Federalism Federalism can be broadly defined as the division of governmental power between the central (national) government and regional governmental units (Jacob & Vines, 1976). K. C. Wheare (1953) defines federalism as the method of dividing powers so that the general and regional governments are each, within a sphere, coordinate and independent. The modem concept of federalism has been determined by the United States; where, in law, the general and regional authorities (i.e., the national and state governments) are not subordinate to one another, but coordinate with the other. Neither level of government must be in a position to override the terms of their agreement about the power status which each is to enjoy. According to Wheare, other formal attributes of federalism commonly set forth in academic discussions include: 1. There is constitutional division of governmental functions such that each level is autonomous in at least one sphere of action. 2. Each government is final and supreme in its constitutionally assigned area. 45 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 3. Both levels act directly on citizens (unlike a confederation, where only the regional units act directly on the citizens’ behalf, while the central government acts only on the regional governments). 4. Both levels derive their powers from the sovereign (i.e., the people or the Constitution) rather than from one another. 5. Therefore, neither can change the relationship unilaterally. 6. The regional divisions (i.e., states) exist as of their own right. 7. Responsibility for managing public education in the United States is decentralized and diffused. 8. Public schools are governed within a federal structure in which local, state, and federal governments each have importance and overlapping roles (Joyce, 1993). Morton Grodzins (1966) writes that federalism is not like a layer cake, with each level of government having its own autonomous sphere of decision making; rather, it is like a marble cake, in . that levels of government typically cooperate in implementing public policies. Grodzins uses as an example of shared governance the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, which—by holding out the carrot of federal funds in specific categories—has given the federal government a partial role in determining educational priorities in local school systems. Grodzins believes this would raise all sorts of hackles, if the national government tired to do it in a more direct fashion. Providing federal funding for education vouchers could 46 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. represent this kind of direct Involvement. Under some arrangements being discussed, parents would directly receive checks or tax credits. One of the most powerful engines in this century for reshaping national-state relations has been the “grants-in-aid” system of national financing of state and local activities. Grants-in-aid may be defined as money payments furnished by a higher to . a lower level of government to be used for specified purposes and subject to conditions spelled out in law or administrative regulation. Grants are, thus, distinguished from, although first cousins to, the concept of general revenue sharing, which means money given by one level of government to another without advance specification of purpose and without specified conditions. An example of this kind of arrangement can be found in vocational education programs and school libraries. An important impetus toward grants-in-aid programs arise from the most fundamental feature of American federalism—to achieve action at the state level means to mount a campaign in 52 locations, while to mount one at the national level requires and encourages centralized, unified action in a single place, a task that is generally easier to achieve once the national government has been persuaded to enact a program. Perhaps this reality explains, at least in part, why supporters of educational vouchers have vehemently launched this reform effort at the national level. In the United States, emphasis has traditionally been placed on two Constitutional provisions that are thought to embody the notion of autonomous 47 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. coordinate entities—the Tenth Amendment and the enumerated powers of the national government contained in Article I, Section 8. The Tenth Amendment states that all powers not delegated to the central government, nor forbidden to the states, are reserved to the states, or to the people. Article I, Section 8, contains a specific list of powers granted to Congress, such as laying taxes, regulating commerce, coining money, providing an army and navy, and granting copyrights and patents. Federalism is an old idea, but its time may have come again, because it matches paradox with paradox. Federalism seeks to be both big in some tilings and small in others, to be centralized in some respects and decentralized in others. It aims to be local in its appeal and in many of its decisions, but national or even global in its scope. It endeavors to maximize independence, provided that there is a necessary interdependence; to encourage difference, but within limits; needs to maintain a strong center, but one devoted to the service of the parts; and can and should be led from that center but has to be managed by the parts. There is room in federalism for the small to influence the mighty and for individuals to flex their muscles (Handy, 1994). Economic Central to economics is the notion that every action is costly. There is no such thing as a free ride. Establishing the cost of alternative forms of action is an important step in any decisional process. The centrality of alternatives to an economist is aptly described by James Buchanan (1972). 48 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. The economist’s stock-in-trade—his tools—lies in Ms ability to and a proclivity to think about all questions in terms of alternatives. The truth judgment of the moralist, which says that something is either wholly right or wholly wrong, is foreign to him. The win-lose, yes-no discussion of politics is not witMn his purview. He does not recognize the either-or, the ail-or nothing, situations as his own. His is not the world of the mutually exclusive. Instead, Ms is the world of adjustment, of coordinated conflict, of mutual gain. Because public choices, once made, are binding on every member of a community, they impose costs on those members of the community who disagree with the decision. These are the external costs of collective choice. The economic paradigm of social analysis is a useful way of analyzing school organization. TMs approach, however, is not without its critics. Some believe that the model contains inescapable biases. In the case of public education, the model favors efficiency rather than equity, private good rather than public good. There is also a growing critique of analytical frameworks that attempt to separate facts from values. Most quantitative and formalistic policy-analysis models, it is asserted, contain implicit value choices and normative implications. The economic model of organizational analysis may not provide adequate guidance on how to implement public policy. Charles Handy (1994) feels that we misinterpreted Adam Smith’s ideas to mean that, if we each looked after our own interests, some “invisible hand” would mysteriously arrange things so that it all worked out for the best for all. We, therefore, promulgated the rights of the individual and freedom of choice for all. Adam Smith, who was a professor of moral philosophy, not of economics, built his 49 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. theories on the basis of a moral community. Before he wrote The Wealth o f Nations, he had written his definitive work, A Theory o f Moral Sentiments, arguing that a stable society was based on “sympathy”—a moral duty to have regard for your fellow human beings. The market is a mechanism for sorting the efficient from the inefficient, and it is not a substitute for responsibility. A rationale offered to support government involvement in education is related to the nature of education as an economic good. The benefits to the individual are obvious, but there is also a collective benefit which education accrues to the society. Public education can be viewed both as an individual and collective good. As defined by Savas (1982), collective goods possess some of the following characteristics: they are jointly consumed; it is difficult to exclude people from acquiring them; they are generally hard to measure; individuals have very little choice with respect to consuming the good, as they must accept the quantity and quality that are available; it is difficult to charge directly for the use of the good, as payment is unrelated to demand or consumption; and they generally rely on the political process rather than on markets. Governments tend to be the most pervasive suppliers of collective goods (Savas, 1983; Friedman, 1980; Solomon, 1980, in Guthrie, Garms, & Pierce, 1988). This is true because it is believed that ensuring those goods and services that are enjoyed by all Americans, and serve the collective good, should be entrusted to the government. 50 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. A frequently cited reason for government involvement is the importance of the relationship bet ween education and labor productivity and the development of a strong economy. Denison (1962, in Guthrie, Garms, & Pierce, 1988) concluded that educational investment is only a minor component of productivity growth. Psacharopoulos (1985), Cohn (1979), and Berryman and Bailey (1992) support the notion that education has a direct impact on our economic productivity and growth. Stair (1987) points out that governments will always be held accountable for economic growth (National Center for Education Statistics, 1997-1999). Much of the discussion that distinguishes public and private schools hinges on the attributes of markets versus those of bureaucracies, as well as the actions elicited by the participants of both. The application of the theoretical advantages and disadvantages of markets and centrally controlled economic organizations onto public and private schools is often accepted at face value, and scant efforts are made at advancing the discussion beyond this superficial level, despite the fact that a much more complex picture would be revealed. Boyd and Kerchner (1989), in their study of market and bureaucratic failures, concluded that neither pure bureaucracies nor pure markets serve education well. They based their conclusion on the examination of how the economic environments of schools influence four of the most common policy issues related to education— choice, excellence, equity, and efficiency. It is evident that potential problems exist in these four salient areas in educational policy, when purely bureaucratic and pure 51 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. market models are used. Boyd and Kerchner suggest that what Is missing from both approaches is a concern for the mutual accommodation of public and private interests rather than naively assuming that the two interests are collinear. In public schools, politicians or elected officials implement the economic policies for schools; and the theory suggests that, in those cases where economic concerns are pitted against political concerns, the latter will consistently take precedence. The private school sector operates in an arena which more closely resembles a market environment; and, therefore, political and economic considerations are less apt to be in conflict. Issues will be resolved more often in favor of the market, because their viability depends upon it. Ideology This theory was first coined by the philosopher Destutt de Tracy (1754-1836) to refer to the study of ideas (Webster’s International CD Encyclopedia, 1999). It is now typically used to describe any set of beliefs that support sectional interests. The prevailing ideologies in society are likely to reflect and justify interests of the dominant (class, political, or religious) groups. The term implies that ideological beliefs are in some way exaggerations or distortions of reality. Several individual uses of the term have emerged in different political theories. John Plamenatz (1970) writes that an ideology is always in large part descriptive, but it need not be false. It applies to sets of beliefs or to theories which are not false, or are so only to a small extent. They are accepted uncritically or, if not 52 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. always uncritically, then for other reasons besides their being thought to be true. No doubt, those who accept them believe that they are true, unless they merely pretend to accept them. Ideology has been exploited politically for at least four purposes. It has been used to bring and hold together a disciplined group able to take quick advantage of changing circumstances to achieve power. It has been used to induce people to make great sacrifices for causes, which have meant much more to their leaders than to them. It has been used to extend the power of a government or other organized bodies outside the country or countries in which it already has power; it has also been used inside a party or other organizations by people endeavoring to get or retain control of it. Plamenatz (1970) goes on to write that, if we want to understand political behavior, we would do well to study ideologies and the uses to which they are put. This study gets us just as close to the realities of politics as the study of group interests and the pursuit of them. James E. Anderson (1997), in Public Policymaking: An Introduction, describes ideologies as sets of coherent or logically-related values and beliefs that present simplified pictures of the world and serve as guides to action for believers. During the Reagan years, conservative ideology, and notably its intense variant known as “movement conservatism,” influenced the actions of many Reagan Administration members. Devout believers in individualism, minimal government, and the free markets, strongly supported deregulation, privatization, and reduced 53 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. governmental spending for educational block grants. For movement conservatives, that ideology was both their beacon and their shepherd. For some, it was more important to be true to their ideology than to win on some legislative issue by compromising their principles. Thomas D. Lynch (1990), in Public Budgeting in America, writes that public budgeting is best considered in the context of the ideological culture of a nation. Ideas are powerful, especially when shared by many people, because they can guide behavior by discouraging “bad” and encouraging “good” activities and actions. Ideas can be and often are used to place a value on people, things, activities, and even other ideas. Sometimes ideas can be logically consistent or nearly consistent and form belief systems. These systems, in turn, can be shared by many people and can guide entire civilizations. Ideologies have the power to affect the role for government in affecting the way public goods are allocated, which is important in the way the debate over educational vouchers is being shaped. Arrayed against conservatives are modem liberals. Their ideology calls for vigorous use of the government’s powers to serve the interests of the poor, working people, minorities, and the disadvantaged. They are defenders of civil rights and liberties, protectors of the environment, and proponents of consumer interests. Although liberals are less sure of their policy preferences than they once were, on the whole, they are optimistic concerning their ability to use government to improve the human condition and promote an egalitarian society. The national debate on 54 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. education vouchers is marked by division. Segmentation on this issue cannot be neatly broken down by generalizing the debate as a liberal versus conservative ideology. Privatization The word “privatization” denotes transferring activities conducted by public employees to the private sector. The activities transferred may include the funding as well as the actual delivery of services (Liebennan, 1989). Generally speaking, approaches to privatization fall into two categories. One category emphasizes the ideological dimensions of privatization. Supporters of this view see privatization as much more than a management option; it is a way of diminishing the role of government, of enhancing the role of the private sector, and of avoiding inefficient government activities that would be difficult, if not impossible, to eliminate. Supporters in this category regard efficiency as important, but they tend to view it as intimately related to the functions of government, the role of our economic system, and the relationships between political and economic freedoms. By the same token, privatization also has its ideological detractors. Some critics of privatization also do not separate the broader philosophical issues from the immediately practical ones. Whereas the supporters view privatization within a favorable philosophical framework, the ideological opponents view it within an unfavorable one. Although both groups agree that privatization proposals should be 55 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. evaluated on a case-by-case basis, they seldom agree on the merits of specific proposals. The other major approach to privatization analyzes it primarily as a management tool. In this context, efficiency issues are resolved without much regard for their philosophical implications. This group can be referred to as “the practical decision makers.” To this group, contracting out does not raise any broad philosophical issues. If contracting out is a more efficient way to get the job done, so be it. After all important practical considerations are taken into account, what is the best way to accomplish an important task (Lieberman, 1989). E. S. Savas (1987), In Privatization: The Key to Better Government, defines privatization as the act of reducing the role of government, or increasing the role of the private sector, in an activity or in the ownership of assets. Privatization takes both generic and specific forms: generic forms include contracting out to private or nonprofit firms and volunteer provisions of services. Specific forms Include food stamps, housing vouchers, school vouchers, and volunteer fire departments. Savas cites several pressures or reasons that are compelling privatization across the country. These reasons divide into four categories: (1) pragmatic, where people define a need for government to improve services; (2) ideological, where there is a desire for less government; (3) commercial, where the private sector sees opportunities for profit by performing government services; and (4) populists, where people justify privatization in the name of a better society. 56 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Savas argues that there are three parties to service provision: (1) the consumer who directly receives the service; (2) the producer who directly provides the service to the consumer; and (3) the arranger or provider who selects the producer and assigns producers to consumers. These three parties should be thought of as roles played by different agents, depending on the sendee provided. The consumer can be an individual, a household, or a business (as would be the case with educational vouchers). The producer’s role can be played by the government, a private firm (either for-profit or nonprofit) or by the consumer. The arranger role is, in the case of public goods, played by a government agency. In the case of goods from which people could be excluded and money charged, the arranger is often the consumer. Savas outlines ten ways in which goods and services are provided, identifying which party plays each role. Most of these methods have been discussed in the education voucher debate; therefore, definitions will be provided for each of the ten arrangements: Government Arrangements Government Produces: • Government Service— -The government provides the service directly to the consumer, acting both as an arranger and a producer. The consumer pays for the service either indirectly through taxes or directly with a user fee. 57 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. • Intergovernmental Agreement—The government, acting as an arranger, contracts with another government to provide a service. This strategy is frequently employed by small communities. Services commonly provided in this way are schools, road maintenance, libraries, recreation facilities, and fire-protection. Private Sector Produces • Contract—The government selects, authorizes, and pays a private firm to provide a service. Tangible goods, such as public works, public safety, and support functions are most commonly contracted to for-profit private firms, whereas health and human services and parks and recreation are commonly contracted to nonprofit firms. • Franchise—Government awards monopoly privileges to a private firm to supply a service, usually with regulated prices. Utilities, such as electricity, telephone service, and heating gas, are often supplied in this way by private firms with rates either determined or carefully regulated by government. • Grant—This is one strategy used to provide goods whose consumption is to be encouraged, such as housing, education, and health care. In this case, the government and consumer act as co-arrangers, and usually both the government and the consumer make payments to the producer. (Note: All situations where the government arranges and the private 58 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. sector produces assume that government has the capacity to select contractors and monitor contractors.) Private Sector Arrangements Private Sector Produces: Voucher—This in another strategy used to produce goods whose consumption is to be encouraged. In this case, the government subsidizes the consumer rather than the producer, and the consumer is the arranger. The consumer is not limited to firms subsidized by the government. Food stamps are an example of a voucher system. Food stamps are given directly to the consumer and can be used to purchase almost any type of food in most grocery stores. (Note: The food stamp example serves a model for the educational voucher system.) Market—The consumer arranges service and pays the producer. The government is not involved other than in a regulatory mode. This is the dominant arrangement in the United States for many types of goods and services ranging from haircuts to stereo equipment. ® Voluntary—A voluntary association either acts as arranger and producer, providing a service directly to consumers (such as a church, which operates a shelter for the homeless) or acts as an arranger by contracting with a private firm to provide a service (such as a nonprofit organization contracting with a hotel to provide temporary shelter for the homeless). 59 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. • Self-Service—The consumer provides services directly to him or herself, such as taking his\her own garbage to the landfill. (Note: Home schooling fails into this category.) • Government Vending—In this case, the private sector arranges to purchase a good or service from a government agency. Examples include purchase of water, mineral, or logging rights to government-owned land or hire of government agents for a private purpose, such as hiring policy services for a private event. There are also hybrid combinations of these ten fundamental types of goods and services provisions. For example, government may give a grant to a daycare provider to provide service to low income families and give day care vouchers to low income parents (Savas, 1987). There are strongly-held convictions about the effectiveness of privatization. Vickers and Yarrow (1988) argue that, if the institutional environment were properly established, sufficient competition in the product market would make ownership structure irrelevant in determining enterprise performance. Their model finds empirical support in Kay and Thompson (1986), Wortzel and Wortzel (1989), and Boresherding (1982)—findings that, given sufficient competition between public and private producers, the differences in unit costs turns out to be insignificant. Other empirical findings share a different viewpoint. The World Bank (1995) writes that, 60 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. compared to private enterprises, state enterprises are found to be less efficient, have excess labor and higher wages, and tend to accumulate losses (Savas, 1987). There have been few attempts to control for the effect of different institutional settings, including the level of government regulation and the associated degree of corruption on the benefits of privatization. The focal point here is the decision-making sequence—privatization, deregulation, and contractual (re-) arrangements. These studies find that deregulation may lead to economically inefficient outcomes as the (now private) monopolist charges higher prices. In contrast, the theoretical literature postulates thatjgkcessive government regulation in competitive sectors leads to inefficiency at the firm level, even after privatization. At the extreme, according to Shleifer and Vishny (1993, 1994), if the government has full regulatory control over the hiring and pricing decision of the firm, privatization does not lead to any efficiency improvements. Figure 2 shows a breakdown of the number of students in public and private schools as of 1996. Public schools overwhelmingly educate most of America’s children. 61 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 87% P J o t i . . 4— — fi --------------- - - - 88.7% ri 1966 1970 1975 1980 1 9 8 5 1990 1996 students in public schools students in private schools O n In ) FIGURE 2 STUDENTS IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SCHOOLS S o u r ce: National Center for Education Statistics (1998). Digest of Education Statistics. Available: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/quarterly/fall/q3-2.asp. CHAPTER HI THE HYPOTHESIS AND ANALYSES Introducing the Hypothesis School choice concerns the governance of people. It means a great many different things to different people. This leads to confusion and a lack of comprehension about the issue. Most Americans accept the fact that government should provide funding for compulsory education. Choice appears to offer a chance to bring the structure of schooling more into line with private citizenship. Market-oriented solutions appeal to many not because they represent an ideal arrangement; they appeal because they offer a “better-than-the current arrangement” F. A. Hayek (1960) states that a value deeply affecting the direction of American educational policy is liberty, which means the freedom to choose—to be able to select from among different courses of action. The desire for choice has always been an impetus in . our culture. Educational planners, policymakers, administrators and the like constantly make assumptions about educational reforms. These assumptions may be based on various ideologies, which can contain biases that influence their views of social reality and strategies for providing funding. By identifying conventional federal 63 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. education goals and discussing their relevance in today’s debate, educational policy and funding decisions can be more comprehensively explained. Social policies are strongly influenced by three fundamental considerations, which are, respectively, technical, cultural, and political: (1) demographic and economic dynamics, (2) preferences among three values—equality, efficiency, and liberty—and (3) political arrangements. The flow of influence among these three conditions is substantial and multidirectional. For example, demographic or economic circumstances can trigger political system changes and vice versa. This paradigm, provides no mechanical model for precisely predicting which policies will emerge from which conditions at which time. These three values are considered good, just, and right. Belief in them has Mstorical roots that are deeply embedded in America’s market economy. This belief permeates the ideologies promulgated by political parties, religions, schools, and other social institutions. Education is one of the prime instruments through which society attempts to promote all three values. Educators and officials involved in educational policymaking are well-advised to be informed about and alerted to the interactions among these values. Much of the government reform in the United States over the last two hundred years has been directed at adjusting tensions between social equality and economic efficiency. For educational policy purposes, equality has almost always been translated as “equality of educational opportunity.” Few have seriously argued that education should be absolutely equal for each individual. Such an objective 64 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. would make unsupportable the assumptions regarding genetically endowed abilities, standardized instruction, and similarities of environmental effects upon human tastes. Consequently, most policy debates center on interpretations of “equal educational opportunity ” According to Guthrie, Ganns, and Pierce (1988), the complex social world of human interactions constitutes a vast primordial policy ooze out of which technical, cultural, and political conditions periodically coalesce to create policy predispositions. An individual or any idea may, however, spark actual policy change. Components of the policy paradigm, while not lending themselves to precise prediction, nevertheless, alert one to the broader patterns of policy emergence and influence. The Hypothesis If variables identified under the heading “traditional variables” (symbolism, political advantage, efficiency, effectiveness, and national image) are no longer used, to a substantive degree, in determining how the federal government determines policy and derives specific funding levels for elementary and secondary education, then a paradigm shift has occurred, or is in the process of occurring, or is imminent. Analyses The expression “freedom of choice” can be lauded, which is a reason why opinion polls showing increased public support for the general idea of enrollment 65 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. choice in education can be expected. It goes with, rather than against, the grain of American tradition. However, the groundswell of support for enrollment choice in education does not reflect an appreciation of the depth and breadth of change it creates in our public schools. When ideological extremes meet on a new common proposal, when the issue clearly implies fundamental notions of governance, when central terms mean considerably different things to different proponents, and when proponents share few reasons for their common stance, the debate may not actually concern the subject ostensibly at hand. So it seems in the current debate over school choice plans. The terms of choice—including controlled choice, limited choice, and public choice- each indicates a variety of positions on such issues as inclusion of private schools, allowances for inter-district choices, equalization of expenditure levels, formation of new schools and the review or dissolution of undesired schools. The choice issue does not question the responsibility of government to be involved in education. What it does entail is the appropriate governmental role in using public fluids to sponsor various public and private mechanisms. An important factor tenges on our understanding of public and private roles. Many view this issue by considering the entire education community for elementary and secondary education as schools that are funded by the government or taxpayers and those that, for the most part, are not (Lieberman, 1990). 66 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Some proponents emphasize the power of parental choice as central, even as an end to be sought, while others support it simply as a present tactic protecting “alternative schools” against entrenched bureaucracy. Parental choice options have been an active issue in public policy in many states. Colorado became the first to mandate open enrollment within school districts. In Milwaukee, an experimental voucher program allowed a limited number of children from low-income families to attend private schools at state expense. The Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld this program. Oregon voters defeated a tax credit proposal, while Detroit was considering incorporating private schools into their public system (Schmidt, 1991). Many large school districts offer choice in the form of magnet schools, alternative programs for at-risk students, home schooling, private parochial, and charter schools (Martin & Burke, 1990). Aside from home, private, and parochial schools, all other types of school choices represent a fundamental shift in American public education’s national norms and precedents (Lieberman, 1990). (Note: These choices will be examined individually later in this Chapter.) Many liberal policy scholars came to view school choice as an antidote to non-progressive, bureaucratized schools. School choice plans were designed to keep White children in urban public schools and later to spur those schools to improve. Black and White middle-class parents demanded choice, either to get access to the islands of excellence within the public school system or to escape the system 67 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. entirely. State governors took up the banner, not just because it was being demanded by many parents but also because it was in accordance with their own values and interests. In a more extensive look at parental choice options, Martin and Burke (1990) divided choice plans into two categories-—external and internal. External options support programs outside the public system by the use of vouchers, home schooling, private/parochial education, and parent-run private schools. Internal options within the public system are open boundaries, post-secondary enrollment for high school students in higher education, second-chance programs for at-risk students or dropouts, charter schools, open-enrollment districts, controlled enrollment options, magnet schools, and alternative programs. Andrew I. Coulson, in Market Education: The Unknown History ( 1999), states that school choice is not a new concept, having, in fact, been tried repeatedly throughout history. In many times and places, parents have sent their children to privately owned, operated, and fended schools. He argues that these educational markets produced a greater flowering of intellect and creativity than did contemporary state-run school systems. He goes on further to state that study after study has confirmed that parents who have the opportunity to choose their schools base their decisions on sound academic, discipline-related, and moral grounds. Their ability to choose wisely is demonstrated by the superior academic achievement and 68 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. stronger community environment they and their children enjoy in independent schools. The current reform movement focuses on excellence and away from the issue that dominated educational policy in the 1960s and 1970s and goes further by emphasizing the liberty to exercise Individual rights (Guthrie & Koppich, 1990). Formerly, efficiency .and excellence were emphasized over liberty and equity (Adler, Fetch, & Tweedie, 1989; Glenn, 1989). With these changes comes a shift from public interests and govemmentally-provided public goods to private interests and private goods (Adler, Fetch, & Tweedie, 1989). This shift reflects the trend toward free enterprise and private interest as opposed to governmental control (Buchholz, 1990, in Guthrie, Garms, & Pierce, 1988). Advocates of school choice may seek to amend existing federal education programs in various ways, such as removing possible program barriers to choice, adding school choice to authorized uses of funds, expanding current choice provisions, or reconstituting programs to focus them on choice. They may also consider appropriations language directing how program funds may be spent. Supporters claim that their cause has gained momentum in recent years, pointing to the following developments: 1. More than 50,000 low-income students in 40 cities will receive vouchers from private philanthropists and foundations. 69 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2. In September 1998, Wall Street investor Ted Forstmann and Wal-Mart heir John Walton announced that they were launching a $200 million Children’s Scholarship fond to give four-year scholarships to 40,000 iow- income children in grades K-12 via a nationwide lottery. 3. The number of charter schools operating in the United States has nearly tripled in the past two years, rising from 441 in 1996-1997 to 1,207 in 1998-1999 (Koch, 1999). Analyzing Pertinent Aspects of the Public School Choice Movement Choice within public schools is receiving widespread political support; for example, President Bush, the National Governors Association, and the President’s Commission on Privatization have characterized It as a promising reform Initiative. Supporters of choice within the public school system emphasize that “choice” need not be viewed only as choice of a district or of school. On the contrary, there can be choice of program, course activity, schedule, and/or teachers (Lieberman, 1989). Public school choice can also be referred to as inter-district choice and open enrollment. Many have expressed support for choice explicitly as a means of scaring public educators into action on other reforms of more substantial curricular or structural nature. Choice proponents not only support widely ranging schemes, but they do so with equally varied rationales (Johanek, 1992). 70 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Although its educational impact may be minimal, public school choice may have a significant impact on choice plans that include private schools. It might hold out “a foot in the door” to choice that includes private schools. Others believe that, by expanding choice within a public-schools-only model, the promise of educational reform will wither, because the choice would still be controlled by the producer of school services, not the consumer (Lieberman, 1980; Nathan, 1991). Public school choice might, in fact, reduce diversity in educational programming by driving private schools out of business (Bennett, 1989; Lieberman, 1989, in Cookson, 1992). Choice for public schools is a popular idea. It is sometimes interpreted as including “schools-within schools”; that is, efforts to maintain two or more schools within a single facility. This concept appeals to varying groups that in the past have disagreed on educational policy. Some of the reasons include: 1. It introduces competition and market processes to education. The expectation is that these things will lead to system-wide improvement, which can be defined roughly as more learning at a lower cost. 2. It provides the disadvantaged with the power to choose better schools than are available in their school or district of residence. Because the disadvantaged include a disproportionate number of Black American and Hispanic students, public school choice is also viewed as a means of fostering racial integration in public education. 71 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 3. It provides a way of avoiding the excessive bureaucratization and lack of responsiveness that characterizes, or allegedly characterizes, public education. 4. It provides diversity in pedagogical styles and program options. Such diversity is essential to maximize learning, regardless of any other rational for choice. 5. It leads to greater accountability of school boards, school administrators, and teachers. 6. Parents and students will be committed to, and also more satisfied with, schools of choice. This will be true even when, the parents choose their neighborhood schools. 7. It constitutes a “safety valve” for highly dissatisfied parents. Such parents should have options within the public school system so they do not have to enroll their children in private schools. 8. It leads to a higher level of professionalism and expertise among teachers. 9. It serves as an early warning system that can alter school management to parental concerns before the latter become major problems (Lieberman, 1990). As stated in School Finance and Education Policy, written by Guthrie, Garms, and Pierce, there is much broader support for choice programs within the public school system than for the totally free-market plans put forth by Friedman 72 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. (1962) and others (Armor, 1989; Clinchy, 1985; Lamm, 1986; Mueller, 1987; Peterson, 1990; Raywid, 1987). Mary Anne Raywid (1992) writes that the Idea of Inviting family choice among public schools is not new. It has been around for nearly a quarter of a century (Lieberman, 1990). However, the contemporary choice movement currently producing an array of policy initiatives at federal, state, and local levels dates back to the 1960s and has been manifested in four fairly distinct, though parallel, forms representing different sponsorship, conceptual lenses, and agendas. These four approaches are distinguished by the primary orientations they bring to choice—what they are trying to accomplish and the conceptual resources they bring to be bear. As distinguished in this way, they are: education-driven choice advocates, economics-driven espousers, specific policy-inspired advocates, and governance-oriented proposers. The types reflect central tendencies rather than share differences and are not mutually exclusive. Education-Driven Choice. This orientation was the first to emerge. It was initially inspired by the alternative schools of the 1960s. The idea of an array of options among which to choose was not really very centra! to much of the discussion of those times, however; and, indeed, a number of the early alternatives considered themselves not an “alternative” to conventional schools but the vanguard that would eventually replace them. 73 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. The argument that there was room for, and even merits in, sustaining a variety of schools was put forth by Mario Fantini (1973). He proposed the deliberate diversification of schools on the grounds that differences among youngsters, as well as teaching styles, recommend the provision of differing school environments and classroom orientations in preference to a single standard type. Fantini’s argument remains the essential core of the education-inspired case for choice, although it has been elaborated and substantially extended since. His argument said little of parent entitlement to choice or of the case for educator choice, so the argument has not been supplemented. This perspective can be summed up this way: (1) There is no one best school for everyone. Accordingly, (2) the deliberate diversification of schools is important to accommodating all and enabling each youngster to succeed, and (3) youngsters will perform better and accomplish more in learning environments they have chosen rather than in environments which are simply assigned to them. The case for parental choice in this particular orientation can be summed up this way: (1) There are many viable and desirable ways to educate, and (2) no one best program can prove responsive to the diverse preferences that a pluralistic, democratic society accepts as legitimate. Hence, (3) the diversification of schools to accord with family value patterns and orientations is desirable. The educationally-oriented case for choice also includes an argument for teacher choice, identifying it as an effective vehicle for arriving at the professionalism now widely sought (Nathan, 1984). Schools of choice, it is asserted, render teachers more collaborative, less isolated, 74 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. more autonomous, less role bound, and more efficacious than do conventional schools. It is also claimed that teachers are happier in, and more committed to, the programs they have chosen. Economics-Driven Choice. This view enjoys the most varied sponsorship of the four types. This orientation is reflected by those who urge various forms of privatization of the interest of forcing public schools to compete with private schools and those who talk of competition, consumer satisfaction, and markets that will drive bad schools out of business. The economic orientation is also reflected by those who are not choice advocates but who accept and pursue the market analogy in discussing education and events and, thus, for recommending solutions. This means that many who are advocates neither of voucher nor privatization nevertheless fall within the economics-inspired genre. Most voucher and tuition tax credit advocates can be deemed economics- driven choice advocates. One of the first voucher proposals came from a priest who reasoned that, because government subsidized the education of children attending public schools, it ought to extend comparable subsidies for those who attend non- public schools (Bloom, 1958). State governments might extend vouchers to students, and the federal government might extend tax refunds to those paying tuition to non- public schools. A second fundamental version of this position on choice is reflected in the effort to make the ends and purposes of commerce foremost in public school aims and also to model business’ orientation and methods in operating schools. This 75 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. is an economics-driven case for choice in a sense quite similar to that in which Raymond Callahan (1962) found public education to be dominated by the spirit of business, having absorbed its criteria and overall orientation.. President Reagan’s well-known belief that competition is the best organizing principle for almost any collective endeavor is an example. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce position, Choice in.Education (1991), reports that incorporating competitive forces into our Nation’s schools can lead to a higher caliber workforce and increase productivity and economic growth. The economics-driven concerns supply the ends and means of schooling and its operation. Thus, some have applied this concept to interpret individual human motivation, and some have applied it to interpret the behavior of the role-takers who operate organizations and institutions. Accordingly, some (Keans & Doyle, 1988; Kolderie, 1985, in Cookson, 1992.) attribute public schools’ shortcomings to their noncompetitive, monopolistic, and no-incentives status and look to market solutions to cure these ills. Policy-Driven Choice Initiatives. Through the 1960s and much of the 1970s, equity was a primary commitment of national domestic policy. Choice early became a way to pursue equity with respect to school finance. Coons, Clune, and Sugarman, in Private Wealth and Public Education (1970), argued that, as a matter of constitutional principle, the quality of education offered in a particular school or district must not vary from that of other schools within the state as a consequence of 76 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. differences in wealth. The authors spoke not only of district-to-district equity but of family-to-family equity. Coons and Sugarman (1978) subsequently elaborated their “family power equalizing plan” designed to enable families to choose both the school their children would attend and the amount of tuition assistance they would receive. Families would receive vouchers to purchase education from private or public schools. The vouchers were to vary in amount, depending on the school’s tuition, the family’s income level, and the family’s willingness to invest in education (with, taxes owed varying according to all three factors). The voucher idea lacked sufficient political viability, even when linked to equity; but it early became clear that the choice arrangement well-served equity interests of a different sort. It was a politically advantageous response to school desegregation orders—advantageous in the sense that it was almost universally preferred to the forced busing otherwise imposed. The State of Massachusetts provided a good illustration of how choice was seen to fit both purposes sufficiently to be selected as the major instrument for implementing both. Charles Glenn, the former director of the state’s Bureau of Educational Equity (1990), used the influence of his office to urge choice as a primary means of school desegregation and, subsequently, as a major route to school improvement. Glenn believed choice the most effective means yet found for “breaking the link between residence and access to educational opportunities.” In 77 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. oral testimony to the Hearings of the National Governors’ Association in 1985, he also espoused choice as “our most powerful single force for improving education.” Choice has been brought to bear by others as an instrument for achieving educational excellence. Policy analyst Ted Kolderie (1985, found in Cookson, 1992) has asserted that the opportunities and incentives created by choice are the essential leverage for almost everything sought in the way of change and improvement in the schools. The link between choice and excellence has appeared less clear and direct for many than the connection between choice and equity. Choice was obviously a clear means of equalizing the opportunity of families to find a good school, or of enabling a youngster to escape a bad one; but it seems that fewer have been able to find it a means for improving the quality of schools. Thus, as national focus shifted to replace equity with excellence as the major target of domestic policy, interest in choice was initially eclipsed by a preoccupation with curriculum, standards, and teacher qualifications. Governance-Driven Choice. A governance-oriented case has been part of the choice discussion throughout the past several decades, advanced first by libertarians, then fueled by populist sentiments, and more recently taken up by new sources. The libertarian case for choice rests on the desire to remove education from the arena of collective decision and return its control to individuals. Stephen Arons (1982) is disposed to supporting the choice position in legal and political terms rather than in those of economics. For example, he states the R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. majoritarian assumption transformed the public schools into a battleground for determining public orthodoxy. By requiring that the majority decide how all children should be socialized, we in effect require that people contest the most intractable issues of individual conscience. The current structure of education in the United States is broadly inconsistent with the values advanced by the First Amendment. Not all governance-oriented choice advocates have been libertarians. Some came to the choice idea as parents’ rights advocates who asked why it was necessaiy that school assignment be determined by officials. The 1960s revolt against urban school governance highlighted the conflicting interests of families and school officials and the later failure of school advisory councils to empower parents very significantly underscored the difficulty of extending not just voice, but influence, to parents. Choice was also argued as a way to restore a more appropriate balance of power between families and schools on the grounds that our traditional commitment to a division of powers, and to checks and balances, called for a restoration of authority to families (Raywid, 1987). The governance-driven argument for choice does not seem to have gained much prominence or much influence until recently. Now it seems to be figuring quite heavily in the choice discussion. Maddaus (1987/1988) categorized the many choice options. He found seven alternative ways choice may be offered. Five of these exist within the public schools: neighborhood schools, magnet schools, voluntary transfers, open enrollment, and 79 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. inter-district transfers. Two methods extend choice opportunities to private schools in the form of tuition tax credits and educational vouchers. Public school choice would limit the educational options available to parents to the public sector, but many believe that the central features of market competition would still be preserved under such a system, albeit within a restricted market environment (Bass, 1978; Blank, 1990; Fantini, 1973; Fliegel, 1993, in Guthrie, Garms, & Pierce, 1988). Mechanisms Associated with Public School Choice Alternatives Programs or Paths The alternative school concept was generalized in 1970 by a group of scholars, headed by Christopher Jencks of the Harvard School of Education, who proposed that big cities construct a system of alternative schools by means of tuition vouchers. To ensure equal educational opportunity, approved schools could not ask parents to supplement vouchers with their own funds. They also had to accept all applicants or choose randomly among them, except that half of the applicants were to be chosen so as to avoid discriminating against minorities (Peterson, 1995, in Guthrie, Garms, & Pierce, 1988). Alternative schools are described as any school that provides alternative learning experiences to those provided by conventional schools and that are available by choice to every family within its community at no extra cost (Smith, 1974, pp. 114-115, cited in Young, 1990, p. 2). Timothy Young (1990) suggests 80 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. characteristics which set alternative public schools apart from traditional public schools: 1. A greater responsiveness to a perceived educational need within the community. 2. A more focused instructional program, usually featuring a particular curricular emphasis, instructional method, or school climate. 3. A shared sense of purpose. Common goals and a defined educational philosophy are held by students and staff. 4. A greater autonomy. Principals, teachers, and students have greater freedom from the central administration than their counterparts in traditional schools. 5. A smaller school and a more personalized relationship between students and staff. An alternative path involves the development of alternative schools and programs and requires the restructuring of the organization and is concerned primarily with organizational changes. Alternative paths focus on individual students and the guidance and administrative arrangements necessary for a student to learn and earn credits through non-school approaches. These approaches can include a variety of diverse activities, such as correspondence study, watching television, independent study at home, taking courses over the Internet, and taking courses offered by community-based groups, etc. If necessary, it does not require extensive 81 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. staff support; and it can be implemented without the undue publicity that would arouse possible community antagonism. It is especially useful when trying to serve the needs of gifted and talented students, pregnant girls, disruptive students, dropouts, and potential dropouts. Alternatives could be used to serve as apprenticeships for such professions as plumbing, pipe fitting, and brick laying. This approach can be used for a host of other professions as well. One of the best contributions that alternative schools or paths could offer is a re-examination of the question of facilities and spaces for learning. As Sally Wertheim (1973) points out: Alternative schools have been part of the American educational experience since schooling began in America in the Seventeenth century. Public schools, as we know them today, did not exist; rather people could choose the type of education they preferred from among many alternatives. The forms they developed included the very formal Latin Grammar Schools; the more practical academies, which grew up later as a response to the classical training: the simplistic dame schools; moving schools in the South, which met the needs of an agrarian community; town schools; and such informal arrangements as tutors. Apprenticeships were also available to the less affluent and was an important form of education. Demonstration or Targeted Choice Programs Federal support for school choice might be fashioned to demonstrate the impact of school choice in a discrete number of locations (e.g., specific cities or a limited number of places around the country, such as empowerment zones) or to 82 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. target choice in a similarly limited fashion to particular kinds of students (e.g., iow- income) or to include particular kinds of schools (e.g., those with low1 student test scores). There was action of this kind In the 104® and 105® Congresses that was extensively debated, but failed to be enacted; proposals to establish a public and private school choice program in Washington, D.C., in the 106® Congress did not pass. All three Congresses sought to expand choice options for special groups of students (e.g., low-income students, victims of violence on school grounds) or students in specific kinds of schools (e.g., schools characterized by poor levels of academic performance). Some of these proposals were in the context of amendments to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Title I. Charter Schools Minnesota passed the Nation’s first charter school law in 1991. A year later, California passed a similar law. Colorado, Georgia, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Mexico, and Wisconsin followed in 1993. By the end of 1998, 34 states and the District of Colombia had signed onto the charter school concept in one form or another. The Public Charter Schools Program, Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Title X, Part C, provides federal assistance for implementation of state charter school programs. This program requires that all students in the community served by a charter school are given an equal opportunity to attend. They 83 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. are often cited as the leading edge of school reform in the 1990s (Robelen, 1998). They have become the most revolutionary idea in education—a concrete alternative to most traditional schools (Viteritti, 1999). The idea is complex, representing different things to different people—new governance, innovation, competition, choice, and opportunity. The underlying premise of the charter school concept is to provide more independence to school- level professionals in exchange for a higher level of accountability. Most charter schools have significant autonomy, allowing variations in the curriculum. They often employ only accredited teachers, must adhere to state regulations for licensing, and are accountable for the performance of their students to the state or local school district. Some of these schools are operated for a profit. Charter legislation has provided a way for private entrepreneurs to become involved in the delivery of educational services. For-profit corporations view charters as a mechanism through which they can create and operate public schools, and states such as Arizona and Michigan have welcomed their participation. Because charter schools are public schools, their appearance broadens the political constituency for choice among reform advocates that axe philosophically opposed to privatization. They can be created when professionals and parents at an existing school are permitted by vote to opt out of the bureaucratic system that governs traditional schools. They can also be established when educators, nonprofit groups, for-profit entrepreneurs, or parents submit a proposal to a state or local 84 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. chartering agency. The sponsoring agency may be the state education department, a special board set up by the state to review charter applications, the state university, or a local school board. Charters are provided with public financing and are governed by the terms and conditions set forth in their charter. Jurisdictions with stronger laws—like those of Arizona, Michigan, Massachusetts, and the District of Columbia—give school- level personnel wide discretion over their budgetary and personnel decisions and release them from all regulations except those that deal with civil rights, health, and safety. The charter generally commits the school to specific student outcomes and various other objectives. All interested students must receive consideration. If a charter is over-enrolled, admission is determined by a lottery. Under the typical law, the charter school is entitled only to a portion of the per-pupil local operating expenditures and is rarely given resources to cover capital costs. The local district often gets to keep a portion of the local funding for a resident pupil who left it, and sometimes the local district gets compensated by the state for the state fends that follow students who have opted out (Viteritti, 1999). The charter releases the school from certain legal regulations and establishes a new governing board for the school. Once the school is established, it becomes entitled to the fends that would otherwise have been allocated to the school district for its students. In return for autonomy, the charter stipulates academic, 85 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. organizational and financial standards for which the school will be held accountable (Viteritti, 1999). This program was recently revised and expanded by Public Law 105-278 (Charter School Expansion Act of 1998). The Fiscal Year 2001 appropriation for this program, was $190 million; this legislation also includes new Elementary and Secondary Education Act authority for a program to demonstrate ways of leveraging financing for charter school facilities. RPP International has released two reports based on the national surveys it completed for the United States Department of Education. The most recent data are derived from an examination of statutes that existed in 29 states and the District of Columbia by September 1997, as well as telephone interviews with 428 schools (89 percent response rate) and site visits at 91 locations where charters existed during the 1996-1997 school year. The researchers found that there is no such thing as a typical charter-school, describing them as extraordinarily diverse. These schools used a variety of pedagogical approaches, some more traditional than others. One characteristic of charter schools that stood out is their small size. Their median enrollment of about 150 students, compared to the median enrollment of 500 for regular public schools in the districts where charters are found. More than 60 percent of charters enroll fewer than 150 students, compared to only 16 percent of the other public schools. Approximately 62 percent of the charters are new institutions; 86 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. the remainder is conversion schools that were preexisting public (25 percent) or private schools (13 percent). When, asked to identify the major difficulties they had in . developing and implementing charters, practitioner respondents identified the following key factors: lack of start-up funds (57.6 percent), inadequate operating funds (41.1 percent), inadequate facilities (38.6 percent), lack of planning time (38.4 percent), state or local board opposition (23.1 percent), district resistance or regulations (18.3 percent), state departments of education resistance or regulations (14.8 percent), and union resistance (11.3 percent) (Viteritti, 1999). Another national study, performed by the Hudson Institute with supports from Pew Charitable Trusts, was completed in June 1997. The two-year effort involved site visits to 45 schools in 13 states. Its findings were strikingly similar to those that appeared in the RPP reports. It also provided a detailed portrait of students, parents, and teachers who were directly involved with charter schools and their assessment of the experience thus far. The researchers found that charter schools are havens for children who had bad educational experiences elsewhere, including low-income children, at-risk children, minority children, and children with learning disabilities or behavior problems. Critics seem most concerned that there will not be proper oversight of charters that will hire uncertified teachers and teachers who are not members of unions, and that they will drain funds from traditional school systems. They cite 87 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. examples of a few charters, which have been dosed due to fiscal mismanagement or corruption, and they claim that charters allow sectarian groups with a “disturbing agenda” to take public funding for a privatized agenda. Opponents also worry that charters will exacerbate segregation of public education (American Federation of Teachers, 1996; Orfield, 1998). Some oppose charters because they could lead policymakers down a “slippery slop” toward privatization (Molnar, 1996, in Guthrie, Garms, & Pierce, 1988). To some, charters blur the line between public and private in education, because they are exempt from many regulations and may be chartered by a source other than a locally-elected school board. The fears here seem focused on charters losing accountability to a public body and corporations profiting from public education and draining funds from school systems. Advocates have argued that charter schools will improve public education in a variety of ways by: (1) providing quality educational programs and improved academic achievement for the students in the charter school; (2) offering families the opportunity to exercise education choice within public education; (3) generating innovative pedagogical methods, which district schools may then adopt; (4) providing district school boards with an opportunity to create new and different schools; and (5) creating incentives for district boards to improve their schools and school districts. 88 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. When Former Secretary of Education Richard Riley addressed the first National Charter School Conference in November 1998, he proclaimed that charters had changed the face of schooling in America. He praised them for serving as laboratories for new educational methods and for reuivigorating public education. Advocates insist the essential charter school idea is to create dynamics that will cause the mainline system to change and to improve education, for all students (Kolerie, 1993). Magnet Schools After the 1954 Supreme Court decisions held that government imposed racial segregation in education was unconstitutional, efforts to integrate public schools by re-zoning and busing met strong resistance, especially in White neighborhoods. After more than two decades in which compulsory approaches often resulted in more White flight than racial integration, emphasis shifted to voluntary approaches. In 1976, Congress provided funds for magnet schools for desegregation efforts. The Magnet Schools Assistance Program was authorized by Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), Title V, Part A, to support magnet schools in local education agencies that implement school desegregation plans. The theory behind the magnet concept is that the provision of enriched academic programs will motivate a racially mixed group of students to attend schools outside their neighborhoods and achieve integration, because neighborhood schools cannot enroll a sufficient number of students interested in the unique features of the magnet 89 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. school. These special features are not available in neighborhood schools and will serve as a magnet, attracting students from a large attendance area. For example, a magnet school might be one emphasizing the performing aits or science and mathematics. By locating magnets in inner city areas, it was hoped that they would be integrated by voluntary enrollments from a broad attendance area. During the 1980s, their numbers increased greatly to about 2,500 by January 1980. Approximately 60 percent were elementary schools (Lieberman, 1990). In a limited fashion, several legislative authorities currently support this form of parental choice. The Fiscal Year 2001 appropriation for this program is $110 million There are four main objectives of magnet schools: 1. To promote racial desegregation; 2. To retain middle-class families in urban school districts; 3. To attract federal and state funds for innovative programs; and 4. To encourage effective local reforms (Lieberman, 1990). Critics have found that a disproportionate number of students who reap the benefits of these initiatives are either White or among the more advantaged minorities. The preponderance of the evaluation research available suggests that these programs have experienced some success in improving racial balance, racial exposure, and student achievement (Viteritti, 1999). 90 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. School-Based Management When it comes to improving the way schools function, one increasingly recommended prescription is school-based, or a site-based, management. There is growing consensus in the education community that successful schools are managed not by central-office administrators, but by the people who work in them—possibly along with the people who pay taxes or support them and the people who send their children there. All the definitions of school-based management include some reference to delegation. It consists of decentralizing the organizational structure, where certain powers and decisions are most commonly made. The presence or absence of school- based management mainly affects accountability and responsiveness issues. In practice, school-based management usually consists of some combination of control over staffing modest discretionary budgets, annual performance reports, and some type of shared decision making with teachers and parents. It does not refer to any specific allocation of authority within schools. Realistically, the delegation of authority to the site level is a matter of degree, not of absolutes. Decisions within the schools might be made by principals, teachers, parents, community representatives, or any combination thereof. It applies to any number of governance arrangements at the school level (Lieberman, 1990). School-based management is an issue on which public/private school comparisons are apt to be misleading. In public school districts, difficult 91 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. implementation problems are encountered. Many of these problems do not exist in private schools. For example, private schools are not required to bargain with teacher unions, nor are they subject to the teachers’ tenure laws. Because private schools are free to expel or refuse to admit pupils, they have much greater autonomy than public schools on pupil personnel issues (Lieberman, 1990). A major argument for school-based management is that it would result in lower administrative costs. Schools would no longer be governed, monitored, or supervised by a central office bureaucracy. An argument against it is that, if each school purchases independently, losses would occur from not being able to take advantage of large-scale purchasing. Privatizing Elementary and Secondary Education The privatization of education is part of a broader movement in which government owned and operated services are being transferred to the private sector. The term “privatization” generally implies the transfer of a service from the public to the private sector. Privatization is now used as the collective term to define arrangements, such as choice and voucher plans, proprietary schools, charter schools, teachers in private practice, home schooling, contracting for instructional services, and the private management of public schools. Despite the fact that all of these projects have different objectives, financing, governance, as well as vastly different potential to influence the public education system, they are all lumped together under the privatization umbrella. They are often debated collectively with the predictable 92 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. ideological spins, which seem to reflect the interests of groups on all sides of the issue. Private School Choice Turning the operation of public schools over to private companies is a controversial idea based on the notion that part of what makes improving public schools so hard is that they are bogged down in bureaucratic mire. Coulson (1999) believes in market choices, because that enables parents to gravitate toward good schools and away from poorly performing schools failing to teach. He thinks profits are necessary for expanding the number of schools offering a quality education (Morken & Formicola, 1999). A nationwide study by economist Robert Genetski, Private Schools, Public Savings (1993), found that the average cost data for public and private education indicates that, in 1990, the operating cost per student for kindergarten through grade 12 in public schools was $4,841, compared with the private school cost of $1,902. A Gallup Poll survey reveals that, from 1993 to 1998, support for private-school choice has risen from 24 to 44 percent. In 1997, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani of New York asked that the Catholic schools take the overflow of students from the city’s crowded public schools, and Cardinal John O’Connor agreed—reminding the mayor of his earlier offer to educate the worst of the city’s students in a better and cheaper way. 93 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. According to a report published by the National Center for Education Statistics (1992), Catholic schools charge an average annual tuition of $1,327, and other church-sponsored independent schools charge an average of $1,941. Non sectarian independent schools charge an average of $3,839. Some believe that parochial school tuition figures understate the actual cost per student, because the Church subsidizes the schools. Opponents of privatization claim it is an evil which will corrupt the public education system and subject our children to the narrow interests of corporations, who are perceived as more concerned with the bottom line than with the interests of children. It is also believed that this movement will further exacerbate the inequities which currently exist in our public school system. Proponents of privatization claim that exposing schools to market forces and competition is the only path that will lead to a system where consumers have greater choice and schools are more accountable. Mechanisms Associated with Private School Choice Independent Schools Independent schools consist of elite college preparatory academies, including boarding schools that are quite expensive. However, those types of institutions constitute a small portion of independent schools. The more typical independent school is a modest church-sponsored day school. Each school decides on its own what to teach, who will teach it, and how to go about the whole process. 94 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Parents make their own choices based on what they know will work best for their own children. Parents who take the initiative and opt for independent schools are more satisfied, on average, with virtually every aspect of their children’s education than are parents whose children are assigned to an institution by a public school bureaucracy. Coulson (1999) points out that, when parents pay for their child’s education in some way they feel more in control of their education, and take more interest (Morken & Foraiicola, 1999). Vouchers Differing forms of voucher plans appeared in the early 1970s. They were put forth by people like Theodore Sizer, Christopher Jencks, John Coons, and Steven Sugarman-—individuals whose writings were more commonly associated with a liberal social agenda. Their respective proposals focused on the educational needs of underserved communities and bear a striking resemblance to the programs more recently enacted in Milwaukee and Cleveland (Viteritti, 1999). The G I Bill (touted as a precursor for voucher plans) operated in higher education for more than thirty years. It was enacted immediately after World War II and provided a higher education subsidy for any veteran who could gain entrance to a post-secondary program. It paid full tuition, regardless of the tuition being charged by the institution, and subsistence for the veteran and his family. It has been widely regarded as one of the most successful federal programs in the field of education, and 95 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. many veterans who otherwise would not have gotten additional education became college graduates. As a result of G.L Bill programs, serious problems developed, because schools were being started just to make a profit and not necessarily to educate veterans, as purported. Audits showed that their curricula were inadequate, their instructors incompetent, and that they granted degrees without requiring veterans to complete prescribed courses. Fortunately, the majority of the veterans went to established schools that furnished a reasonable education. Nevertheless, the GI Bill program pointed out that the potential for abuse is present when the free market is allowed to operate unfettered. Opponents believe that there might be more segregation by economic class and probably also by race than at present. The few public schools that remained might become the dumping ground for pupils who private schools were unwilling to accept. Private schools would avoid low achievers to bolster school reputation. Still another argument against vouchers is that not all students are equally expensive to educate. For example, it usually costs more to educate disabled students than those that are not disabled. Thus, even if vouchers are related to parental income, private schools will seek those students who are the least expensive to educate; the others will be ignored or relegated to inferior schools. In short, the objection to vouchers is that, if education exists on principles of solely “free market precepts,” the system will be segregated and stratified and the 96 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. effects of competition under voucher plans will be bad for children and for our society. True competition will not happen; and, thus, its beneficent effects will not happen either. Studies have demonstrated that private schools enroll a disproportionate number of students from more affluent groups (Lieberman, 1989). Proponents believe that voucher plans have a number of advantages. Parents would be allowed to place their children in schools of their choice instead of being forced to use schools and teachers for which they might have no enthusiasm. The injection of a greater amount of private enterprise would make schools more efficient and promote a healthy variety. Voucher systems will create markets and, as a result of competition, better schools will achieve a growing share of these markets. Inferior schools will have to improve or lose their clientele. Salaries of teachers would become more responsive to market forces. Vouchers bring up what has been referred to as the “creaming concept.” This pertains to the notion that students who are most needed as role models in inner city schools would be the ones most likely to transfer out of them. This would have negative effects on the remaining students (Lieberman, 1989). A strong argument for the political rationale of vouchers is that the existing ' system creates too much dissatisfaction and requires excessive allocation of resources to conflict management. The educational program of public schools represents a compromise among citizens with different points of view. The compromises, although inevitably political, may be indefensible educationally, 97 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. because they often apply to educational or technical issues that cannot be compromised without undermining all of the different positions on it. Sex education can be cited as an example. Some citizens do not want it in schools; some want it under various restrictions and limitations. Vouchers will also facilitate, not foster, racial integration. For instance, if inner city parents want to spend more for a better education, vouchers would help them to do so. Vouchers would break the connection between residence and school, making it possible for schools to enroll a more racially diverse student body than if their students are drawn from the surrounding neighborhood. Brace S. Cooper, a Professor at Fordham University (1998), explains the failure of vouchers to be adopted widely as a “conspiracy of coincidences.” He believes the voucher concept is too simple, logical, and real not to take root somewhere and that they have a staying power as an idea that will outlast the opposition. He articulates ten possible reasons why vouchers will eventually be adopted. 1. The failure of moderate reforms like charter schools to solve the major problems of the education of the urban poor in the United States; 2. A softening of union opposition and a desire to influence voucher-based programs, much as they have with charter schools; 98 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 3. Growing unity among conservatives and acceptance of vouchers properly and carefully crafted to help the poor and to minimize regulatory problems; 4. Growing acceptance of privatization as a reasonable way to deliver services, including education; 5. The continued failure of public education, jeopardizing the future of cities; 6. Supportive Supreme Court decisions making room for vouchers to be given to parents of children attending parochial schools; 7. The snowball effect with small voucher programs expanding from pilot projects to whole cities and states; 8. Positive research findings with a substantial factual basis indicating that vouchers work well; 9. The redefinition of the government’s role in education, helping to “break up” monopolies, making room for new experiments in education using the latest on-line technologies that make learning in centralized locations unnecessary; and 10. An embrace of vouchers as the moderate solution halfway between total privatization and the current government monopoly (Morken & Formicola, 1999). 99 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Supporters claim that public opinion is shifting in their direction, and a recent Gallup Poll appears to back them up. While half of the respondents to the 1998 survey opposed “allowing students and parents to choose a private school to attend at public expense,” opposition was down sharply from 1993, when 74 percent were against the idea. Support for government-funded vouchers was actually higher when the question was worded slightly differently. Fifty-one percent of those polled in 1998 favored “allowing parents to send their school-age children to any public, private or church-related school of their choice with the government paying all or part of the tuition.” Two years earlier, 43 percent of those polled favored the idea, while 54 percent opposed it. Opinion was evenly divided in the 1997 poll, which is done annually for the Phi Delta Kappa educational fraternity. Since 1972, there have been seven attempts to win approval for statewide voucher programs through voting referendums; all have been overwhelmingly defeated. Table 1 lists the states, the year, and the percentage of “yes” and “no” votes. 100 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. TABLE 1 VOUCHER ATTEMPTS 1 LOCATION YEAR YES (Percent) YES (Percent) I Maryland 1972 45 55 Michigan 1978 26 74 Colorado 1972 33.2 66.8 California 1973 30 70 Washington 1996 35.5 64.5 Michigan 2000 29 71 1 California 2000 35 65 1 Source: Education Minnesota, p. 41. Available: http://www.educationmiimesota.org/index.cfiii. Home Schooling Some parents have taken it upon themselves to educate their children at home. This education differs from the informal instruction that takes place in the home. If a state requires compulsory school attendance, home schooling may be justified on the basis that the home qualifies as a school. For varying reasons, home schooling in the United States has become a topic of interest to education policymakers, administrators, and the general public. For policymakers and education administrators, home schooling raises issues regarding whether and how to regulate parents’ education of their children at home and the types of services school districts can and should provide to home schooling parents and their children. 101 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. For example, when school voucher initiatives were proposed in Colorado, legislators discussed whether home-schooled children should receive vouchers as well as their private school educated peers. Also, administrators in higher education must determine how to assess home schooled students’ qualifications when making admissions decisions. Many of these issues concern taxpayers and citizens at large; and, therefore, the general public also has substantial interest in home schooling policy discussions. Figure 3 depicts a legal summary of the status of home schooling in 1986. In recent years, the legal climate for home schooling has improved. Lieberman (1989) believes that home schooling is an anomaly. It does not reflect a government decision to withdraw support for or provision of education. Instead, it reflects a consumer decision that the service is not wanted or needed. Whereas vouchers maintain the principle of government support, home schooling does not. For the most part, home schoolers have not sought state aid. However, in some respects they appear to have at least as strong a case for it as conventional private schools. If a home school qualifies as a school, the case for state aid to home schools would be even stronger. 102 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 1 . Twenty-three states had enacted some type of home schooling legislation in the years indicated: West Virginia, Vermont, and Minnesota (1987); Missouri (1986); Arkansas, Florida, Oregon, New Mexico, Wyoming, Washington, Tennessee (1985); Georgia, Virginia, Louisiana*, Rhode Island* 1984); Wisconsin and Montana (1983); Arizona and Mississippi (1982); Ohio* (1976); Colorado* (1963); Utah* (1957); Nevada* (1956). 2. Only Iowa, Michigan, and North Dakota required that a certified teacher provided the instruction in ail home schools. 3. Twenty-for states and District of Columbia required home schools to be approved by the local school district or school board. 4. Seven states (Connecticut, Indiana, Kansas, Maine, New Jersey, Nevada, and South Carolina) required the instruction in home schools to be “equivalent” to public school instruction. The “equivalent” requirement has been successfully challenged on grounds of vagueness in Iowa, Minnesota, and Missouri. 5. Three states (Maryland, Delaware, and Rhode Island) required home school instruction to be “regular and thorough.” 6. Idaho and Michigan required home school instruction to be “comparable” to public school instruction. 7. Seven states (California, Hawaii, Kansas, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and South Dakota) required home school teachers to be “competent,” “qualified,” or “capable of teaching.” 8. Home schools could operate as private or religious schools in Alabama, California, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, North Carolina, Nevada, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Texas. L 9. Home schools may possibly be allowed to operate as private or religious schools in FIGURES SUMMARY OF LEGAL STATUS OF HOME SCHOOLING *These six states still give local superintendents or school boards the authority to “approve” home schools. Source: Lieberman, Myron (1989). Privatization and educational choice. New York: St. Martin’s Press, Inc. 103 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Measuring the prevalence of home schooling in the United States has proven to be difficult. Estimates of the number of children who are home schooled vary by hundreds of thousands of children. In the last decade, there have been several attempts to determine the number of children who are home-schooled. Some studies have attempted to assess the size of the home-schooled population by identifying and surveying home-schooling families and extrapolating from those surveys estimates of the number of children who are schooled at home. Other researchers have collected data from the state administrative records to develop estimates. All of these estimates, over time, have ranged from 200,000 children in 1988 (Kohn, 1988) to 4.15 million children in 1995 (Ray, 1997). However, most of these researchers recognize that their estimates of the number of home-schooled children include unknown sources of error (Kohn, 1988; Lines, 1991, 1996, 1998; Ray, 1997). Informed discussions of home-schooling policy are compromised without accurate estimates of how many children are educated at home and whether the proportion of children who are so educated is changing. Measuring the prevalence of home schooling in the United States has proven to be a difficult task. In order to overcome some of the weakness of these studies and obtain accurate estimates of the number of children who are home-schooled, two surveys with large, representative samples of the United States population included questions regarding home schooling. 104 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Figure 4 presents results collected by the National Household Education Survey (NHES). Table 2 exhibits a distribution of all students-— home-schooled students, and non-home-schooled students ages 5 through 17. Table 3 introduces reasons for home schooling. Table 4 exhibits percentages of home schooled students whose parents use support from public schools. wm /sm FIGURE 4 ESTIMATE OF THE NUMBER OF HOME-SCHOOLED STUDENTS Point Estimate and 95% Confidence Interval for Number o f Hom e-Schooled Students, A ges 5-17, with a Grade Equivalent o f Kindergarten to Grade 12: 1999 Source: U.S. Department o f Education, National Center for Education Statistics (1999). Parent Survey o f the National Household Education Surveys Program. Washington, DC: NCES. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. TABLE 2 DISTRIBUTION OF STUDENTS (All Students, Home-Schooled Students, and Non-Home-Schooled Students, Ages 5 through 17, with a Grade Equivalent of Kindergarten to Grade 12, by Selected Characteristics: 1999) Characteristics Number of Students A 1 1 Students Home Schoolers1 Non-Home-Schoolers Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Total 50,188,000 100.0 100.0 100.0 Grade Equivalent2 K-5 24,428,000 48.7 0.07 50.4 3.75 48.7 0.09 Kindergarten 3,790,000 7.6 0.04 10.8 2.31 7.5 0.05 Grades 1-3 12,692,000 25.3 0.04 23.5 3.61 25.3 0.07 Grades 4-5 7,946,000 15.8 0.02 16.0 2.34 15.8 0.05 Grades 6-8 11,788,000 23.5 0.04 21.9 2.83 23.5 0.06 Grades 9-12 13,954,000 27.8 0.10 27.7 3.21 27.8 0.11 I Race/Ethnicity White, non-Hispanic 32,474,000 64.7 0.32 75.3 3.36 64.5 0.33 Black, non-Hispanic 8,047,000 16.0 0.20 9.9 2.80 16.1 0.21 Hispanic 7,043,000 14.0 0.17 9.1 2.06 14.1 0.17 Other 2,623,000 5.2 0.23 5.8 2.01 5.2 0.23 Sex Female 24,673,000 49.2 0.47 51.0 3.27 49.1 0.47 Male 25,515,000 50.8 0.47 49.0 3.27 50.9 0.47 Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. TABLE 2 (continued) Characteristics Number of Students All Students Home Schoolers1 ---------— --------------- Non-Home-Schoolers Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Number of Children in the Household One Child 8,226,000 16.4 0.30 14.1 2.53 16.4 0.30 Two Children 19,883,000 39.6 0.42 24.4 3.06 39.9 0.42 Three or More 22,078,000 44.0 0.48 61.6 3.97 43.7 0.49 Number of Parents in the Household Two Parents 33,007,000 65.8 0.41 80.4 3.26 65.6 0.42 One Parent 15,454,000 30.8 0.41 16.7 2.91 31.0 0.42 Non-Parental Guardians 1,727,000 3.4 0.17 2.9 1.70 3.5 0.17 Parents’ Participation in the Labor Force Two Parents—One in Labor Force 9.628,000 19.2 0.39 52.2 4.27 18.6 0.39 Two Parents—Both in Labor Force 22,880,000 45.6 0.48 27.8 3.92 45.9 0.48 One Parent in Labor Force 13,907,000 27.7 0.44 11.6 2.53 28.0 0.44 No Parent in Labor Force 3,773,000 7.5 0.32 8.3 2.21 7,5 0.32 Household Income $25,000 or Less $25,001-50,000 $50,001-75,000 75,001 or More 16.776.000 15.220.000 8.576.000 9.615.000 33.4 30.3 17.1 19.2 0.22 0.47 0.38 0.42 30.9 32.7 19.1 17.4 4.31 4.00 2.62 2.65 33.5 30.3 17.1 19.2 0.22 0.47 0.38 L_ ® '4 2 o Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. TABLE 2 (continued) Characteristics Number of Students A H Students Home Schoolers' Non-Home-Schoolers Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Parents’ Highest Educational Attainment High School Diploma or Less 18,334,000 36.5 0.43 18.9 2.88 36.8 0.43 Voc/Tech Degree or Some College 15,177,000 30.2 0.43 33.7 3.85 30.2 0.44 Bachelor’s Degree 8,269,000 16.5 0.36 25.1 3.49 16.3 0.35 Graduate/Professional School 8,400,000 16.8 0.41 22.3 4.17 16.7 0.40 Urban icity3 City 31,178,000 62.1 0.36 53.5 4.13 62.3 0.36 Town 6,237,000 12.4 0.34 14.2 2.59 12.4 0.35 Rural 12,773,000 25.5 0.23 32.4 3.81 25.3 0.23 'Excludes students who were enrolled in school for more than 35 hours and students who were home schooled due to a temporary illness. 2 Students whose grade equivalent was “ungraded” were excluded from the grade analysis. 3 Urbanicity is based on a United States Census classification of places as urban or rural. City is a place that is urban, inside an urban area; town is a place that is urban, outside an urban area; rural is a place not classified as urban. NOTE: s.e. is standard error. Detail may not add to totals because of rounding. S o u r c e : U.S. Department o f Education, National Center for Education Statistics (1999). Parent Survey o f the National Household Education Surveys Program. Washington, DC: NHES. o 00 TABLE 3 REASONS FOR HOME SCHOOLING (Percentage of Home-Schooled Students Whose Parents Gave Each Reason, 1999) Reasons for Home Schooling Number of Home- Schooled Students Percent 48.9 s.e, I 3.79 I Can give child better education at home 415,000 Religious reasons 327,000 38.4 4.44 Poor learning environment at school 218,000 25.6 3.44 Family reasons 143,000 16.8 2.79 To develop character/morality 128,000 15.1 3.39 Object to what school teaches 103,000 12.1 School does not challenge child 98,000 11.6 2.39 Other problems with available schools 98,000 11.5 2.20 Student behavior problems at school 76,000 9.0 2.40 | Child lias special needs/disability 69,000 8.2 1.89 T ransportation/convenience 23,000 2.7 1.48 Child not old enough to enter school 15,000 1.8 1.13 I Want private school but could not afford It 15,000 1.7 0 77 Parent’s career 12,000 1.5 0.80 Could not get into desired school 12,000 1.5 0.99 Other reasons* 189,000 22.2 2.00 ^Parents home school their children for many reasons that are often unique to their family situation. “Other reasons” parents gave for home schooling included the following: It was the child's choice; to allow parents more control over what their children were learning; flexibility; and parents wanted year-round schooling. (Note: s.e. is standard error. Excludes students who were enrolled in school for more than 25 hours and students who were home schooled due to a temporary illness. Percentages do not add to 100 percent because respondents could choose more than one reason.) Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (1999). Parent Survey o f the National Household Education Surveys Program. Washington, DC: NHES. 109 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. o TABLE 4 PERCENTAGE OF HOME-SCHOOLED STUDENTS (Whose Parents Reported Availability and Use of Support from Public Schools or Districts:1999) I Type of Support Available and Not Used Available and Used Not Available Don’t Know If Available Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Curriculum 12.4 2.35 8.1 2.20 49.0 3.55 30.5 3.79 Books and Materials 12.2 2.22 10.6 2.47 50.0 3.92 27.3 3.95 Place for Parents to Meet or Get Information 8.9 1.71 6.4 1.57 63.5 3.57 21.2 2.97 Web Site for Parents # # # # 53.7 4.84 37.5 4.75 Place for Students to Meet 4.7 1.26 7.0 1.66 69.0 3.29 19.3 2.77 Web Site for Students # # # # 60.2 4.30 34.5 4.21 Extra Curricular Activities 21.5 2.85 6.4 1.90 56.4 3.99 15.8 2.95 Chance To Attend Some Classes* 16.5 2.91 2.8 1.32 49.4 4.09 31.3 4.10 *Data not available for students who attended private schools part time and for students who attended public schools for less that 9 hours. Estimates are based on the number of fUll-time home schoolers reporting and the number of students “using” public schools for 9 to 25 hours. #Too few cases for a reliable estimate. (Note: s.e. is standard error. Excludes students who were enrolled in school for more than 25 hours and students who were home schooled due to a temporary illness.) Source: U.S. Department o f Education, National C e n te r for Education Statistics (1999). Parent Survey o f the National Household Education Surveys Program. Washington, DC: NCES. The National Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP) has adopted a resolution critical of home schooling. The resolution is quoted here in its entirety, because it summarizes the objections to home schooling quite well. NAESP believes that education is a cornerstone of American democracy and that, in order to guarantee an enlightened electorate capable of governing itself, the American people must ensure quality education for each citizen. NAESP asserts that this is most effectively done through a cohesive organization in a formal setting in which resources can most beneficially be brought to bear and a compulsory attendance policy employed. NAESP views with alarm the increased number of individuals and groups who are avoiding education in the traditional setting in favor of at-home schooling. Such schooling: Deprives the child of important social experiences; • Isolates students from other social/racial/ethnic groups; ® Denies students the Ml range of curriculum experiences and materials; 8 May be provided by non-certified and unqualified persons; • Creates an additional burden on administrators w hose duties include the endorsement of compulsory school attendance laws; • May not permit effective assessment of academic standards of quality; 8 May violate health and safety standards; and 111 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. May not provide the accurate diagnosis of and planning for meeting the needs of children with special talents, learning difficulties, and other conditions requiring typical educational, programs. Studies have found that effective programs teach families to foster the social, emotional, and intellectual development of their children, to communicate high expectations, and to reinforce the skills and knowledge needed for school success, including good study habits, literacy skills, and the value of education (Clark, 1983; Epstein, 1993; Snow, 1991). The most effective programs encouraged full partnerships with families (Comer, 1988) and were comprehensive (Gordon, 1979), well-planned (Becher, 1985), and long-lasting (Gordon, 1979, in Witte, 1994). Private Scholarships This funding mechanism is based on voluntary contributions. They are a way of demonstrating that corporate America and wealthy individuals are indeed ready to help the poor to send their children some place to receive a quality education. In 1993, Douglas Dewey started the Washington Scholarship Fund, now known as the Children’s Scholarship Fund. Its mission is to help children by creating a new philanthropic tradition based on the notion of providing greater educational opportunities for low-income families. Dewey’s rationale is that a capable, but needy, student can almost always find some funding to attend college, so why not those in the lower grades as well? 112 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Other entrepreneurs have played a significant role in providing school choice. Individuals, such as Pat Rooney and Don Laskowski in Indianapolis, David Brennan in Ohio, Steve Schuck in Colorado, Reed Hastings and John Walton in California, and Peter Flanagan and Ted Forstmann in New York, are examples of independently wealthy people who have made significant contributions in providing scholarships at the K-12 level (Morken & Formicola, 1999). Divergent Entrepreneurial Ventures We exist in an entrepreneurial society; and, as such, business-minded individuals will find a way to try and make a profit in this arena. Turning the operation of public schools over to private companies is based on the notion that part of what makes improving public schools so hard is that they are bogged down in bureaucratic mire. One entrepreneurial venture is Mosaic Education, a privately- sponsored Education Management Organization (EMO) that was conceived to address the following concerns driving education reform: • Growing dissatisfaction between voters and employers with the quality of public education; • Existing educational resources inadequate to address future needs; • Declining quality of education despite escalating costs; • Significant increases in anticipated enrollment. In what some call the “second wave” of the charter school movement, for- profit management companies have taken over the operation of charter schools. 113 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Private efforts to run public schools—launched with great fanfare—risk losing a lot of steam once they get down to the dirty work of running schools. But, despite private contractors’ problems, the emergence of education as an industry continues. According to EduVentures, a Boston consulting firm that has tracked the rise of the education industry, roughly 10 percent of the estimated 1,200 charter schools in 1999 were managed by for-profit companies. EduVentures estimates that for- profit education companies had revenues of $82 billion in 1998, a 25 percent increase over 1997. Revenues are projected to reach $99 billion in 1999 and $123 billion in 2000. Merrill Lynch and Company has a slightly more conservative outlook. It estimates that the industry took in $70 billion in 1998 and should reach $100 billion in 2001. Another venture is the Edison Project, founded in 1992 and based in Manhattan. The concept for the Edison Project was conceived and implemented by Chris Whittle with the help of John Chubb, a political scientist, who had taught government and public policy at Stanford University before moving to the Brookings Institution to do research on education. They put together a team, and Whittle proceeded to invest $40 million for research and development before the Edison project began operations. As a result, a comprehensive school design was developed for K-12 education based on the notion that a successful school must be greater than the sum of its parts. The design team systematically searched out and adopted all kinds of successful 114 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. programs that included a wide-ranging curriculum, and the team supported them by a pervasive use of technology. For students, Edison stresses basic skill development for those at high risk for academic failure. It provides each student with a computer in his/her home. It requires individual accountability, while still providing tutors to ensure success. For teachers, Edison provides laptops and extensive funds for faculty development, while allowing them to work with the same group of students for a portion, rather than a year, of their education. For administrators, Edison provides a powerful incentive, namely, between $2.5 and $1.5 million in discretionary funds to control, implement, and tailor the Edison design for their particular community. Finally, students, teachers, administrators, and parents are linked together electronically by the Common, a national on-line service encouraging total participation for the child by those involved with the Edison project. It operates these schools under management contracts with local school districts and charter boards (Morken & Formicola, 1999). Edison is now the country’s leading private manager of public schools. It has implemented its school design in 136 public schools. Approximately 24,000 students attend what is known as Edison partnership schools, and the project now calls itself a comprehensive education management organization or a charter school management organization. The dream of a national network of for-profit schools did, however, have to be modified as the effort, time, and money involved in creating such an organization 115 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. became a reality. In fact. Whittle had originally called for a national system of 200 private or privately-managed schools to be in place by the year 2000, but he had to scale that goal back somewhat in 1994, when Whittle communications ran into financial problems. In January 1998, total investment raised for the Edison Project since 1991 was reported to be at the level of $161,000,000. Although the Edison Project now earns positive operating margins at the local level, it is not yet defraying the cost of its central expenses. It now considers itself an organization designed to replace the last of the cottage industries—education (Morken & Formicola, 1999). Advocates of privatization ventures see in them the combined virtues of government and business. They argue that government’s oversight function and its responsiveness to the needs of citizens can be retained, while taking advantage of private enterprise’s ability to be more efficient, reduce costs, and maximize production—in this case, student achievement. Opponents, however, see the pressure for profit replacing student achievement as the driving force within schools. They see individual needs, particularly those of children with special, costly requirements, being sacrificed to the needs o f corporate shareholders. They fear that school districts will not be nearly vigilant enough in monitoring companies’ performance and that private mangers can be as inefficient and incompetent as public ones. Opponents also assert that we need only consider the operation o f Health Maintenance Organizations (HM Os) to 116 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. recognize that far-reaching problems may develop and that, just like HMDs, EMOs may put profit above service. Analyzing the Attributes of a Paradigm The word “paradigm” was originally one of those obscure academic terms that has undergone many changes of meaning over the centuries. The classical Greeks used it to refer to an original archetype or ideal. In 1962, Thomas Kuhn published a famous essay, “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,” that utilizes 21 implicit meanings for the word “paradigm.” However, he offers one that can be characterized as basic. Paradigms are essentially scientific theories or ways of looking at the world that fulfill two requirements: they must be sufficiently unprecedented to attract an enduring group of adherents away from competing modes of scientific activity, and they must be sufficiently open-ended to leave all sorts of problems for the redefined group of practitioners to resolve. Kuhn (1962) argues that scientific advancement Is not evolutionary but, rather, is a “series of peaceful interludes punctuated by Intellectually violent revolutions”; and in those revolutions, one conceptual world view is replaced by another. His fundamental themes addressed scientific patterns in particular; however, his philosophical approaches to scientific theories have taken on more global significance. Researchers need paradigms. They represent more than just a collection of known facts; they represent a plan of the universe through which researchers can at 117 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. least temporarily look at the universe and conduct farther research. Once a paradigm, has been adopted, it can then be tested for limitations and scope. While the paradigm is essentially based on observed facts, the ideas and creativity that go into articulating it may be the result of cultural or metaphysical notions. Paradigms determine the parameters and rales for the puzzle. In other words, the paradigm sets the parameters in which scientists may view the world. Bolman and Deal (1991) comment that, too often, leaders and managers bring too few ideas to the challenges that they face. They live in psychic prisons, because they cannot look at old problems in a new light and attack old challenges with different and more powerful tools; they cannot reframe. These authors developed four frames and multiple leases for refraining. The structural, human resource, political, and symbolic frames provide a leader or manager with a means for developing different views of organizational situations. This process of refraining permits seeing a situation differently. As Bolman and Deal express it, “the ability to reframe experience enriches and broadens a leader’s repertoire and serves as a powerful antidote to self-entrapment” (Carlson, 1996). A distinction should be made between theories and interpretations of facts. Scientists assume theories; they know facts to be true, within acceptable limits of confidence. As time advances, they replace one theory with another—arguably a better one. This happens, hopefully, with the accretion of known facts. 118 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Researchers must then attempt to solve the puzzles by looking for missing pieces and connecting them into a cohesive whole. When the limits of an old paradigm break down, the emergence of a new one is often assisted by social forces. Kuhn pointed out that to reject one paradigm without simultaneously substituting another is to reject science itself. In fact, in his later works, The Structure o f Scientific Revolutions, Postscript-1969, Kuhn began to use the term “disciplinary matrix” to avoid confusion and expound on various aspects or characteristics of paradigms. New paradigms and postmodern thinking provide impetus and an intellectual base for looking at organizations and their leaders from new and different perspectives. Bolman and Deal (1984, 1991) discuss the importance of using new frames and lenses, and Morgan (1986, 1993) speaks of imagination and metaphors as ways to think about organizations. According to these authors, administrative leaders who are able to generate new viewpoints can potentially develop new insights in coping with the endless array of concerns and issues facing most educational organizations. Evidence to Look for in Recognizing a Shifting Paradigm A paradigm shift is a change from one way of thinking to another. It is a revolution, a transformation, a sort of metamorphosis. It just does not happen; but, rather, it is driven by agents of change. When anomalies or inconsistencies arise within a given paradigm and present problems that we are unable to solve within a 119 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. given paradigm, our view of reality must change, as must the way we perceive, think, and value the world. We must take on new assumptions and expectations that will transform our theories, traditions, rules, and standards of practice. We must create a new paradigm in which we are able to solve the unsolvable problems of the old paradigm. Crises lead to paradigm shifts and are usually forced. Until the paradigm shift occurs, the incumbents can comfortably explain everything with their existing paradigm. Paradigm supporters seemingly equate paradigm survival with their own personal survival and will manipulate and control a society in order to prevent any social or cultural advancement out of the existing paradigm, ignoring or suppressing public knowledge of anomalies, equating perception of anomalies to “personal abnormality” in order to intimidate populations to remain within the status quo control-paradigm. Kuhn (1969) suggests that proponents of two competing paradigms live in different worlds, and the language each group utilizes differs so that real communication between the two camps becomes difficult. He asserts that, because of a transition between incommensurables, the transition between competing paradigms cannot be made a step at a time, forced by logical neutral experience. Individuals who break through by inventing a new paradigm are almost always either very young or very new to the field whose paradigm they change. These are the people who, being little committed by prior practice to the traditional rules of normal 120 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. science, are particularly likely to see that these rules no longer define a playable game and try to conceive another set that can replace them. Breaking down barriers of particular habits is key to understanding the processes through which one model or concept is supplanted by another. Critical problems demanding a revolutionary shift in thinking lies in the robustness of the habits of mind that reject the new ideas, relative to the habits of mind that accept the new ideas. Kuhn (1962) believes that what is needed to obtain a paradigm shift is a crisis within the earlier world view. Paradigm shifts seldom occur as soon as a new paradigm is known, but only when the old one is shown to be inadequate. Then, a total re-evaluation of research is needed. Concepts are turned upside down; earlier research must be reinterpreted; and nothing is what it seemed to be, despite it still being the same phenomenon that is described. According to Tim Healy (2000), whether in the sciences, or in other aspects of our lives, paradigm shifts seem to have some common characteristics: • They are a necessary part of life. Things do change, and we have to adjust to that change. Shifts can be bad. Society needs quite a bit of stability so that it can depend on its view of the world. Constant shifts in major elements of our paradigm would make our lives very difficult. 121 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Shifts often come from the young. Older people have more to conserve. They have more of an investment, financial and physiological, in their paradigm. Winston Churchill said that any man who is not a liberal at 20 has no heart, and any man who is not a conservative at 40 has no mind. • You cannot abandon a paradigm until you have one to put in its place, because a paradigm is that which allows us to function. Without a paradigm, good or bad, we cannot function. It usually takes a long time to affect a paradigm shift—often as much as 20 years, about the life of a generation. The excitement inherent when a paradigm is in the process of breaking down can perhaps best be seen through the eyes of one of the greatest scientists—Einstein. He wrote that it was as if the ground had been pulled out from under one with no firm foundation to be seen anywhere, upon which one could have built. Machiavelli warned of the difficulty of creating new institutions in his advice to new rulers: They should observe that there is nothing more difficult to plan or more uncertain of success or more dangerous to carry out than to introduce new institutions, because the introducer has as his enemies all those who profit from the old institutions, and has as lukewarm defenders all those who will profit from the new institutions. This lukewarmness results partly from fear of their opponents, who have the laws on their side, partly from the incredulity of men, who do not actually believe new things unless they see them yielding solid proof. Hence, whenever those who are enemies have occasion to attack, they do it like partisans, and the others resist lukewarmly; thus, lukewarm subjects and innovating prince are both in danger. (Masters, 1968) 122 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Handy (1995) states that we need a new way to think about our problems and the future. He suggests that we consider developing a paradox that includes coping with an issue and making sense of the issue. There is at the heart of things a paradox. It will be best understood backward, but we have to live it forward. To make it livable at all levels, we have to leam to use the paradoxes—to balance contradictions and inconsistencies—as an invitation to find a better way. Through a variety of metaphors (e.g., machines, organisms, cultures, political systems, psychic prisons), Morgan (1986, 1993) encourages us to imagine different possibilities for various challenges facing us. Therefore, we should try and experiment with alternative views and behaviors, although forces—both intrapersonal and interpersonal—reinforcing the status quo will be powerful. Reflecting and changing our notions about school organization, leadership, and reform is tremendously complicated and is not as simple as it may appear (Guthrie, Garms, & Pierce, 1988). Anthony Downs (1972), the economist, wrote persuasively on the public issue agenda cycle. He postulated that policy issues, such as education reform, progresses through stages that range from widespread citizen ignorance to an attention-riveting circumstance or set of events, to an intense alarm and frantic search for solutions, to growing disillusion, and through eventual transition to the next issue (Waldo, 1992). 123 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. The Sigmoid Curve is the S-shaped curve that has intrigued people since time began. The Sigmoid Curve sums up the story of how to proceed on the school choice issue. Start slowly, experimentally, and faltermgly. The issue before us now is where we are on the curve. The secret of interpreting the essence of the curve is to start a second before the first one dips too far down. Do not lull yourself into the belief that all is fine and that it would be folly to change when the current recipes are working so well. Figure 5 illustrates this concept. Change comes only when you are looking disaster in the face, at point B on the first curve. The shaded area on the curve represents a time of great confusion. It may well be that the assumptions (or variables) generating the second curve turn out to be wrong, that the present trends can be prolonged much longer, and that the first curve was really only in its infancy or the assumptions created a better fit. Or the second curve may overtake the first, which will never happen as long as the first curve is still on the rise. The discipline of devising that second curve will, however, have had its effects. It will have forced one to challenge the assumptions underlying the first curve and to devise some possible alternatives. The discipline of the second curve keeps one skeptical, curious, and inventive—attitudes essential in a time of change, and the best way of coping with the contradictions that accompany such a time. 124 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. FIGURE 5 THE SIGMOID CURVE Source: Handy, Charles (1994). The age o f paradox. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press. 125 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Fred Schumacher, in Small Is Beautiful (1983), believed that moving on requires the use of what he called “curvilinear logic”—the conviction that the world and everything in it really is a Sigmoid Curve, that everything has its ups and then its down, and that nothing lasts forever. Curvilinear logic is not intuitively obvious, if you are still ascending the first curve (Handy, 1994). Traditional Variables Viewed as Significant in Shaping Education Reform Perspectives On October 17, 1980, President Jimmy Carter signed a law that created the U.S. Education Department, establishing a cabinet-level department. Beryl A. Radin and Willis D. Hailey conducted a comprehensive study regarding the creation of the Education Department. They published their findings in The Politics o f Federal Reorganization: Creating the U.S. Department o f Education (Radin & Hailey, 1988). This study was based on four sources of information: (1) an examination of a large number of written materials that dealt with the issue, such as letters, memoranda, reports, minutes from meetings, and other non-public testimony, hearings and events reported by the press; (2) more than 200 personal and telephone interviews over a four-year period with the actors and observers of the policy process; such as legislators and their staffs, individuals within the Executive Office of the President, political and career staff within the executive branch, representatives of interest groups, and other informed individuals; (3) academic literature in related policy and administrative fields; and (4) personal experiences. Five major goals— 126 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. (1) symbolism, (2) political advantage, (3) efficiency, (4) effectiveness, and (5) change American education to create a better national image—were delineated as especially pertinent for policymakers in deciding to endorse this major educational reform effort. These variables and definitions, as described by Radin and Hailey (1988) when the Department of Education was established, are identified as traditional goals in pursuing education reform. Symbolic Status or Symbolism According to C. Wright Mills (1959), symbolism has often been used to conceptualize rales over institutions. The central conceptions may refer to the vote of the majority, the will of the people, or the aristocracy of talent or wealth. Weber called such conceptions legitimations, or sometime symbols of justification. Similarly, in psychological analysis, such master symbols, relevant when they are taken over privately, became the reason and often the motives that lead persons into roles and sanctions their enactment of them. If, for example, economic institutions are publically justified in terms of them, then references to self-interest may be an acceptable justification for individual conduct. But, if it is felt publicly necessary to justify such institutions in terms of public service and trust, the old self-interest motives and reasons may lead to uneasiness among capitalists. The United States was the only major nation in the world that did not have an education ministry or department. Perhaps more important to them was that failure 127 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. to have a top-level agency for education issues indicated that education did not have a status equal to other service sectors in society, such as agriculture, labor, and business. Thus, the goal for symbolic advocates was clear-cut—get a cabinet-level department. Many advocates of this goal believed that higher status, visibility, and a place at the cabinet table would translate into increased federal funding for education. There can be symbols for political events and policy proposals as well as for problems. According to John W. Kingdon (1995), in general, symbolic acts (much as personal experiences) serve as reinforcement for something already taking place and as something that rather powerfully focuses attention, as a prime mover in agenda-setting. Symbols catch on and have important focusing effects, because they capture in a nutshell some sort, of reality that people already sense in a more vague, more diffuse way. Ideology Linked to Political A dvantage Ideology is linked to political advantage. It is a term developed in the Marxist tradition to talk about how cultures are structured in ways that enable groups holding power to have the maximum control with the minimum of conflict. This is not a matter of groups deliberately planning to oppress people or alter their consciousness (although this can happen) but, rather, a matter of how the dominant institutions in society work through values, conceptions of the world, and symbol systems in order to legitimize the current order. 128 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Ideas about politics may range from the simple to the extraordinarily complex. At their very core, ideologies offer a means to understand, explain, and change political reality. There are, in other words, descriptive, prescriptive, and normative elements of political ideologies. Sometimes hidden within these elements are assumptions about the fundamental nature of human beings, their proper relationship to one another, the ultimate destiny and purpose of life itself, mankind’s places in the grand scheme of things, the existence of principles of justice beyond those created by man, and stated or unstated presumptions of a most basic nature. Some political ideologies are produced by intellectual elites. Those individuals with the necessary interests and skills (intellectual and communicative) have, most generally, devised comprehensive analyses of politics. Although any particular ideology may be modified and more completely developed with the involvement of many people over considerable periods of time, there is more often than not a single individual who may be correctly viewed as the founder if not the ultimate creator of that ideology. Federal education programs were often linked to their calculation of political advantage for personal, partisan, and interest group perspectives. Political advantage was linked to the National Education Association’s power and, thus, their powerful ideological perspectives. Their power became an essential force for members of Congress as they determined their positions on a separate cabinet-level department. 129 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Efficiency The federal government’s concern for education has historically focused on the value of efficiency. Efficiency as an ideal stem from components of the Protestant work ethic and is continually reinforced by the profit motive. Near the turn of the Twentieth Century, American schools were greatly influenced by the scientific management movement, then popular in the manufacturing sector. This was the era of “cheaper by the dozen,” time-and-motion studies, and efficiency experts. The hope was that schooling could be reduced to a series of scientific principles amenable to implementation by professional school administrators. Implementation of such managerial principles was expected both to enhance learning and to reduce costs. It was expressed as a desire to obtain adequate education for as little money as possible. The various manpower training acts have been consistent with this direction. This goal is laudable, but difficult to attain. The problem is that there is little agreement on what education is to accomplish, how it is to be accomplished, and how accomplishments are to be measured. James M.. Buchanan, in Introduction: L. S. E. Essays on Cost (1973, in Guthrie, Grams, & Pierce, 1988) writes: To the individual decision-maker the concept of an “efficiency criterion” is a useful one, but to the independent observer the pitfalls of omniscience must be carefully avoided. The observer may introduce an efficiency criterion only through Ms own estimate of Ms subjects’ value scales.” 130 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Arguments based on increases in efficiency (assertions of reduced costs and more expeditious action) are the most common public positions taken to justify administrative reorganization. This position asserts that reorganization is needed because of overlap and duplication of functions; these result in complex and slow decision processes that produce costly and inadequate services. The venue of decision making, therefore, explains much of the attractiveness of the efficiency argument. In simple terms, economic efficiency is increased by a gain in units of output per unit of input. In the past, those concerned with school efficiency merely advocated imposing spending limits, theorizing that educators having a restricted amount of money will use it more wisely. In the face of conflicting expectations for school output, competing values, weak incentive systems, and private-sector spillover effects, it is difficult to measure efficiency. It encompasses costing less, performing more quickly, being less complicated, having more useful features, being of higher quality, and all for the same or a lower price. For economists, efficiency takes on other components. One dimension is allocative efficiency, and another dimension is technical efficiency. Guthrie, Ganns, and Pierce (1988) present these examples in describing these two components of efficiency as they relate to education. Imagine a school system that provides training only in fashion design. Potential clients wanting training in electronics, agriculture, foreign languages, journalism, or mucic would be 131 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. disappointed. Decision makers for such a system would have misjudged the demand for other kinds of services, and potential clients or commuters would be unhappy. Similarly, an elementary school that stresses social skills and interpersonal relations might disappoint parents preferring greater emphasis on academic preparation and basic skills. In such a situation, school decision makers—the “producers” of educational services—have misjudged the “market.” They are allocatively inefficient. Allocative efficiency is enhanced when providers are free to enter the marketplace with new ideas, products, or sendees, and when consumers are at liberty to select from what is available. In education, under present conditions, the near monopoly of the public schools may restrict choice more than is necessary to protect the public welfare. If a greater range of choice could be accommodated by education providers, allocative efficiency would be enhanced. Technical efficiency refers to efforts to maximize output at any given level of resource input or to minimize input for a desired level of output (the more frequent goal). It encompasses attempts to reduce unit costs of producing any particular good or service or producing a higher-quality “unit” for the same cost. In the private sector, this kind of efficiency is motivated strongly by a desire for profit. The less expensively a good or service can be produced, all other things being equal, the greater the financial return to the owner or owners of the means of production. Technical efficiency, as it relates to schools, is asking that educational output be maximized relative to a given level of resource input. Definitional difficulties 132 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. immediately become evident. What will be taken as measures of output? Is student achievement the measure? If so, then on what dimension—average Scholastic Aptitude Test scores or Advancement Placement Test scores? Effectiveness Educational effectiveness research is often criticized because of the absence of a theoretical background. It refers to producing a decided, decisive, or desired effect in the accomplishment of a desired goal. School effectiveness includes: developing a comprehensive design for functioning (including instruction), assessment, classroom management, professional development, parental Involvement, and management. This design must be in alignment with the school’s curriculum, technology, and professional development. It must enable all students—■ including children from low-income families, children with limited English proficiency, and children with disabilities—to meet challenging content and performance standards and address needs Identified through a school needs assessment. The effectiveness argument used to support the creation of a separate department of education concentrated on the improvement of the quality of educational services within the existing distribution of responsibilities and structure of American education. Advocates for a separate department rested their case on the belief that the creation of a separate department would improve the quality of educational services within the existing structure and level of resources already found 133 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. in the federal government. They alleged that a new department would be able to take the programs that were already in place and make them work better. The problem to be dealt with by such a department was fairly straightforward: since federal programs have failed to solve the problems to which they were addressed, such as rectifying inequalities in educational opportunity and profiting from research and development resources to improve the quality of education, a new cabinet-level department would be able to aid in rectifying that situation. Effectiveness terminology has evolved to include phrases such as school improvement, fundamental improvements, effective strategies and practices, etc. Clear silver bullets for improving schools and improving student learning have been elusive. President Clinton (1997) emphasized the need to focus on many vehicles for educational improvement in his “Call to Action for American Education in the 21s t Century.” He stated that effectiveness is based on sustained improvement and supported by parents, educators, and the larger community. Research suggests that student achievement can best be improved by supporting a comprehensive set of district and school-level reforms, such as: • Safe, disciplined, and drag-free schools; • A clear focus on improving learning and mastering the basics; • Parent involvement and public commitment to improving schools; High academic standards and rigorous course-taking; • Sustained and intensive professional development for teachers; 134 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. • Building and technology suited for learning; • Reinforcement through after-school and summer programs; • Greater school autonomy and accountability; and • Expanded public choice options. C h ange American Education te C reate a Better N ational Im age Developing and maintaining quality public schools remains a national goal. The common school concept teaches children important lessons about both the commonality and diversity of American culture. These lessons are conveyed not only through what is taught in the classroom, but by the very experience of attending a school with a diverse mix of students. It is a part of our basic foundation as a democracy and a free enterprise economic system. The public school concept is fundamentally American: most of the 50 states have a provision in their state constitution for free, public education. These statues reflect a commitment to the idea that all children, regardless of their academic readiness, race, socioeconomic status, language proficiency, or special education needs, have equal access to a quality K-12 education and a chance to develop to their maximum potential. State constitutions describe this most essential purpose as: A general diffusion of knowledge being essential to the preservation of the liberties and rights of the people, it shall be the duty of the Legislature of the State to establish and make suitable provision for the support and maintenance of an efficient system of public free schools. (Texas) 135 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. The General Assembly shall provide for a system of free public elementary and secondary schools for all children of school age throughout the Commonwealth, and shall seek to ensure that an education program of high quality is established and continually maintained. (Virginia) Historically, the national role consisted of supporting initiatives targeted toward helping states and localities address gaps in student achievement, making higher education more affordable, setting clear and sensible goals for education, and providing extra help to disadvantaged students. Changing that national role refers to transformation, to become different, or to pass from one phase to another. For most of this Nation’s history, federal policies toward education have been incidental to the development of public education. In order for the American education system to change, it would mean realigning long-established relationships with state and local governments. Change of any significant magnitude in this Nation involves the process that illustrates the so-called iron triangle theory. Control, according to this theory, is found in a series of relationships linking executive bureaus, congressional committees, and interest group clienteles. These triads, it is argued, make it difficult to change the way the Nation’s business is conducted. The 1960s were a time for critiquing social myths and beliefs. Societal attitudes toward schooling were increasingly pessimistic, as it was thought that background and social influences determined achievement more than formal, instructional schooling (Maddaus, Airasian, & Kellaghan, 1980). During the 1970s and 1980s, studies by Edmonds (1979) and Goodlad (1984) found that all children 136 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. can leam, regardless of their background, and that some schools are more effective or satisfying than others (Radin & Hailey, 1988). When the establishment of a cabinet-level department of education was being debated in the 1970s, proponents of this argument had much in common with those who diagnosed the problems of education and effectiveness. This argument made some of those diagnostic elements more explicit. They believed that a separate department would assist the federal government in developing a new role in the way that it could more effectively address most American education issues. Critics believed that currently existing problems were largely caused by the school administrators and teachers having a professional monopoly in the field. Providers of schooling were more concerned about their own professional status and conditions and the defense of failed policies than they were about education performance of the students in their classrooms. A school image has been defined by Renihan and Renihan (1988) as “the sum of subjective opinions about the quality of the learning and social environment. . . the collective feeling developed by the various publics as a result of their observation and experiences of the school. The image is also a refection into the community and the Nation. Schools represent our beliefs and values. All societies have a continuing interest in the ways in which their young people are prepared for citizenship and leam to take part in public affairs. This matter has increased in importance not only in societies striving to establish or reestablish democratic governments, but also in 137 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. societies with continuous and long-established democratic traditions. For schools to be truly effective, their evolving Image must be viewed in a positive light by its public. Perceptions, even if inaccurate in their understanding, are truth to those who hold them. It becomes important, then, that schools are accurately interpreted by the public. However troubled, schools In this country may seem that leaders of school systems elsewhere look at the United States system and wonder about the beauty of its balance. They wonder how agreement is obtained without the use of terror from Washington, without the use of secret police or informants, or without having to resort to prisons or armies. How is it, foreigners ask, that there is so much freedom of expression, that so much authority can reside in the hands of so many different interests and yet so few instances of extremism arise in the official curriculum? Our Nation’s public school system, in many ways, Is a marvel of the world. Currently, this variable has taken on multifaceted terminology. A preponderance of literature now refers to changing the image of elementary and secondary education as education reform, school reform, comprehensive school reform, public education reform, school choice, public school privatization, and the list continues. Emerging Variables Viewed as Significant in Shaping Education Reform Perspectives This issue is so intrinsically active, so segmented, so volatile, and the nomenclature so heterogeneous that it was difficult to make a choice relative to 138 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. which specific variables to select. Final selections were based on a preponderance of available literature. Nonetheless, this is not an exhaustive list of all emerging variables nor all the various possible permutations. In some cases, variables, such as efficiency and effectiveness, are listed under traditional variables; however, they are also being considered significant in currently shaping education reform perspectives. Equity Equity is a concept that is steeped in values and requires conceptual clarity to avoid spinning conceptual and empirical wheels and talking past one another. In the Nineteenth Century, the fact that schooling was provided at all was taken to constitute equal educational opportunity. It was believed that every child should be provided with at least the same minimally adequate school services. Typically, this was translated into a policy whereby states guaranteed a minimal education expenditure level. Local school districts were then expected to transform these dollars into minimally adequate programs. Equal access to a minimally acceptable level of school service is reflected in the language of most state school finance statutes—for example, “foundation programs” or “basic aid.” Equal access to education assumes that the provision of at least a minimum level of school resources will ensure quality of educational opportunity. This approach, operating far longer and in many more states than any other, initially implied that schools, of whatever quality, are made available to all students. According to Guthrie, Garais, and Pierce (1988), beginning in the early 1970s, a 139 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. number of social theorists and policy analysts began to construct a new definition of equal educational opportunity. Their position stemmed from the observation that academic achievement had become crucial for personal success. Consequently, they proposed that the appropriate measure of equality be equal student learning, at least in terms of minimum or basic skills. Presumably, the objective would be fulfilled if, upon graduating from secondary school, for example, every student were able to perform at least at an eighth-grade level in reading, mathematics, and composition. Schools would be held responsible for achieving such equal minimal outcomes regardless of the resource level necessary. An important question in enhancing equity is what to measure. Should we be measuring outcomes, such as test scores, unemployment rates of graduates, or percentage of graduates who go to college? Or should we measure such things as number of advanced placement classes, extent to which computers are used, or amount of emphasis on basic subjects? Or perhaps we should measure dollars spent on each student, average teacher salary, or pupii-teacher ratio. One can think of equity as composed of horizontal equity and vertical equity. Horizontal equity applies to equal treatment of equals, whereas vertical equity involves unequal treatment of unequals to an end that is somehow equitable. Horizontal equity is by fax the easier to measure, and devising measures of horizontal equity has attracted far more attention. The reason it is easier to measure, of course, is that it is relatively easy to determine whether two or more things are equal. It is 140 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. much more difficult to determine whether an unequal distribution is equitable. It must be decided whether the criterion of equity is equal provision of a basic education, or of all education provided, or whether one wishes only to equalize access to tax resources. The definition has evolved to mean more than simply access. It is difficult to measure or assess equity, unless a distinction between horizontal equity and vertical equity has been realized. Equity concerns have intensified. School finance equity concepts since 1970 suggest that several ideas seem to be reasonably well-accepted among researchers, lawyers, and policymakers. First, there are alternative concepts of equity, and no single concept serves the purpose of all users, in part because people have different values and in part because people use the concepts for different purposes (to argue court cases, to design school finance systems, etc.). Second, children and taxpayers each have a legitimate perspective from which to view equity. Third, we should continue to examine inputs even as we move to using concepts of output equity, because many users (e.g., lawyers, the public) find input equity meaningful. And, fourth, given the American structure of primary and secondary education, states and school districts are important units of analysis. Em pow erm ent Empowerment, empowerment, empowerment—that is the impetus that drives much of the discourse regarding school choice. This word refers to power; empowering teachers to choose where to teach; empowering schools to choose their 141 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. students; and empowering communities to create a shared-vision. Parental empowerment is very much a part of the overall empowerment movement. Recent major legislation, such as the Goals 2000: Educate America Act and the re authorized ESEA, has made parents’ involvement in their children’s education a national priority. School districts nationwide are being encouraged to reexamine their parent involvement policies and programs and to demonstrate innovative approaches in order to obtain Federal education dollars. In particular, eligibility for Title I funding, available to school districts in high poverty areas, is now contingent upon the development of “compacts” in which families and schools agree to assume mutual responsibility for children’s learning: partnerships must be forged between homes, schools, and communities, requiring an unprecedented level of contact and communication between parents and educators (e.g., U. S. Department of Education, 1994). Leithwood (1992) spoke of collaboration as a vehicle for sharing power with people rather than imposing power over them. Shared decision-making (empowering others to make decisions) has become a significant part of school-reform efforts. Coalitions among parents, schools, and students must be formed. These alignments are essential in achieving lasting change by ensuring that positive actions implemented by education institutions are long-lasting. Shared involvement in decision making will also create ownership and commitment that will lead to new roles and relationships. According to Joseph Blase 142 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. and colleagues (1995), empowerment advocates believe that student learning will improve; teacher satisfaction will increase; equality should be enhanced; principals’ leadership roles will be richly augmented; and new forms of leadership will be created. Teachers are key players in determining school policies and practices. This rationale is simple: those who are closest to student learning are best equipped to make educational decisions. An aim of shared decision making is to improve teaching and learning. Since students leam in classrooms, not board rooms, teachers should be deeply involved in the decision-making process. Having a practical understanding of classroom complexities, teachers will presumably focus on programs that improve achievement. When assessing aspects of the empowerment rationale, it is essential to analyze conditions like space availability, better schools, location, transportation, and cost—all necessary ingredients for empowerment to work effectively. Empowerment also includes capacity-building and strengthening in various dimensions. Those dimensions included, but are not limited to: Altruism. The proportion and the degree to which individuals are ready to sacrifice benefits to themselves for the benefit of the community as a whole. Common Values. The degree to which members of the school share values, especially the idea that they belong to a common entity that supersedes the interest of members within it. 143 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Confidence. While expressed in individuals, how much confidence is shared among the school as a whole? An attitude that schools can achieve whatever it wishes to achieve must be developed. Information. More than just having or receiving unprocessed information, the strength of the school depends upon the ability to process and analyze that information; the level of awareness knowledge and wisdom found between key individuals and within the group as a whole must be heightened. Context. A school will be stronger and better capable of sustaining its strength, if it exists in. an. environment that supports an environment designed to strengthen. This environment includes: (1) political and (2) administrative (attitudes of civil servants and technicians, as welt as government regulations and procedural) elements. “Letting go” will be a major administrative priority. Accountability Accountability has always been a basic concept in public education, although ideas about how to accomplish it have changed. In recent years, the urgent need to improve schools has been a powerful incentive to the adoption of new accountability laws and systems. An accountability system is a set of commitments, policies, and practices designed to increase the use of good educational practices, reduce the use of harmful or wasteful practices, and create internal mechanisms to identify, diagnose, and change courses of action that do not lead to learning. Accountability became the fashionable label under which to seek added school productivity. 144 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Accountability has played a prominent role in many of the education reform efforts during the past 50 years. In the 1950s, under the influence of James B. Conant’s work on comprehensive high schools, testing was used to select students for higher education and to identify students for gifted programs. By the mid-1960s, test results were used as a measure to evaluate the effectiveness of Title I and other federal programs. In the 1970s and early 1980s, the minimum competency testing movement spread rapidly. Thirty-four states instituted some sort of testing of basic skills as a graduation requirement. Overlapping the minimum competency testing movement and continuing into the late 1980s and early 1990s was the expansion of the use of standardizing tests (Linn, 2000). No form of accountability is sufficient by itself to ensure that all students are well-served. Darling-Hammond (1989) states that there are at least five types of accountability mechanisms alongside each other in an education system. Political. School board members and legislators must stand for election. Legal. Boards and legislatures enact policies; courts can hear complaints about schools. Bureaucratic. State and district education departments set rules and regulations to ensure that schools meet standards and follow procedures. Professional. Teachers and other school staff must acquire specialized knowledge, pass certification exams, and uphold professional standards of practice. 145 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. M arket Parents and students may choose the programs or schools they believe are most appropriate for their needs. Statistical indicators must be established to support broad inferences about schools and students. Establishing those indicators can be quite complex. At a minimum, they must include information that monitors: Students’ test scores; • How a school system hires, evaluates, and supports its staff; How it relates to students and parents; • How it ensures that the best available knowledge will be acquired and used; • How it evaluates its own functions; and • How it corrects its problems and provides incentives for continual improvement. Oakes (1986) and Koretz (1989) maintain that indicators should offer information that is: Problem-Oriented. Indicators should be able to detect current problems or potential difficulties. Relevant to Policy. Information should be described in a way that is amenable to change by policy decisions or that shows policymakers where to target their efforts. 146 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Reflective of Educational Outcomes. The data might include graduation or dropout rates; college attendance rates; voting rates; achievement test scores, writing samples, and quality of participation in science fairs, debates, or dramatic productions. Indicative of Student Backgrounds. Indicators cannot be interpreted meaningfully without corollary information on which students are involved. Illustrative of School Context. Data on how schools are organized and what they provide are needed to offer clues about why schools achieve the outcomes that they do. According to a 1995 National Education Association report on state accountability, the Nation is shifting its focus from education inputs to outputs. Assessment data are reported widely and increasingly tied to consequences for students, schools, and/or teachers. Accountability faces another dilemma—the voucher factor. Giving public dollars to private and religious schools presents an intense debate. If private schools are regulated to respond to the public’s demand for accountability, they will sacrifice some degree of privacy and autonomy. On the other hand, citizens have a right to know how their tax dollars are being spent. An accountable voucher system might compel government interference in the operation of religious schools to an extent unrivaled in the history of our republic. The erosion of private school autonomy might occur to the extent that some independent schools may not desire to participate in the program. 147 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Bob Chase (2000), President of the National Education Association, the Nation’s largest teachers’ union, states that, if private schools are allowed to accept public money without being held accountable, the public is writing them a blank check. We would challenge any voucher program that does not have accountability requirements. According to the American Federation of Teachers (2001), several recent polls show that the public would expect private and religious schools receiving public dollars to be regulated and held accountable for the use of these dollars, just as public schools. A survey conducted by the Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll revealed that 75 percent agreed that private or church-related schools accepting government tuition payments should be accountable to the state in the same way that public schools are accountable. Twenty percent did not agree with this statement. Five percent said they did not know (Rose & Gallup, 1998). Rod Paige, Secretary of Education (2001), stated that the federal government can, and must, help close the achievement gap between disadvantaged students and their peers. To meet that goal, the federal investment in Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) must be spent more effectively and with greater accountability. To that end, the Law has been amended. The new Title I is designed to strengthen the program improvement requirements of the 1988 law and ensure even greater school and district accountability for high performance of their students. It does this in a number of ways: 148 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. It links Title I accountability to the challenging State standards and assessments that apply to all children in a state. It attaches consequences to institutional performance. • It holds LEAs accountable for their performance. It emphasizes what is happening in schools receiving Title I funds, i.e., whether they are making adequate progress toward enabling their children to meet the State standards, rather than solely emphasizing the Title I program itself or even the yearly performance grains of every child on a standardized test. David H. Monk and Jennifer King Rice, in Modern Education Productivity Research: Emerging Implications fo r the Financing o f Education (1999), suggest that determining education productivity can create a magnitude of sorting problems that can possibly be diminished by raising the base level of the standards so that expectations for pupil performance become more universal, particularly with respect to conventional forms of academic capabilities. Regardless of how high universal performance standards are established, there still remains a point beyond which differentiation can occur. United States Department of Education Secretary, Roderick R. Paige, during his conformation hearing, defended the widespread use of standardized tests to measure the progress of students, teachers, principals and other school officials, 149 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. calling exams indispensable tools of school reform. America 2000 teams up tests, innovation, and choice. Autonomy Autonomy is defined as the right of self-government or self-direction. It is the condition of subordinating changes to the maintenance of the organization. Autonomy appears to be a feature that is a reflection of the regulatory environment. It has the self-asserting capacity of a living system to maintain its identity through the active compensation of deformations (Maturana & Varela, 1979). Maintaining accountability, while adopting autonomy, requires a balancing act because the two are interrelated. Policymakers as well as citizens must be convinced that, if control is handed down, their concerns will be addressed. Scott and Meyer (1980) suggest that public schooling maintains a large degree of organizational complexity, because it gives up autonomous authority to serve the widest variety of groups. Skrtic (1991) and Hargreves (1994) believe that, despite the current trend toward school-based decision making, many schools remain bureaucratic organizations where teachers have little control over major decisions in their environments and frequently work in isolation. A study by Chubb and Moe (1990) found that the marketplace model used by private schools is superior to the organizational framework of public schools. Market models encourage autonomy and, in turn, autonomy enhances the school climate. Principals become leaders, not managers. Teachers take an active role in 150 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. decision making, and parent/student involvement increases. School autonomy and parent/student choice rather than direct democratic controls are identified as needed for educational improvement. Chubb and Moe write that school autonomy, especially from external bureaucratic influence, is the key to reforming and improving public education. They create a vision of a new public education system founded on a commitment to autonomy and family choice instead of traditional democratic control and bureaucratic management. They conclude that teacher and administrator autonomy was the most important influence on student achievement and that the organization of private schools offers greater autonomy resulting in higher student achievement; the bureaucracy of public schools stifles autonomy limiting student achievement. Sandra Rubin Glass, in Markets and Myths: Autonomy in Public and Private Schools (1997), undertook research to determine i£ in fact, Chubb and Moe’s assertions were correct. Her findings revealed that both public and private school participants testified to equally high degrees of autonomy. Her data analysis uncovered issues, including: conflicting and contradictory demands, shared beliefs, layers of protection, a system of laws, funding constraints, and matters of size of the institution that affect autonomy. These issues challenge oversimplified assertions that differences of any significant importance exist between the autonomy experienced by professionals in public and private schools. The complexity of the concept of autonomy challenges the myth that teachers and principals of private 151 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. schools enjoy autonomy and freedom from democratic bureaucracy that their public school counterparts do not. Charter schools are generally characterized by their autonomy. They are not bound by the normal rules and regulations that apply to other public schools. In exchange for autonomy and opportunity for educational innovation, personnel associated with charters often face heavy workloads. Most current choice proposals for an educational market system are not advocating a totally free unregulated market. School is often presented in a hybrid market, paired with elements of decentralization and autonomy. Policy proposals usually preserve the government’s primary role in education—providing either services, funding, or regulation. Economy According to Jean Jacques Rousseau, in The Political Philosophy o f Rousseau by Roger D. Masters (1968), the word “economy” is derived from “oikos” and meant originally—only the wise and legitimate government of the house for the common good of the whole family. The meaning of the term was then extended to the government of that great family—the State. To distinguish these two senses of the word, the latter is called general or political economy, and the former domestic or political economy. Political economy, of course, is the definition that is of the greatest concern in this context. The common use of the word “economy” refers to 152 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. the prudent management of what one has rather than a way to getting what one has not. In a market-based society, economics or the economy is at all times on the minds of policymakers at all levels of government. They must determine the prudence of establishing policy and funding levels for elementary and secondary education. Public education at this level has been determined by many economists, as well as others, to be a public good. Some believe that one of the faults of public education is that it can be classified as a “pure public good,” meaning that it is a good that is non-rivalrous and also cannot be excluded from certain users. Adam Smith knew that, because of the efficacy of markets, the invisible hand works regardless of whether people know about it. You cannot understand politics and other social sciences—in other words, how the world works—without understanding economics. Micro econometrics has contributed substantially to the scientific evaluation of public policy. Implicitly or explicitly, any society has to answer three fundamental questions: what goods and services are to be produced, how are they to be produced, and who will get the final output? Answering these questions forces society to make choices and face tradeoffs—again, either implicitly or explicitly. Governments must decide how to redistribute income to alleviate poverty, as well as determine the level and mix of public goods, such as national defense, education, public safety, and other programs. 153 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. G. L. S. Shackle, In Expectation, Enterprise and Profit (1978), wrote: In order for an action to be chosen it must be able to jump two hurdles. (1) Its focus gain must be sufficiently attractive to outweigh its focus loss. (2) This pair of focus outcomes must be sufficiently attractive to outweigh the pair of focus outcomes associated with any other action. We may then say that the cost of choosing any action is the value attached to the pair of focus outcomes of the second best action. . . the purpose and the proper criterion of a choice of conduct is to afford the chooser, at the moment of choosing, a good state of mind. The orthodox view is different.. . . Choice is necessarily amongst thoughts, amongst things imagined. The expression “opportunity-cost” names the idea that, when faced with a number of mutual exclusives amongst which one is free to choose, the individual in electing one of them is sacrificing the next-best of the “choosables” and that it is this sacrifice which for him is the cost of the choice he actually makes. The question then becomes: what meaning is to be given to opportunity-cost when choice among enterprises, in the more general or in some more special sense, is examined in terms of focus-outcomes. The notion of opportunity-cost expresses an extremely general aspect of choice. The sacrifice of a second-best is part of the essence of any act of choice. The structure of how education has historically been funded profoundly affects the funding choices made at the federal level. Traditionally, there have been meager consequences, if the federal government did not consider education as a prime selection to receive increased funding. When the economy was experiencing difficult times, education did not receive priority treatment. The federal government 154 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. could adopt a policy of devolution and rely on lesser governments to prioritize and fund public education. James Buchanan, in The Limits o f Liberty (1985, in Guthrie, Garms, & Pierce, 1988) states that the science of markets or the exchange institutions commences with a well-defined structure or set of individual rights. Rights, however, is a normative concept. It states what ought to be the case, how people ought to act, not just what they do or how they behave. The right to attain a sufficient education, for example, identifies the fact that every person ought to be able to seek a proper education. 155 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. CHAPTER IV PR O PO SA L Purpose of the Study The purpose of this research is to provide an accurate assessment of how the issue of education reform has effectuated a change in the education and secondary school arena. The multifaceted ramifications that have been evoked by this issue were examined. Theoretical explanations of diverse stakeholders’ perspectives were discussed to determine if this issue has spearheaded a paradigm shift in the way the federal government views its role. Findings are presented identifying crucial occurrences that have taken place throughout history leading up to methods currently being employed in the schooling o f our children. R esearch Q uestion H ave em erging variables in education reform effectuated a paradigm shift in the w ay the federal government establishes policies and authorizes funding for elem entary and secondary education? 156 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Importance of the Research Education has long been viewed as a local responsibility, a state function, and a national concern. Major educational reforms always involve a political process, with implications for the redistribution of power. This makes the outcome of educational-reform efforts hard to understand, study, and predict. With the enormous amount of attention surrounding the schooling of our children, the perceptions and significance of the federal role must be identified and clearly understood. The following presents a summation of reasons why this particular study was necessary and significant: a To show how the national government attempts to implement policy through funding decisions; To link theories to current actions and ideologies; • To understand the politics surrounding this issue; To help stakeholders understand the school choice issue and the ramifications surrounding it by presenting empirical data illustrating how policymakers’ decisions are linked to and have residual effects on politics, federalism, and litigation; • To offer data showing how education is a public good that affects the entire population; and 157 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. • To more folly comprehend where we have been, where we are now, and possibly predict future policy and funding decisions regarding education reform efforts. R esearch Design This dissertation builds on the work ofRolland G. Paulston (1976). Findings from his work may be summarized as follows: (1) Systematic attempts to explain and predict educational-reform phenomena are fairly numerous but lack analytical rigor and test ability; (2) a number of theoretical orientations may be identified and hold fairly predicable assumptions about educational-reform phenomena; (3) these orientations are not random or eclectic but rather follow from personal bias concerning theoretical and ideological orientations to social reality and social-change processes; (4) the literature is seriously deficient in work that acknowledges personal bias in attempts to conceptualize reform causes and effects, and the central influence of ideology and power in attempts to alter values and structures in educational systems; and (5) as major educational reforms always involve a political process with implications for the redistribution of power, the lack of reform analysis from conflict perspectives has seriously limited our ability to either understand or predict the outcome of educational-reform efforts allegedly seeking greater equity and efficiency. The review of the research presented in the literature became the starting point for the basis of this study. The theories that were chosen portray how the research developed and progressed. Findings revealed that there are many facets involved in education reform. Policies, funds, politics, traditions, values, and many additional factors are intertwined to an extent that it is impractical to consider one without considering the others and virtually impossible to consider all of them in a 158 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. single research effort. In fact, this is an area where extremely specialized studies have proven to be quite advantageous. After much deliberation, the researcher decided to focus attention on ten meaningful variables that affect education policy and funding: accountability, autonomy, economy, effectiveness, efficiency, empowerment, equity, national image, political ideology, and symbolism. Interviewees were asked to rank order these factors in accordance with the way they believe the federal government merits their importance and then to rank order them in accordance with the way they believe the federal government should consider their importance. This was done as a way of determining which variables interviewees believe that the government considers most significant when making policy and funding decisions and also to determine if traditional variables continue to be viewed with the same level of importance or if variables identified as emerging are deemed more significant in determining policy and funding levels by interviewees. In addition, questions regarding various funding mechanisms and situations were asked. (Note: The Elite Interviewing Instrument is presented as Appendix II.) Research Methods Descriptive research was conducted. According to Isaac and Michael, in Handbook in Research and Evaluation (1995), this method should be used to systematically describe the facts and characteristics of a given population or area of interest—factually and accurately. A sequence of events leading up to the current 159 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. arguments in this debate is presented. The focus was directed toward patterns or directions and the interrelated factors affecting each variable. Jarol B. Manheim and Richard C. Rich, in Empirical Political Analysis: Research Methods in Political Science (1991), offer a topology classifying six types of policy analysis: (1) correlated analysis, (2) behavioral analysis, (3) institutional analysis, (4) process analysis, (5) decision analysis, and (6) impact analysis. They state that some studies may fall outside the six types or may combine elements of more than one type. This study combines more than one type. The following list includes the chosen types: Correlated Analysis. This approach was taken to explain why different political units (states, local and national governments) have different policies by exploring the relationship among those policies and the political, social, and economic characteristics of each political unit. Behavioral Analysis. This type of analysis was conducted in an effort to determine what role human factors play in deciding education reform. People’s attitudes, perceptions, values, motivations, and the interactions of patterns were examined. Decision Analysis. This method was performed as a way of identifying the problem and defining alternative responses and assesses the likely outcomes associated with decisions directing policy and authorizing funding. 160 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. • Impact Analysis. This analysis was put forth as a method of flushing out what effect school choice has actually had in guiding policy and funding decisions. A description of traditional variables or goals that served as a frame of reference and had customarily been used to determine educational funding was defined. Emerging variables or goals were introduced and defined. Determinations were made to ascertain if the emerging variables are currently being utilized more frequently than traditional variables in influencing federal policymakers’ decisions that affect elementary and secondary school children. Qualitative and quantitative evaluations were used. Isaac and Michael (1995) state that common themes within a body of information are sought and interpreted as are discrepancies and inconsistencies. Goal-oriented evaluation is presented to describe policymakers’ goals and affiliations. Variables are linked to various existing theories. Conclusions were drawn to determine if the pendulum has or is in the process of shifting in the way the federal government views its role in establishing policy and determining funding levels. Insight is offered to help predict the outcome of current education reform mechanisms as well as future education reform efforts. 161 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. The researcher relied heavily on all sources of information—arcMval data, documents, and interviews—and worked assiduously to utilize each in a manner that would allow them to serve as a rich database to acquire useful insights into the phenomenon the investigation focused upon. Figure 6 depicts a flowchart of the data analyses procedures. 162 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Behavioral Analysis Qualitative Impact Analysis Interviews Transcribe, Code, Archive and Sort Data Analyze Data Discuss Future Research Draw Conclusions FIG U R E 6 FLOWCHART OF DATA ANALYSES PROCEDURES R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Elite or Expert Interviews Great attention was devoted to developing the researcher’s skill as an interviewer. Drawing from Brown and Sime’s 1981 discussion of the “account interview,” in which interviewing is employed to provide the opportunity for Information to describe and explain a specific event in context, the author conceptualized and visualized the interview as an opportunity where elites could discuss the effects that the federal government perpetuates in the elementary and secondary educational arena (Glazerman, 1998). Understanding interviews as conversational encounters for a purpose, a research instrument was created that encouraged Intensive, ongoing reflection on many aspects of this particular subject. A rigorous approach to interviewing was adopted and, through study and careful consideration, came to be seen as a method which was particularly well-suited to the study’s purpose. Various types of questions were included on the instrument: open ended, ranking, and scaled. In some instances, telephone interviews were used to reach a diverse population. Responses were solicited from elites or experts capable of seeing this issue from different perspectives. Interviewees consisted of policymakers, school superintendents, policy advisors, financial advisors, parents, and educators. Considerable time was spent transforming the research goals and questions into an interviewing plan, aiming to create a procedural guide for charting and preparing for 164 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. the various aspects of the interviewing process. The interviewing process was divided into eight components: Conceptualization. A broad framework was developed for understanding the relationship between the interview and the overall research question. Since interviews were to form part of the basis of my study, decisions had to be made to assure that they were productive and thought-provoking. Integrity was paramount. The instrument was pre-tested before usage. Sampling. Sampling is an important issue in all kinds of empirical research, but it is especially critical in descriptive studies (Crowl, 1993). A great deal of time was spent contemplating sample-related matters. Questions such as who, what, where, when, and how much had to be considered. Contacting Elites or Experts, Gaining Access, and Scheduling. This became significant. The Internet proved to be a wonderful way to attain telephone numbers and addresses to contact various organizations. Networking also proved invaluable. Interview Preparation. The interviewing instrument was either mailed, faxed, or E-mailed to interviewees before the actual interviews took place. Elites were told in advance the reason the researcher wanted to interview them. They were thanked in advance and afterwards for their willingness to share their expert knowledge with the researcher. 165 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Conducting the Interview. Each interview was structured following an organized plan. Each was driven by the author’s research questions and the prepared instrument. A checklist was used to guarantee that ail questions were asked to every participant. Structuring the interview in a manner that would be remembered as hostile, confrontational, or as an interrogation was avoided. In all cases, the author sought to keep my opinions to herself. Confidentiality. Measures to ensure confidentiality were observed for data collected during interviews. All persons interviewed were assured that they would not be directly quoted without their permission. Creating Notes. For in-person interviews, a tape recorder was readily available; however, before using the tape recorder, the interviewee was asked for permission. Notes were taken as well. Immediately after leaving an interview or ending a telephone conversation, names and numbers were placed on each instrument to assure that integrity was maintained. The notes were read over to assure that the essence of everything that was said was captured while it was fresh. Analysis. Data analysis involved three key stages: data reduction, specifying substantial findings, and data presentation. SPSS, a statistical computer package, was used to help display the data. Microsoft Word-Excel was also used to display special types of data. The aim was to impose a structure that amalgamated all findings in a descriptive interpretive manner. An intensive process of comparing, contrasting, aggregating, and ordering was engaged. The author sought to isolate 166 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. patterns that were reflected in the data. Suggested relationships, dynamics, connections and inferences were made. Lists of key findings were created. The focus was geared toward interpreting themes that emerged from the data with some regularity. Reporting. The aim was to assure that the data was complete, accurate, up- to-date, objective, and evenhandedly exhibited. Units of Analyses and Sources of Information Data sources were the same for both units of analyses. Yin (1994) stated that using multiple sources of evidence will enhance the accuracy of conclusions. The problems of construct validity can also be minimized, since multiple sources of evidence will provide multiple measures of the same phenomenon. Table 5 describes sources of information. (Note: Appendix III lists the names and titles of respondents and consultants.) TA BL E 5 SO U R C E S O F INFORMATION Archival | Units of Analysis Documentation Records Interviews § I Policy X X x 1 | Funding X X x I 167 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Document Review Documents and records from a wide range of sources were identified, acquired, reviewed, and analyzed. Documents from the Library of Congress, the Internet, Office of Management and Budget, General Services Administration, Department of Education, television documentaries and debates, as well as other sources, including extensive collections of newspaper articles and magazines focusing on various aspects of education reform were used. Limitations This study assesses if a paradigm shift has occurred, or is in the process of occurring, by analyzing various facets of elementary and secondary policy and funding. It does not include curricula development or research on how children learn. The analyses of interview data can lead to subjective bias; therefore, efforts were made to limit this bias by using multiple sources of reference and taking detailed notes when conducting interviews. 168 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. CHAPTER ¥ POLICY Introduction This chapter examines past, present, and possibly future policy directions and funding levels related to education reform. Federal, state, and local government roles are evaluated. Influences stimulated by the courts that have directly or indirectly affected policy and funds are presented. Salient financial aspects have been examined. This detailed examination was conducted, because financial considerations clearly reflect an area that the paradigm may be shifting in the way that policies are being adopted and funding levels are being determined. Thomas Jefferson believed that one of the basic needs of a democratic society was popular education: “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be” (Pearson, 1993). James Madison argued that “a publicly supported system of education would counter the monopoly of superior information otherwise enjoyed by the rich. It would simultaneously supply the best security against crafty and dangerous encroachments on the public safety.” He described a balance of “liberty and 169 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. learning, each leaning on the other for their mutual and surest support” (Pearson, 1993). The preservation of freedom in a constitutional republic requires an educated electorate. Ignorance and liberty cannot coexist for long. Thus, ever since the American states won their independence, leading citizens have identified preparation for responsible citizenship as a key purpose of schooling. As historian Page Smith writes in The Shaping o f America: A People’ s History o f the Young Republic (1980) (EMC Internet Database Search). Those founding fathers who discussed education (and most of them did) were agreed on one basic tenet: a republican form of government could not survive without an educated citizenry. The primary purpose of an education was to enable a citizen to properly discharge Ms responsibilities as a member of a free society. Government support of public schools is deemed necessary based on the “education democracy” proposition (Cohn, 1979). TMs proposition asserts that a stable democracy, must have a literate citizenry, and education provides the leadership necessary for the perpetuation of the democracy. According to Cohn, the most commonly cited reasons for government involvement in education include: (1) the state protection of minors; (2) the externality effect or benefit to society; (3) the role of education in making democracy work; (4) quality of opportunity; (5) the quest for common values; and (6) the effect of education on economic growth (ERIC Internet Database Search). 170 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. According to most economists, education provides benefits to both the individual and to the society. This widely accepted economic theory supports the fact that education should be provided by the government in its role in ensuring those fundamental elements that benefit society and promote social justice. Another view holds that government-run education is an instrument of social control or, as expressed by the statement: “the training of citizens for the state so that the state may be perpetuated” (Seawell, in Fitzgerald, 1988, p. 140, quoted in Djankov, 1999). The report of the National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983) states that government has the authority and responsibility to oversee the Nation’s intellectual capital. For elementary and secondary school children, choice of how schooling was conducted has never been an important element in the American brand of compulsory schooling. In fact, the typical pattern was of compulsion and assignment—self-designated educational experts made all the decisions for the child and parent. When the child would begin school, what teacher would be assigned, whether the child would be promoted or retained, what kind of program he or she would be enrolled in, and when education would terminate—all such matters were considered and within the purview of the educational administrator. J. E. Coons and S. D. Sugarman (1978 ), in Education by Choice: The Case fo r Family Control, suggest: If there ever was a national understanding about adult society’s responsibility for the young, there is no longer. There remains, nevertheless, a general conviction that a just society makes ample 171 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. provision for the formal portion of children’s education and assures a measure of fairness and rationality in its distribution. Federal Role The federal role in public education is relatively minor; nonetheless, it is quite influential. The federal government has always had a hand in public education and has not been reluctant to act vigorously whenever national interests are involved. Its ability to influence America’s system of schooling is not limited to its legal authority. Other means of influence include: financial inducement, demonstration projects, dissemination of information and research findings, evaluation efforts, and moral persuasion. Federal involvement also extends to the enforcement of general programs deemed to serve the public good, such as the mandatory vaccination program. Until the passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education. Act (ESEA) of 1965, the Federal government’s involvement in educational policy-forxnation was generally minimal. This legislation signaled that federal policy could affect school financing, curriculum, classification of students and teachers, and placement of both students and teachers in classrooms. Federal involvement in large city school policy is relatively new as well; however, there is a genuine optimism that federal funding will be increased, especially in urban areas. Private schools must abide by the provisions of several federal laws, such as the Civil Rights Act, the Handicapped and Disabilities Act, aid others. The federal 172 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. involvement in private schools also extends to general programs deemed to serve the public good, such as Title I funding and the children’s vaccination program. Education is a state function; the majority of the regulations that are derived at the federal level are related to statutes evoked, when the federal government offers federal funds to the states. In these cases, the states are constrained by the regulations attached to those funds. This is the most readily accessible mechanism by which the federal government is able to influence education policy other than by the use of the “bully pulpit.” President Jimmy Carter signed the Act that established a cabinet-level seat for the Education Department on October 17, 1979. The Department contained 152 education programs from formerly the Department of Health, Education and Welfare and five from other federal agencies. Carter stated at the signing ceremony: The new Department will profoundly transform . . . the quality of education in our Nation. There will be a bold escalation in the future of what the federal government can do in a constructive way to enhance education. The time has passed when the Federal government can afford to give second-level, part-time attention to its responsibilities in American education. On May 4, 1980, the new Department became a reality. Table 6 lists the programs and funding that was transferred from the Department of Health, Education and Welfare and became a part of the Education Department. This Information was taken from the Catalog o f Federal Domestic Assistance (1979, 1980). 173 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. TABLE 6 RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT AND SUPPORT—ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ---------------------------------------------------------------------1 Program Name 1979 Obligations In Millions of Dollars 1980 Obligations In Millions of Dollars 1981 Obligations In Millions of Dollars Academic Facilities Reconstruction and Renovation for Removal of Architectural Barriers 0 0 10 Bilingual Education 150,000 166,693 192,000 Teacher Centers 12,625 13,000 14,300 Follow-Through 58,155 59,000 59,000 Strengthening State Education 0 0 51,000 Upward Bound 58,825 57,500 57,500 Indochina Refugee Children Assistance Educational Agency Management 0 12,000 0 Guidance Counseling and Testing in Elementary/Secondary Education 0 18,000 18,000 Career Education State Allotment Program 18,700 18,700 18,700 Basic Skills Improvements 0 35,000 40,000 | 1 Emergency School Aid Act—Planning Grants 0 2,000 2,000 I <i Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. TABLE 6 (continued) 1979 Obligations In Millions of Dollars 1980 Obligations In Millions of Dollars 1981 ~ 1 Obligations In Millions of Dollars Emergency School Aid Act—Pre-Implementation Assistance Grants 1,079 2,000 2,000 Emergency School Aid Act— Out-of-Cycle Grants 52,393 24,123 15,000 Emergency School Aid Act—Special Discretionary Assistance Grants 0 5,000 5,000 Emergency School Aid—State Agency Grants 1,398 4,000 4,000 | Emergency School Aid—Grants for the Arts 1,958 2,400 2,400 Source: U .S. O ffice o f Management and Budget (1979,1980). Catalog of federal domestic assistance. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. o The federal, role shifted once again during the initial presidential campaign of Ronald Reagan. His cultural ideological agenda consisted, in part, of attempts to establish educational vouchers and tuition tax credits as well as to reestablish school prayer. These initiatives proved politically untenable, however; and the President soon was in search of an educational policy. The primary posture of the Reagan Administration’s education policy was that education was not a federal obligation, but should be a responsibility of states and local school districts. The federal role, in their view, was to be restricted to collecting and distributing information, dispensing funds authorized by previous Congresses, and advocating change. During Ms Administration, funding was cut; many discretionary grant programs were bound together in the form of block grants disbursed by states. Secretary of Education Bell’s National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983) provided the impetus that helped determine the Reagan Administration’s political, economic, and educational ideological concerns. This Report, in its fusion of political, economic, and education issues, set the political stage for the federal government to take a new leadersttp role in the creation of national educational policy. With mediocrity identified as the threat, the Administration cited “excellence” as the road to deliverance. No longer could the Nation suffer indulgence over rigor, technique over achievement, or predilections over mandates. The Commission’s concern was for “the intellectual, moral and 176 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. spiritual strengths of our people . . . all children by virtue of their own efforts, competently guided, can hope to attain the mature and informed judgment needed to secure gainful employment and to manage their own lives.” The Report demonstrated that the Education Department could be a valuable educational bully pulpit capable of promoting the new educational agenda. Talk of dismantling the Education Department diminished. The ideological call was not now theological—specific to school prayer—but historically related to an idealized self-reliant conception of the American individual. A publicly appealing and seemingly reasonable pragmatic agenda was set—to renew education (as well as the political/economic stature of the Nation) by calling upon the individualistic American spirit, which would respond with steely self-discipline and determination to challenges posed. President Reagan stated: If I were asked to single out the proudest achievement of my Administration’s first three and one-half years in office, what we’ve done to define the issues and promote the great national debate in education would rank up near the top of the list. Those now crying for education reform are not only local activists lobbying elected officials. It has become a critical issue with national, state, and local structures in place that are spreading the vision and coordinating efforts and the investment of resources. James Coleman’s study of the relative academic virtues of education reform as it relates to private over public schools, High School Achievement: Public, Catholic and Private Schools Compared (1982), and Mary 177 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Metz’s encouraging portrait of the alternative school movement, Different by Design (1986), provided impetus for renewed review and debate regarding the relative advantages of competitive market and diverse educational models (ERIC Internet Database). These considerations, coupled with the “imperatives” for reform and excellence, created a dynamic national context for the question of choice. The concept of choice evolved during the 1980s less as a result of our national commitment to a democratic model of the individual—protected by and from public authority—and more as a by-product of the attempt to redesign the Nation’s educational organization and structure making it more responsive to national political economic priorities. The 106th Congress considered a number of proposals to increase federal support of school choice for pupils and their families. Less than 7 percent of all money spent on elementary and secondary schools, come from the federal government—much of it through the Title I Program, which, in 2001, provided $8.6 billion to children from poor families. ESEA, Title I, is a vehicle currently being used to provide funding and guidelines for various school choice demonstration programs. For Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001, appropriations legislation was enacted mandating the Education Department to require school districts funded under ESEA, Title I, to provide pupils attending poorly performing public schools with the option 178 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. to enroll in different public schools within the same district. The Fiscal Year 2001 legislation also included a program to demonstrate ways of leveraging financing for charter school facilities. Not long ago, Republicans wanted to shut down the Education Department, arguing that schools were a local responsibility and Washington should not be throwing money at failing classrooms. President Bush (2001) has currently turned that argument around. Since becoming President, he has proposed a series of reforms that target poor kids that would actually expand the government’s role in education. States’ Role Public education is considered a state function. The Tenth Amendment granted plenary power over education to the states. In fact, since it is not one of the functions specifically delegated by the Constitution to the federal government, it is the responsibility of states or the people. State government is the focal point for educational policy making. Their constitutions, statutes, and considerable practical experience render state legislatures ultimately accountable for public education. States exert the greatest amount of power over public education, and most anything that is not handled by the state has been delegated by the state to some other authority, usually the local school board. According to Guthrie, Garms, and Pierce (1988), at the state level, several groups have important roles in the governance of public schools. State legislatures, 179 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. for the most part, within constitutional limitations, can alter, abolish, and create public schools. Governors, state boards of education, chief state school officers, and state departments of education all participate in educational governance at the state level. The importance of each, however, varies among states. The finance structure of public schools is highly regulated. States control the amount of funds to be allocated to education and, through state finance formulas, control the distribution of funds to districts. The state can also regulate the appropriation of funds at the district level; however, in many cases, local school boards are granted board powers to determine the use of funds (Rentier, 1994; Van Geel, 1987). States establish most of the legal and operational framework for education. They provide more school revenues than either the federal or local governments; in fact, the state’s share is roughly equal to the federal and local combined shares (Lieberman, 1989). On average, state aid to public schools consumes about 28 percent of the state own-source revenues. Given the magnitude of state investment in public schools and the fact that most states have numerous school districts, which cover the entire state and compete vigorously for their share of state aid, it is not surprising that schools are so political. The state interest (it might also be called the public interest) is in ensuring that students are sufficiently well-educated to serve as responsible and productive citizens. 180 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. States’ responsibilities Include: • Allocating state support to the state’s numerous school districts; • Reimbursing school districts for particular expenditures they incur; • Controlling the spending levels and tax rates of school districts; • Regulating how districts spend the revenues they obtain, and • Providing Incentives for school districts to behave in particular ways. State-level participation has increased because of the politicization of school decisions and intensified efforts to achieve greater equality of educational opportunity and more efficient use of school resources. This increased state participation has removed much of the decision-making discretion from local educational authorities. State funding has also increased more than 50 percent since 1920. Not only has the state share of school revenues increased, but state officials are also more likely to perceive that improved schools are essential for economic growth. Most school reform efforts (school choice included) are believed to Improve the competitiveness of American industries in world markets and, ultimately, to foster economic growth. States have the authority to regulate private schools operating within the state. The extent to which states become involved in private schools varies according to the specific legislation of the state; however, as established by the Supreme Court ruling in Pierce v. Society of Sisters, the states’ regulation of private schools must be 181 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. reasonable. Essentially, the imposed regulation of the private schools must have a “rational relationship to a legitimate state objective.” Obviously, this ruling is interpreted differently among the states and accounts for the variation in the degree of private school regulation. The First Amendment restricts the assistance that a state may provide to schools with a religious affiliation and also prohibits state-sponsored religious activity in public schools. Private schools (the majority of which are religiously affiliated) have greater freedom in designing their curriculum; however, states have the power to regulate their curriculum to varying degrees. Thirty-one states regulate the curriculum of non-public schools; 10 states specifically define required courses; 21 states demand various measures of equivalency to public school instruction. Elson (1969) writes that there are five predominant policies behind much of the regulation of non-public schools: 1. Enforcing of school attendance requirements; 2. preventing the teaching of socially dangerous ideas; 3. Promoting cultural unity; 4. Providing criteria for choosing quality non-public schools; and 5. Protecting the public from dangerous business, health, and building practices (American Federation of Teachers Web Site). The issue of education reform, including various forms of choice, such as free markets and charter schools, has brought about tremendous debate at the state level. 182 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Education reform is problematic precisely, because it calls into question the primary definitions and respective rights and authorities of the individual and the state. States largely confine their consideration of various educational alternatives to their utility in promulgating particular values, beliefs, and codes of action. In short, the educational choices that states make are bound by legislation; choices are not necessarily Inclusive of factors that include the right of individuals wanting to select contrasting educational objectives, priorities, or models. As Israel Sdieffler (1976) reminds us: “To choose the democratic ideal for society is wholly to reject the conception of education as an instrument of rule; it is to surrender the idea of shaping or molding the mind of the pupil.” Barry Bull (1984), in his analyses of liberty and control, explains: There are in general two ways in which a state may ultimately treat matters affecting its inhabitants—it may decide them or not. In not deciding a matter, the state does not necessarily preclude a decision being made in that matter. Rather, it simply precludes the use of the state’s decision making apparatus from being used. (ERIC Internet Database Search) Given the state’s compelling justifications with the political/social aspects of education, government may decide the matter, or it may take the responsibility for educational judgment. For example, in 1997, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani of New York asked that the Catholic schools take the overflow of students from the city’s crowded public schools, and Cardinal John O’Connor agreed, reminding the Mayor of his earlier offer to educate the worst of the City’s students in a better and cheaper way. 183 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Local Role Since the Constitution asserts that education is a state function, local prerogatives must be surrendered or delegated by the states. During the colonial and early federal periods, the primitiveness of transportation and communication constrained the state governments’ role in the provision of schooling. States rely on local school districts to deliver educational services, and state statutes facilitated the wide discretion of local authorities. The amount of actual and potential state control of local education is vast. For historical reasons and because of the belief that individual freedom can be best protected if government is in the hands of small self-governing communities, states generally delegate major responsibility for operating and financing public schools to local school districts. These districts are units of special government, created and empowered by state law to administer public schools. They have the power to tax, the right to enter into contracts, and the right to sue and be sued. School boards have both implied and expressed power to adopt rales and regulations regarding the operation and management of schools. They provide another layer of regulation and control; and, although they deal mainly with local issues, school board members are considered state, not local officers (Reutter, 1994, in ERIC/CUE Internet Database). State governments have customarily granted wide discretion in policy- formation to the boards of education appointed or elected in more than 20,000 184 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. separate local school districts. This set of arrangements promotes the perception and reality of local control. While never having strong standing as a legal concept local control, nevertheless, played a major ideological and practical role in early American school governance. Even today, the majority of day-to-day decisions regarding school operations are made by locally selected policymakers and professional educators. Independent school districts are legally controlled by elected governing boards. These governing boards generally employ a superintendent to implement school board decisions. Despite the formal independence of most school districts, they have many informal ties with local governments. These ties are growing increasingly closer, since municipalities are aware of the importance of good schooling to their own survival Local public school boards generally have the power to employ teachers and set their salaries and conditions of employment; however, in many cases, these decisions may be constrained by collective bargaining contracts. Local school boards may negotiate through collective bargaining anything that is in their power to decide (Reutter, 1994). Although the scope of regulations imposed by collective bargaining contracts is determined by individual states, regulations regarding the school calendar, teachers’ salaries, transfer policies, class size, number of hours worked, and teacher evaluations are included. 185 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Local public school boards must respond to two types of public—the formal and organized versus the informal and unorganized. Various interest groups are considered formal and organized. They usually assail the board from an ideological perspective. The unorganized (parents, teachers, etc.) find themselves increasingly tempted to join various organizations to increase their voice. Tucker and Zeigler (1980) write that many institutional, attitudinal, and behavioral norms surrounding local school districts reflect the popular notion that governments should do what people want them to do—be responsive to their constituents. Other institutions, attitudes, and behaviors in public school districts reflect a strongly professional orientation—lay preferences are insufficient and largely inappropriate bases for educational policymaking (Glass, 1997). Private schools are subject to a variety of local regulations in regards to local building, fire, health, sanitation and zoning codes (Scott & Meyer, 1988). The closest things that private schools have to a local public school board, however, are the board of trustees or directors. These boards are responsible for establishing policies and regulations for the schools. In private schools, this may be the highest level of authority, other than the state, that imposes regulations upon the school. Some private schools, such as Catholic schools, are a part of larger institutional arrangements, and these schools will exhibit a more centrally-regulated structure (Glass, 1997). 186 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. In American public education, elementary schools in particular reflect neighborhood identity by promoting meetings of parents and teachers and encouraging use of school facilities for social events. While the ideology of the neighborhood school generously overestimates the actual extent of community participation, let alone influence, in school affairs, education does have more citizen involvement than do other governmental services. By the 1980s, districts began to use alternative schools as well as other reform efforts, not just to further racial and class integration but also to improve schooling in general (Raywid, 1985). For many years, middle-class White parents have been leaving the public schools; this hemorrhage has accelerated and been joined by Black parents in recent years. Influence of the Constitution and the Courts Public schools are constrained by certain provisions of the U.S. Constitution. The influence of the judiciary cannot be underestimated in analyzing our national political system for public education. Various Supreme Court decisions as well as federal and state court decisions have been effective in shaping or perhaps, more precisely, mandating policy over various aspects of schooling in America. Issues, such as the wall of separation between church and state, equality, child benefits, school choice and various other dimensions of education reform, have been enormously affected by our judicial system. The Nation’s system of federalism permits the states, using their own criteria, to define rights more broadly than the 187 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. national government does; but they cannot apply their own rules—either by constitutional provision, legislation, judicial decree, or administrative action—to abridge protections contained within the United States Constitution (Viteritti, 1999). In 1922, Catholics brought suit against the State of Oregon for enacting a law that required all children to attend public school. This law, in effect, banned private and parochial schools. In that suit, Catholics asserted their parental rights over education maintained the legitimacy of their schools, and questioned the validity of the Oregon law. The Supreme Court vindicated the Catholics in the Pierce v. Society of Sisters ruling. This ruling stated that “the child is not the mere creature of the state” and, thus, preserved the right of parents to school choice (Morken & Formicola, 1999). In a second major confrontation, Catholics found themselves at the center of another legal controversy in 1930. Louisiana permitted the lending and/or supplying of textbooks for secular subjects to students in parochial schools. Catholics defended themselves against the charge that such an action authorized the use of public funds for a private purpose. The Court sided with the Catholics. Education policy was broadened in Cochran v. Board of Education. The court ruled that state support for textbooks constituted a child benefit and justified the use of tax monies, because the children and the state, rather than a particular school, were the beneficiaries of the aid. 188 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. In numerous cases, the Supreme Court has constructed the “establishment clause” to impose constraints on the provision of public aid to sectarian elementary and secondary schools. Under the establishment clause, direct public assistance to religious entities must be secular in nature and limited to secular use. In 1948, Congress became very concerned about the types of cases that were emerging, thus, enacting the Barden Bill. This bill officially denied the expenditure of federal monies to non-public schools. In the case of Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), the Supreme Court ruled that, to be constitutional, a state’s school aid law must meet three requirements: “(1) the purpose of the aid must be clearly secular, not religious; (2) its primary effect must neither advance nor inhibit religion; and (3) it must avoid an ‘excessive entanglement’ of government with religion” (McClenaghan, 1990, at U.S. Department of Education Web Site). The application of these criteria has served generally to discourage state aid to church-related elementary and secondary schools. The 1983 Supreme Court decision in Mueller v. Allen approved a Minnesota statute providing a state income tax deduction for school fees, both public and non-public. Advocates of federal aid to religious schools took this to be a signal that the court was increasingly disposed toward their cause. However, a 1985 decision in a New York case, Aguilar v. Felton, suggests that the signal is mixed. Provision to church-related schools of federally 189 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. funded compensatory education authorized by Chapter One of the Education Consolidation and Improvement Act was severely restricted by this decision. A basic tenet of the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the establishment clause is that the clause “absolutely prohibits government-financed or government- sponsored indoctrination into the beliefs of a particular religious faith.” Thus, the court has held that public assistance, which flows directly to religious institutions in the form of grants or contracts, must be limited to aid that is secular, neutral, and nonideological. That is, under the establishment clause, government can provide direct support to secular programs and services sponsored or provided by religious entities, but it cannot directly subsidize such organizations. In 1997, a New Jersey taxpayer challenged the right of the state to pay for the busing of students to a parochial school with public monies. The decision of the Supreme Court was ambiguous: The justices ruled that the cost of transportation was part of every student’s child benefits so that New Jersey could pay for busing to private religious schools; but it also said, nevertheless, that a high wall of separation must exist between church and state. In 1997, the Supreme Court heard, for the second time, the case of Aguilar v. Felton. It reversed its decision, allowing remedial education to be carried out in parochial schools. Prior to the Court’s recent decisions, this requirement had made it very difficult for religious entities deemed to be “pervasively sectarian,” such as religious elementary and secondary schools, to receive aid directly from the 190 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. government, because religion was presumed to pervade all of their activities. But the court now appears to have abandoned that presumption. As a consequence, such entities do not appear to be constitutionally eligible for such assistance, subject to the secular nature and secular use requirements. Public aid programs that benefit sectarian entities only indirectly, such as voucher programs, need not be so limited. If the government designs an indirect aid program so that the initial beneficiaries (the taxpayers or voucher recipients) inevitably use the benefits to subsidize religious entities, the court’s decisions indicate that the program will likely be found unconstitutional. But, if the benefits are made available on a religion- neutral basis and if the initial beneficiaries have a genuine choice between secular and religious providers about where to use the assistance, the court’s decision indicates that the program likely will be found to be constitutional even though religious institutions gain some benefit. In Committee for Public Education v. Nyquist, Supra, and Sloan, the court found tax benefits and tuition grant programs that were available only to children attending private elementary and secondary schools have the primary effect of advancing religion and, thus, to violate the establishment clause. The court found that most of the private schools attended were religiously affiliated (85-90 percent), that those schools were pervasively sectarian in nature, and that the aid was not limited to secular use either by its nature or by statutory restriction. As a 191 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. consequence, it concluded that the effect of the aid is unmistakably to provide desired financial support for non-public sectarian institutions. In three other cases involving programs indirectly assisting private sectarian schools, on the other hand, the court reached a contrary conclusion. In Mueller v. Allen, Minnesota provided a tax deduction to the parents of all elementary and secondary school children, both public and private, for a variety of educational expenses, including private school tuition. Witters v. Washington Department of Services for the Blind involved a vocational rehabilitation grant by Washington to a blind applicant who wanted to use the grant for study at a Bible college to prepare for a religious vocation. Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School District involved a Tucson school district’s subsidy of a sign-language interpreter under the federal “Individuals with Disabilities Education Act” for a deaf student attending a sectarian secondary school. The court held all three forms of assistance to be constitutional {Congressional Quarterly Researcher, 2001). In 1954, the United States Supreme Court issued a school desegregation decision, Brown v. Board of Education in Topeka, Kansas, that overturned the “separate but equal” doctrine, which had dominated United States race relations since the 1896 decision in Plessey v. Ferguson. In Plessey, the court had let stand an 1890 Louisiana statute segregating the races on railway cars as long as, presumably, the facilities were equal. 192 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. No single pubic decision has had more impact in terms of educational opportunity than that landmark Brown ruling. The court stated that: We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of “separate but equal” has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions are brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. (Brown v. Board of Education 347 U.S.C. 483, 74 Sup. Ct. 686) Since that time, the Supreme Court has heard other cases, issued remedial integration orders, and played a growing role in implementing school change. For example, in Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U.S.C. (1971), the court held that racial balance could be achieved in public schools by a variety of techniques, including quotas, transportation, the design of new attendance zones, and the paring of schools (Morken & Formicola, 1999). According to I. Harvey Wilkinson (1976), the Brown decision, in conjunction with implementation decrees and numerous lower-court decisions, was resisted, sometimes violently. The eventual result, however, was a dismantling of the dejure racially segregated school systems that had long characterized public schooling in the South. More subtle discriminatory mechanisms that contributed to de facto segregation have not lent themselves easily to legal remedy. This is due in part to the complexity of the Nation’s multi-tiered and many-faceted system of government. The aftermath of the Brown ruling has not been nearly as successful as advocates had hoped or as devastating socially as opponents had feared. 193 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. The equal, protection clause has also been used as the basis for a constitutional challenge to school finance arrangements in many of the 50 states. The outcome, though not wholly unsatisfactory, has been even less successful than the school desegregation suits. Reform efforts in racial desegregation and school finance simultaneously display the power and limits of the federal government’s ability to influence public education. It is possible that we are now on the verge of another court decision with as significant an impact, on education as the Brown decision—school choice. Several states have instituted voucher programs either for specific localities or on a statewide basis. One of the recurring dimensions of voucher issue concerns are whether the inclusion of sectarian elementary and secondary schools considered in the same universe of schools that students might attend with vouchers violates the part of the First Amendment to the Constitution providing that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. ...” Public aid that is received only indirectly by sectarian institutions, i.e., assistance that is received initially by a party other than the religious entity itself in such forms as tax benefits or vouchers, has, on the other hand, been given greater leeway by the court. Such programs still must be religiously neutral in their design. However, where the design of the programs has not dictated where the assistance is channeled but has given a genuine choice between secular and religious providers to the immediate beneficiary (the taxpayer or voucher recipient), the court has held the 194 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. programs to be constitutional even though pervasively sectarian institutions have benefitted. In 1998, the Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of a state court decision in Wisconsin that upheld the constitutionality of the Milwaukee school choice law providing public funds for children to attend parochial schools. The Supreme Court has recognized a significant analytic distinction between financial aid that Is given to religious Institutions, which is generally suspect, and aid that are appropriated to individuals who attend these institutions, which is generally permissible (Viteritti, 1999). Illustrating the difficulty of navigating the constitutional shoals of these standards, several state and federal courts have recently reached conflicting conclusions about the constitutionality of a particular voucher or voucher-related programs. State supreme courts in Wisconsin, Arizona, and Ohio have held particular programs not to violate the establishment clause. In contrast, the United States Courts of Appeals for the First Circuit and the Sixth Circuit and the Maine Supreme Court have held particular tuition subsidy programs to violate the establishment clause. In addition, a state court in Vermont has held such a program to violate its state constitution; one in Florida has held to the contrary; and one in Pennsylvania has found a local program to violate state law. The United States Supreme Court has so far refused to review any of these cases. 195 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. There have been numerous recent challenges to state and local programs involving public/private school choice. Recently, an opinion issued on December 11, 2000, by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld a federal district court ruling that found the voucher program in Cleveland, Ohio, to be unconstitutional under the United States Constitution. On October 4, 1999, the Supreme Court declined to consider an appeal of an Arizona Supreme Court decision which upheld a state tax credit for contributions to organizations that provided scholarships for students to attend private schools. The Vermont Supreme Court, on December 13, 1999, affirmed, on state constitutional grounds, a trial court ruling that struck down the Chittenden school district's board policy of public support for high school students’ attendance at sectarian schools. The Chittenden district does not have a public high school. Other federal and state court rulings include: A state court of appeals, on October 3, 2000, ruled that the Florida Opportunity Scholarship program does not violate provisions of the state constitution, reversing an earlier ruling by a state circuit court judge. On October 12, 1999, the Supreme Court declined to consider appeals on a June 1, 1999, ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, and an April 23, 1999, ruling by the Maine Supreme Judicial Court in a separate case, that the state of Maine may not be required to include religiously-affiliated schools in a program which pays the costs of attendance at either nonreligious private 196 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. schools or public schools in other localities for high school students residing in districts without public high schools. Opponents of choice claim that the redemption of tax-funded tuition vouchers by church-sponsored schools would constitute state support of religion and, thus, would violate the Constitution. Proponents argue that those who attend college on the GI Bill are welcome to choose church-affiliated or church-sponsored universities like Notre Dame, Pacific Lutheran, Texas Christian, Brigham Young, etc. They can even study for the ministry, if they want. The same is true of students using Pell grants, guaranteed student loans, and other state and Federal aid. In so doing, they do not violate the Constitution. In several localities, there are also privately-funded programs providing vouchers or scholarships for pupils to attend private schools. Arizona provides tax credits for contributions to organizations that provide scholarships to students to meet the costs of private school attendance. The United States Supreme Court appears to be moving in an accommodationist direction on funding. The state courts have become a more intense battle ground for the legal straggle on school vouchers. In general, federal courts profess extreme reluctance to hold state statutes governing educational matters unconstitutional unless they directly conflict with significant First Amendment interests (Elson, 1969). The conflict between national and state standards on the issue of separation raises some interesting questions concerning American federalism and has the makings of a genuine constitutional crisis. 197 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. The Education for the Disadvantaged Program under ESEA, Title I, addresses school choice in . several ways: authorizing a waiver to allow schools with 25 percent low-income enrollments to participate in Title I, if they are involved in desegregation programs under which students change schools (the threshold is generally 35 percent); and permitting local education agencies to use Title I funding to establish choice programs involving public schools implementing Title I programs. These provisions were added to Title I in 1994. Other major laws influencing elementary and secondary education include the Smith-Hughes Act of 1917 that provided support for vocational education. Appendix I contains a complete listing of school choice legislative action taken by the 104th through 106th Congresses. This Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, assembled by James B. Stedman, Specialist in Social Legislation, and Wayne C. Riddle, Specialist in Education Finance, Domestic Social Policy Division, January 17, 2001, is presented in its entirety to exemplify how many different mechanisms are being utilized to try and legislate various types of reform in elementary and secondary education. Financial Influence Education in the United States is big business. Any undertaking directly serving 20 percent of the population, operating throughout every state and most localities, and employing four million persons could reasonably be expected to involve a great deal of money, and it does. In 1890, public school enrollments were 198 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. less than 13 million. By 1990, the number was approximately 41 million. It is largely paid for and almost entirely administered by governmental bodies or nonprofit institutions (Friedman, 1955). Guthrie, Garms, and Pierce (1988) state that the American system of public education is the largest single enterprise of state and local government. Even nationally, it is rivaled only by defense and welfare expenditures. There are more school employees than uniformed military personnel and more K-12 teachers than physicians and attorneys combined. The number of pre-primary through twelfth- grade teachers, both in public and private schools, was estimated at 2.5 million in 1988. The overwhelming proportion (87 percent) of these teachers are in public schools. The remainder, some 337,000 individuals, are employed in a wide variety of religiously-affiliated and nondenominational private institutions. Catholic schools employ the largest number, approximately 150,000. Schools also employ a substantial number of other professionals—an estimated 500,000—such as administrators, counselors, psychologists, librarians, and nurses. Approximately one million additional employees serve as custodians, clerks, bus drivers, cafeteria workers, and so on. For the past century, public elementary and secondary education in the United States has enjoyed remarkably steady revenue growth, notes Addonizio (1999). From 1890 to 1990, real expenditure per pupil increased at 3.5 percent per year, more than triple the growth of the Gross National Product (GNP) over this period, 199 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. resulting in K-12 public expenditures increasing from less than 1 percent of GNP in 1890 to 3.4 percent in 1990. This increase resulted from a combination of falling pupil-staff ratios, increasing real wages paid to teachers, expansion of educational services for disabled students, and rising expenditures outside the classroom. From 1990 to 1993, real spending grew 0.6 percent. In part, this was due to increasing enrollments, the rapid growth of special education enrollments, and the passage of stringent tax and spending limits enacted by some 43 states (Fowler, 1999). This century-long trend of steady revenue growth, however, came to an abrupt halt in 1990 (Hanushek & Rivkin, 1997), although school enrollments and expectations for academic achievement continued to rise. There have been more school-age children, and they have stayed in school longer. Many younger and older people who were traditionally excluded from school are now receiving public educations. These include preschool children, disabled children, pregnant girls, and many adults (Congressional Research Service, 2001). In school year 1996-1997, 45,592,213 students attended 88,223 public elementary and secondary schools in 14,883 school districts. Another 5,873,000 students were enrolled in an estimated 27,600 private elementary and secondary schools. In 1997-1998, total expenditures of public elementary and secondary educational institutions were $324.3 billion, or 4 percent of the Nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Total expenditures of elementary and secondary educational institutions (public and private) were $351.3 billion in 1997-1998, or 4.3 200 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. percent of GDP. (These statistics come from the U.S. Department of Education, Digest o f Education Statistics, 1998.) Because student enrollment in public elementary and secondary schools remained virtually the same between 1970 and 1997, growth in current expenditures increased spending per pupil: from $3,430 inl970-1971 to $6,131 in 1997-1998 (constant 1997-1998 dollars). Enrollment changes occurred unevenly, with declines in the 1970s and early 1980s (from 46 million students in 1971 to 40 million students in 1985), and then increases began in 1986 (growing to more than 46 million students in 1997). Increases in per-pupil spending also occurred unevenly, growing 27 percent in the 1970s and 37 percent in the 1980s, but leveling off to 3.6 percent between 1991 and 1998. (Numbers were taken from Digest o f Education Statistics, 1998.) Supporting the costs of education is a system of general taxes, consisting primarily of local property taxation supplemented by state grants-in-aid, mainly from sales and income taxation. The percentage of each tax used for school support varies from one school district to the next and from state-to-state. The federal government contributes a small percentage to public education—approximately 6 tolO percent. Table 7 presents the total revenue expenditures for federal, state, and local government for public elementary and secondary schools by source of funds for 1972-1992. Table 8 presents a summary of education expenditures per student. 2 0 1 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. TABLE 7 REVENUES FOR PUBLIC ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS (By Source of Funds—Percentage of Total—and Selected Years, 1919-1996) State Date Federal Local 1919-20 0.3 16.5 83.2 1929-30 0.4 16.9 82.7 1939-40 30.3 68.0 57.3 1949-50 2.9 39.8 1959-60 39.1 4.4 56.5 1969-70 8.0 39.9 52.1 1979-80 9.8 46.8 43.4 1989-90 47.1 46.8 1995-96 6.6 47.5 45.9 Source: National Center for Education Statistics (1998). Digest o f Education Statistics. Available: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/quaiterly/fall/q3-2.asp. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. TABLE 8 SU M M A R Y O F ED U C A T IO N EX PEN D ITU R E S PER STU D E N T (1972-1992) Funding Per Student ($-1992) 1972 1977 1982 1987 1992 I Local 1,923 1,881 1,799 2,163 2,621 State 1,394 1,708 1,903 2,451 2,587 Federal 325 346 297 315 368 1 Total 3,642 3,935 3,999 4,929 5,576 I Source: National Center for Education Statistics (1998). Digest o f Education Statistics. Available: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/quaiterly/fall/q3-2.asp. Although the federal government has a relatively small direct role in financing elementary and secondary education, it has a relatively large indirect role in designing ways to help achieve goals of greater equity and, more recently, higher student performance. Traditionally, federal emphasis was on aid for disadvantaged students, but new funds have been provided through the Goals 2000 Program ($668 million in Fiscal Year 1998) for grants to assist states with their programs to raise educational achievement of students (U. S. Department of Education, 1999, Table 361). During the last half of the 1960s and the early 1970s, school financing became a major policy issue in most state legislatures. There were a variety of reasons for the upsurge of interest in educational finance. Most of them had to do with rising costs and falling enrollments. Conflicts emerged as to how much and 203 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. where to cut educational costs. Such conflict should not have been unexpected. Political theorists have observed that revolutions are most likely to occur when rising expectations, fostered during a prolonged period of growth, suddenly become unrealizable because of an economic downturn. When public education’s period of growth came to an end, competition for scarce educational dollars produced open conflict among many interests involved. Coalitions of educational administrators and teachers that had cooperated in securing additional fonds for education began to splinter. School board members, state legislators, and Congress members that had previously supported increases for education were confronted by a larger and increasingly vocal constituency demanding more efficiency and accountability in the use of educational funds. In the mid-1990s, the United States Congress requested a major study of the United States system of elementary and secondary education finance. In response to this request, the National Research Council (NRC) set up the Committee on Education Finance to undertake the study. The key question posed to the Committee was: “How can education finance systems be designed to ensure that all students achieve high levels of learning and that education funds are raised and used in the most efficient and effective manner possible?” The Committee translated this question into three goals for education finance systems. This translation provided objectives against which to evaluate the performance of existing arrangements and the likely effects of proposed changes: 204 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Goal 1. Education finance systems should facilitate a substantially higher level of achievement for all students, while using resources in a cost-efficient manner. Goal 2. Education finance systems should facilitate efforts to break the nexus between student background characteristics and student achievement. Goal 3. Education finance systems should generate revenue in a fair and efficient manner (National Research Council, 1999). There is no one best school finance system. There is no reason to believe that one system would work a particular way in all states. A good system is one that achieves the goals policymakers establish for it. The work in building a school finance system is specifying its goals and making sure they are being accomplished. Systems have been established over time and are difficult to change. Even under the best of conditions, the changing environment in which any system works will create new challenges for the system. According to Amy Ellen Schwartz, in School Districts and Spending in the Schools (1999), public finance theories of fiscal federalism and public expenditure determinations indicate that school districts play an important role in determining the level of spending by school districts. According to this view, school district budgets reflect the demand of voters within the jurisdiction: demand, in turn, depends on the income, wealth, demographics and preferences of the voters, on the cost of providing education and, of course, on the state and federal funding they receive. The 205 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. implication is that we should expect there to be variations in spending across districts, which reflect the variations in these fundamentals. The much-lamented inequity in education spending across school districts in the United States is, to a large degree, a reflection of local control. Rubenstein (1997) and Cooper )1993) state that resource allocations within districts derive from the interplay of myriad political, economic, and institutional factors. Education finance can be divided into three stages: generating, distributing, and spending money. According to Augenblick, Fulton, and Pipho (1991), in most states, there are few people among legislators, legislative staff, educator academics, and the general public who are familiar with the intricacies of school finance. School finance systems are complicated for a variety of reasons: (1) they are used to achieve multiple objectives; (2) they consider characteristics of numerous school districts; (3) they distribute large amounts of money; and (4) they have developed incrementally over long periods of time, often adding new features on top of old ones. Although school funding structures are similar in many ways across the states, no two states have school finance systems that are precisely the same, no matter how similar on the surface. The National Research Council (1999) identified three options in designing a finance system: 206 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 1. Promoting high achievement for ail students in a cost-effective way; 2. Reducing the nexus between family background and student achievement; and 3. Raising revenue in a fair and efficient manner. The 1980s and 1990s saw public attention shift from the paramount concern for educational equity that characterized the late 1960s and 1970s to a growing concern for how well schools are performing and how effectively the Nation’s huge education budget is being spent. Skepticism about the quality of schools was reinforced by a series of critical reports from blue-ribbon committees and commissions (Guthrie, Garms, & Pierce, 1988, p. 151). Questions about whether the public was getting value for money from its education spending were reinforced by a highly visible debate among scholars about whether money matters in determining the quality of education provided to the Nation’s schoolchildren. These developments pushed the question of the productivity of education to the forefront of the education policy agenda and highlighted the importance of learning how to spend education dollars wisely. According to Goldhaber (1999), the cost of educational inputs rises significantly by geographic area and across time. For example, costs are typically higher in large urban areas than in suburbs and towns, and educational costs tend to rise with inflation. If an urban and a suburban district spend the same amount per student, given the differences in the cost of educational inputs, it is likely that the 207 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. suburban district is able to procure more or higher quality educational resources and, as a result, provide a higher quality of education. Likewise, the purchasing power of a given educational expenditure tends to fall over time due to inflation. There are three basic mechanisms used to distribute state aid for education— the flat grant, the foundation program, and the reward-for-effort approach. These three basic approaches are being mentioned; because, If the federal government decides to offer vouchers to students (parents), the question arises: Which of these approaches would the state utilize in determining funding, or would it be necessary to develop a new approach? 1. The flat rate approach simply pays a specified amount for a particular service (and requires that the fends be spent for that purpose) or reimburses districts for excess costs to provide a service categorical program. 2. The foundation approach rests on the premise that the state must set a basic level of fends for a local tax effort and then pay the difference between the amount of revenue generated by the local district at that effort and the amount guaranteed as a foundation level. 3. The reward-for-effort approach Is, in many ways, characteristic of the foundation approach. In fact, the foundation program can be viewed as a kind of reward-for-effort approach with the effort held constant. 208 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. The difference between a foundation program and a reward-for-effort system lies in the flexibility given to school districts under the reward-for-effort approach. There are three kinds of reward-for-effort systems: guaranteed tax base, guarantee yield, and power-equalized. The guaranteed tax base specifies a level of tax base, which all districts may assume to have in setting school tax rates. The state makes up the difference between what the district actually produces and the amount guaranteed. The guaranteed yield is a system that specifies an amount of revenue that can be obtained per unit of tax. Fewer wealthy districts would receive some amount of state aid, while districts with property wealth would receive no state aid and would be able to generate more than the state-guaranteed yield. A reward-for- effort system establishes a guaranteed based on school district wealth, not spending levels. A major concern of both practitioners and scholars has been the growth in expenditures on educating students with disabilities—called special education— since the passage of the Education for all Handicapped Children Act (EHA) in 1975 (Public Law 94-142). The federal government partially reimburses districts for the costs of special education, but federal aid is estimated to cover only 7 percent of these expenses (U. S. Department of Education, 1997). The school budget determines the educational program for the future and establishes priorities and levels of instructional activity. H. Thomas James (1966) researched the budget process in 14 large cities. He documented that the 209 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. superintendent initiates the budget and maintains control of the detailed information needed by the board and the community to make informed decisions on alternatives. School costs have been affected by changes other than increasing enrollment. Schools today are expected to provide many more services and a wider range of courses. These additional services and courses require more teachers and aides. Because personnel costs account for 85 to 90 percent of a school’s budget, the more teachers, the higher the costs. According to James W. Guthrie (1979), the supply of public education is closely related to the costs of education. Direct education costs depend on many factors, including the number of students to be educated, types of education they receive, distribution of students in a geographic area, number of years of education provided, and quality of education services. According to Guthrie and Koppich (1988), reform of a state’s school finance system is particularly difficult, because so many resources, both physical and human, are involved and because educational finance reform by itself is seldom sufficiently attractive to pass. Consequently, careful attention must be given to developing and packaging a finance proposal. Usually, proponents combine finance reform with educational reform or property tax relief, both of which are clearly popular with legislators and local voters. The combination of finance reform and property tax relief involves an interesting set of takeoffs. Property tax relief means there is less money provided to schools locally. This means that the state must assume part of the costs of 210 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. maintaining current school programs, leaving less available for equalization. Successful packaging of reform also requires takeoffs within the legislature itself. In general, it is best not to aim too high. Incrementalism minimizes chances for major mistakes and provides policymakers with time to correct small errors. The corollary of this proposition is that the more modest the changes, the smaller the number of people involved; and, the less sensitive the issues included, the more likely the public is to accept a proposed change. School reform efforts, including voucher programs or any method of school choice, should consider existing school finance systems before it is implemented. The most frequently raised argument against school finance reform is the fear that it will result in a loss of local control; however, there is insufficient data to support that claim. Proponents of reform refer to a study by the Urban Institute (1973) showing no consistent correlation between percentage of state funding and degree of local school district autonomy. School finance reform is also affected by the demand for more accountability. Taxpayers and their legislative representatives often demand demonstrable results in return for additional educational funding. Accountability is an important political argument against increased support of public education. Instead of providing funds and leaving education program decisions to local officials, legislators support specific programs that have proved effective. In the 1980s, legislation began to reflect increased citizen influence over 211 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. education decisions. Demands for accountability may be used to oppose school finance reform. Efforts to reform school finance through the courts have had two distinguishing features. First, until recently, they focused mainly on attacking geographically-based disparities in school spending that result from dependence on local wealth-based property taxes. Second, school finance litigation has taken place primarily in state courts under state law. The reasons reformers focused on wealth- based disparities in education spending and pursued their ends in state courts lie in two major events of the late 1960s and early 1970s that had immense influences on how equity in education finance was defined and pursued in the ensuing decades. The first was the publication of Equality o f Educational Opportunity (Coleman, 1966). The second was the California Supreme Court’s decision ruling against the state and its method of funding education in Seixrano v. Priest (Serrano I), 487 P.2d 1241 (Cal. 1971) (Glazerman, 1998). Equality o f Educational Opportunity set off an academic and public debate that continues today by calling into question the relationship between resource equality and equality of educational outcomes with its finding that students’ families and other background characteristics were more important than school resources in determining student achievement. While its findings about the role of schools were then and remain controversial (and are increasingly being questioned by scholars evaluating new evidence with new analytical tools), uncertainty over the link 212 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. between resource and outcome inequalities encouraged challengers of school finance systems to focus on the basic fairness of spending disparities (and, thus, on school inputs) rather than attempting to link spending levels to specific educational outcomes. Serrano I v. Priest (1971) was the first successful state court case. It was filed in California by a class of Los Angeles County public school children and their parents. The plaintiffs alleged that the California school funding system was unconstitutional, because It created wide disparities in the qualify and availability of resources and education opportunities across the state. Plaintiffs’ evidence demonstrated that, in the 1969-1970 school year, elementary school districts’ expenditures ranged from $407 to $2,586, while high school districts’ expenditures ranged from $722 to $1,761 (Franklin, 1987). Such disparities, plaintiffs alleged, were the consequence of the finance system’s heavy reliance on local property taxes as a primary source of funding for public schools. The plaintiffs claimed that the finance system violated the equal protection clauses of both the United States Constitution and the California constitution (Congressional Research Service, 2001). The California Supreme Court embraced the Coons team’s Proposition I, holding that the state’s school “funding scheme invidiously discriminated against the poor because it made the quality of children’s education a function of the wealth of his parents and neighbors. The court recognized that the right to an education was a 213 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. fundamental interest that could not be conditioned on wealth, and could identify no compelling state purpose that necessitated the present method of financing. The court squarely rejected the defendants’ assertion that a compelling interest promoted local control over the financing and operation of schools. According to the court, local control was a “cruel illusion” for property-poor districts, where, because of the lack of taxable wealth, residents effectively had no control over how much to spend on their schools. Another major case involving school finance litigation was Mclnnis v. Ogilvie. The plaintiffs—children from a property-poor Illinois school district— requested, as a remedy for the inequity they alleged, that public school revenues be reallocated in proportion to student “needs.” The plaintiffs’ position was ultimately denied; among other reasons, the Supreme Court ruled that no standards could be developed that would make a decision judicially manageable. The court could not construct a sufficiently objective measure of a child’s or group of children’s educational “needs.” In effect, it affirmed equality as an abstract value but refused to accept equal treatment or equal outcomes as definitions of educational equality. In Serrano II (557 P.2d 929, 1976), the court held that the school finance legislation passed in response to Serrrano I was insufficient. The court noted that, even under the new plan, “local wealth is the principal determinant of revenue.” Serrano II went on to offer the state a host of alternative school funding schemes that would avoid the pitfall of the then-current system, including the Coons team’s 214 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. district power equalizing plan. The Serrrano II decision indicated what would suffice to meet the constitutional requirement by affirming the trial court’s order requiring that, by September 1980, the legislature would implement a school funding formula that reduced wealth-related disparities in per-pupil expenditures, exclusive of categorical aids and special needs programs, to less than $100 (Serrano II, 1976, p. 940, Note 21). In 1973, the United States Supreme Court heard the case of Rodriguez v. San Antonio. The plaintiffs were students and residents in a property-poor school district. They questioned the legality of the Texas school finance system and cited state officials for violating the United States Constitution’s equal protection clause; the plaintiffs lost. The court held that students of property-poor school districts were not sufficiently homogeneous to constitute a suspect classification. Such were not uniformly from low-income households, nor were they of any particular racial or ethnic group. The court was not persuaded that expenditure disparities resulted in damage to students. The evidence was insufficient to conclude that state-imposed minimum expenditure levels throughout Texas had failed to assure children an adequate level of schooling. In effect, the court accepted “equal access to minimally adequate resources” as a definition of equal education opportunity. In 1986, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Papasan v. Main, a Mississippi case, that curtailed the scope of Rodriguez. In this case, the court made clear that, although there was no equal protection mandate to redistribute local 215 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. property tax revenues to gain spending parity, such logic did not necessarily apply to state education funds. If certain facts are held to be present, then states may have to distribute their contributions in an equitable manner. The list of cases, interpretations, and legal combat regarding school finance continues issue by issue, states by state, and year after year. In fact, according to Guthrie, Garms, and Pierce (1988), reliance on litigation has retarded movement toward school finance reform, because it gives legislatures an excuse for inaction. The judicial process is slow, waiting for the courts to determine if a state’s system of dispensing funds legally takes time; and, during that period, the state can simply not look for innovative mechanisms to address finance distribution problems. To meet their students’ and communities’ expectations in the face of essentially flat real revenues from traditional tax sources, local school districts in recent years have turned increasingly to nontraditional sources of revenue. The non tax sources of revenue, which are not consistently reported by local school districts in standard financial statements, include user fees; partnerships with post-secondary schools, government agencies, and private businesses; donations; volunteer sendees; interest earnings on investment of school resources; and the creation of educational foundations to promote giving from individuals and businesses. New sources of revenue are also coming in from new forms of school choice (CRS Report fo r Congress, 2000). 216 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. CHAPTER VI FINDINGS AND C O N C L U SIO N S Findings TMs study identifies and focuses on variables used to determine policy and funding by the national government. Theoretical perspectives are multifaceted and are being spearheaded by individuals and groups that will not let this issue go away. There is a need for public decision makers to know who is likely to benefit from public schooling and who is likely to benefit from private school choice. The Nation’s existing educational finance systems reflect underlying and faard-to-alter features of American education. These features include the decentralized and complicated federal structure of government in which American education is embedded in the long and revered tradition of local control, as well as certain values that Americans hold dear. How to take account of those deeply rooted values as one tries to improve, the system is a complicated task, given that many of them conflict with the other. For example, most Americans believe in equality of opportunity, but they also believe in the right of parents to choose to spend their money for the benefit of their own children. Most Americans believe that every child has a right to a good 217 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. education in a publicly-funded common school, but they also believe in freedom of mobility in a way that allows affluent Americans to live together in locales able to easily support good schools, and that tends to concentrate poverty and disadvantage, often in urban areas. Most Americans believe that all children should be taught to high standards, but they also believe that schools should be local institutions governed by local preferences. None of these commitments is unworthy, and each has a claim for attention. But, given these conflicting values, no model of either the finance system or the education system as a whole could ever be consistent with all of them. Liberating schools from bureaucracy is a central tenet and goal of school reform. In an effort to accomplish this goal, various education reform initiatives have emanated in many states. Some of these initiatives include privatization of schools. These efforts have evoked intense controversy and raised concerns for the demise of our democratic system of schooling. Choice programs are currently operating in Cleveland and Milwaukee as well as other areas. Following are summations of the Cleveland and Milwaukee plans. Cleveland’s Choice Program The demand for school choice in Cleveland erupted in the Black community. The leader in this effort was Fannie Lewis, a member of the Cleveland City Council, representing the low-income community of Hough. Describing the despair that had overtaken her community, Lewis exclaimed: “The people in this neighborhood have 218 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. been without hope for years. . . . This will give them hope.” Lewis was joined in her efforts by Akron industrialist David Brennan, a powerful advocate for school reform and a close political ally of the governor. He invested his own money to open two new private schools in the central city. Lewis and Brennan found a willing ally and advocate in Republican Governor George Voinovich, a former Cleveland mayor who had originally proposed a choice bill to the legislature that would have set up programs in eight urban districts. The bill that he signed in 1995 was a compromise. Opponents of the Law, led by the Ohio Federation of Teachers, argued that choice would divert much needed funding from the public schools, which at the time were suffering from a $90 million budget shortfall. Union President Ron Merec, argued: “It allows (some of) them to escape the problem, but it does not solve the problem for 70,000 other kids.” There was also opposition from several Black legislators, such as C. J. Prentice, who feared that the voucher plan would take the best students from the Cleveland public schools. Parents, frustrated with the chronic failure of the public schools, no longer wanted to wait while the system tried to fix itself. By 1996, 1,800 students were participating in the program in the form of tuition scholarships. Enrollment expanded to 3,000 in the second year of the program. Under the Cleveland plan, scholarships were awarded by lottery. The drawing was set up to favor low-income families. From the outset of the program, students were permitted to use their scholarships to attend either a nonsectarian or 219 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. religious school located within city boundaries. All participating institutions had to meet state minimum standards for chartered non-public schools that had been put into effect in 1992. Students could also use their scholarships to attend pubic schools in adjacent suburban school districts that volunteered to participate in the program; however, none of these neighboring districts wanted any involvement. Approximately 55 private and parochial schools in the city expressed interest and welcomed the 2,000 scholarship winners into their classrooms. The Ohio Federation of Teachers and the American Civil Liberties Union initiated a lawsuit in state court claiming that the participation of religious schools violated both the Federal and state constitutions. In July 1996, a trial court upheld the program’s legality. A subsequent ruling handed down by a unanimous appellate court the following May found that the participation of sectarian schools violated both federal and state standards. As choice supporters began proceedings to appeal the decision to the state’s highest court, the state’s attorney general granted a stay that allowed the program to continue until a final decision was handed down. The evaluation of the Cleveland program was quite controversial. Professor Paul Peterson of Harvard and his team undertook two kinds of reviews. First, they conducted parental interviews—a total of 1,014 scholarship winners and 1,006 applicants who applied for but did not win scholarships. This accounted for 32.4 percent of all applicants. The two populations were demographicaliy similar. Although the average family income of scholarship recipients from public schools 220 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. was less than that of non-recipients from public schools, they did not differ measurably in race, their mother’s education or employment status, family size, family structure, or religious affiliation. Scholarship recipients were somewhat less likely to have been previously involved in either special education or gifted programs. The survey showed that, among the scholarship recipients from public schools, 79 percent of the parents were very satisfied with the educational experience that their children had in private schools; only 25 percent of the non-recipients whose children remained in public schools expressed that they were very satisfied with their children’s educational experience. On the issue of school safety, 60 percent of the recipients were satisfied, compared to 25 percent of non-recipients. When scholarship recipients were asked why they had applied to the program, the two leading reasons given were improving the academic quality of their child’s education (85 percent) and greater safety (79 percent). A significant number of participants (37 percent) also were attracted to the religious component of the curricula in parochial schools. Once again, poor people participating in a choice program gave substantive explanations for why they exercised the exit option, showing themselves to be intelligent shoppers when it came to accommodating their educational priorities. Peterson and colleagues also conducted an in-depth investigation of student achievement in two new private schools that had been created to accommodate students in the choice program—Hope Academy and Hope Ohio City, which was the 221 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. brainchild of philanthropist David Brennan. The new nonprofit, nonsectarian private institutions served 15 percent of all students participating in the program, as well as 25 percent of those coming from public schools in grades one through three. An independent financial audit found that, in 1997, $1.9 million had been misspent, including $1.4 million paid to taxi companies transporting students to voucher schools. Since 1997, program officials have uncovered more than $400,000 in taxi fares billed for students who were absent (Independent Auditor’s Report of the Cleveland Scholarship and Tutoring Program, Deloitte and Touche LLP, 1997.) According to the National Education Association, in 1998-1999, the Cleveland voucher program costs more than $9 million for 3,744 students. Each student received a voucher worth up to $2,500 a piece. During the 1996-1997 school year, the program’s first year of operation, students tested on the nationaliy-normed examination gained an average of 5 percentile points in reading and 15 percentile points in math. These improvements were recorded in all grades. Scores declined by 5 percentile points in language skills. The latter was a function of a 19-point drop among first graders, with second and third graders improving by three points and 13 points, respectively. Shortly after Peterson’s team completed its work, another study was performed by Professor Kim Metcalf from the School of Education at Indiana University, who had been retained by the Ohio Department of Education to evaluate the program. Comparing test scores of 94 third graders from choice schools with a 222 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. sample from public schools, the Indiana researcher and Ms graduate students found no improvements among the scholarship students. In 1998, the program ran 41 percent over budget, forcing the state to take $2.9 million from public school funds to cover the overruns (Oplinger & Willard, 1999). A study, released in September 1999 by Dr. Kim Metcalf of Indiana University, found that students showed a small but statistically significant improvement in achievement scores in language and science. The researchers found that the program effectively served the population of families and children for whom it was intended and developed, and that the majority of the children who participated in the program were not likely to have enrolled in a private school without a scholarship. The study also found that scholarship parents’ perceptions of and satisfaction with their children’s schools was substantially improved. Milwaukee’s Choice Program A comprehensive 15-month study completed in 1985 by an independent state commission appointed by Governor Tony Ear! found an unacceptable disparity in educational opportunity and achievement between poor and minority children and non-poor and White children. Desegregation efforts had achieved a better racial balance, but the learning gap continued to prevail. Polly Williams, a Black single mother, decided to get involved in local politics after she refused to have her child bused to a school outside of her neighborhood. In 1980, she ran for and won a seat in the Wisconsin State Assembly. 223 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. In 1988, Williams became involved in a plan that would have set up a separate school district in the vicinity of her district. Her chief ally in the campaign was Howard Fuller, a fellow North Division graduate who had once led the “Coalition to Save North Division.” Williams and Fuller had sought to have their schools secede from the Milwaukee public school system and to establish elections for their own school board for the predominantly Black district. They wanted to set up a site-based plan of governance. It was different from the integrationist agenda or the views of groups like the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). Although the plan was approved by the state assembly, it was defeated in the state senate. Next, Williams announced that she would campaign to have the legislature pass a bill to allow students to use publicly-supported vouchers to attend private schools. After a new political coalition had taken charge of the city school board, Howard Fuller was chosen as superintendent of schools. In 1991, on the occasion of his new appointment, Fuller released data showing that only 23 percent of Milwaukee’s Black public school children read at or above grade level; just 22 percent performed at grade level in math, and a mere 32 percent graduated from high school, leading him to conclude that he had inherited a failing system. A report completed by the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute a year earlier had indicated that only 25.7 percent of every dollar spent on education in Milwaukee actually found its way to the classroom. Fuller was a believer in vouchers; however, 224 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. he had an understanding with the school board that he would neither support nor oppose them during his superintendency. His promise was to focus on improving the public schools and creating options for parents within the system. Williams found support for her voucher plan in Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson, a Republican, and Milwaukee Mayor John Norquist, a Democrat, who had run for office with little support from the teachers’ unions. They were eventually joined by the Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce, whose members were finding it increasingly difficult to hire employees with basic skills, and Parents for School Choice, a group of low-income parents led by Zakiya Courtney. It was an interesting political coalition, since Williams was a devoted Democrat. She was beginning to personify the growing tensions within the Democratic coalition. She stated that she was not a Republican, a conservative, or a backer of President Bush (Sr.); however, she felt that Bush was right on parental choice and President Bill Clinton was wrong. Weighing in against it was the Wisconsin Education Association Conference (an NEA affiliate), the Wisconsin Federation of Teachers (an AFT affiliate), the Wisconsin Association of School District Administrators, the Wisconsin Congress of Parents and Teachers, and State Superintendent of Public Instruction Herbert Grover, who declared that choice could ruin public schools. Governor Thompson had circulated several bills; and, in 1990, a law was finally passed that did make scholarships available on the basis of a lottery to 225 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. students with a family income that did not exceed 175 percent of the federally determined poverty level. The size of the program was limited to 1 percent of the city’s public school enrollment. The amount of the scholarship was set at a level comparable to the per-pupil allocation of state aid ($2,500 in 1990, $3,000 by 1994), but the district was permitted to retain all of the locally generated funds for children who opted out. For the 1998-99 school year, about 6,000 students received vouchers worth about $5,000 a piece. State enrollment figures show that, although the program was aimed at allowing public school students to leave low-performing public schools, only about one-third of Milwaukee voucher students came from public schools, with the remaining students already enrolled in private schools or just starting kindergarten (Wisconsin State Enrollment Figures, 1997-98). According to the National Education Association, in 1998-1999, Milwaukee’s voucher program cost approximately $29 million for 6,000 students. Throughout the program’s first two years of operation, the new program existed in a legal limbo. It was only in its second year of operation, when the Carnegie Foundation issued its highly publicized indictment against school choice. The report featured a critique of the Milwaukee program, which, it found, “failed to demonstrate that vouchers can, in and of themselves, spark school improvement.” In 1993, the Landmark Legal Foundation brought a suit in federal court claiming that the exclusion of parochial schools from eligibility violated the Free 226 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Exercise clause of the First Amendment and the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. A federal district court, focusing on a provision in the program that made tuition payments directly to the schools rather than reimbursing parents for their expenses, rejected the plea to extend participation to religious schools. Shortly after the federal decision, Governor Thompson signed an amended version of the choice law. It provided that the number of scholarships be increased, that vouchers be issued in the names of parents, and that religious schools become eligible for participation. The resolution of the legal question only set the stage for the next level of political and regulatory conflict to surround the controversial choice program. Opponents, including the state superintendent of public instruction, pledged to keep a close regulatory eye on its implementation, while supporters speculated that the power of the education bureaucracy would be used to burden and undermine its operation. A month after the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari, a coalition consisting of People for the American Way, the local NAACP, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and the Milwaukee Teachers Union staged a rally where they announced an action plan designed to “stop the draining of funds from Milwaukee public schools” and to ensure that private and religious schools participating in the choice program is held to the same high standards of accountability and public reporting as the public schools (Viteritti, 1999). 227 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. In 1996, John Witte conducted a study of the Milwaukee program. It found “choosing” parents were more involved in their children’s education, both at school and at home, and were less satisfied with the school their child would otherwise have attended. At their children’s previous public schools, they were more likely than a control group of non-choosing parents to have contacted school personnel about volunteering and fund-raising and more likely to have participated in activities in a parent-teacher organization. Choosing parents were also more likely to read to their children at home and help them with their homework. However, the children of “choosing” parents had lower achievement test scores than those of the non-choosers and were also more likely to live in single parent families. In early 2000, John Witte released another study, The Market Approach to Education: An Analysis o f America’ s First Voucher Program. He found that choice was a useful tool to aid low-income families. Princeton University Professor Cecilia Rouse (1997) found that students in Milwaukee’s “P-5" public school program, which used extra resources to reduce class size, outperformed regular public school students and voucher students in reading, and did as well as voucher students and better than other public school students in math. A report, released in early 2000 by Wisconsin’s Legislative Audit Bureau, found that, despite fears of “creaming” and segregation, school choice is serving a student population identical to that of the Milwaukee public school system. The 228 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. report also found that most of the schools participating in the Milwaukee parental choice program provided high-quality academic programs and tests. Examples and Evaluations of Prominent Studies Confusion about school choice and what it can do for children’s education abounds. At the local level, school choice has a long lineage. It is viewed from a wide variety of perspectives across the United States. The unusual coalition between conservatives, liberal policy analysts, urban educators, Black and White parents and the Catholic Church has put school choice on the national policy agenda, but it also makes the movement very fragile. A Nation at Risk (a report by the National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983) changed the nature of the debate about the goals of public education, shifting it for several years from its preoccupation with equity to concern about achievement, especially achievement of United States students compared to those in other countries with developed economies. Some scholars (e.g., Smith & O’Day, 1991) argue that the first wave of school reform in response to A Nation at Risk and other criticisms of public schooling failed to produce meaningful gains in learning, because it followed a conventional, top-down, “more of the same” strategy to educational change—expanding and improving educational inputs (longer school days, increased graduation requirements, better teachers) and ensuring competency in basic skills (graduation tests, lockstep curricula, and promotional criteria). It did 229 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. little to change the content of instruction, to directly involve teachers in the reform process, or to alter the reigning notions of teaching and learning. A second wave of reform that began building in the late 1980s addressed those shortcomings by calling for fundamental rethinking and restructuring of the process of schooling. Second-wave thinking was distinguished by the argument that schools, as the basic unit of productivity in education, ought to be the unit of improvement. Upgrading classroom life is best done on a school-by-school basis. Teachers assist each other. Principals help create the setting and secure additional help. The action and rewards for in-service education and school improvement shift from where they have been traditionally—with the superintendent’s office and district wide activities—to the principal’s office and the school as the key unit. Research increasingly supports such a process (Goodlad, 1984, p. 129, in Guthrie, Garms, & Pierce, 1988.) The increased focus on outcomes, the continued appeals of equal opportunity, and the shift in legal strategies as described by Enrich (1995) have increased the use of the concept of adequacy in educational analyses. Later in the 1980s, a more balanced public concern emerged, with both equity and excellence as goals. University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Professor Alex Molnar (1998) reviewed Milwaukee’s voucher data, from class-reduction programs in Tennessee (the STAR program) in Wisconsin (the SAGE program), and national data from the Educational Testing Service and concluded: “In sum, no strong evidence exists that participation 230 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. in a voucher program increases student achievement.” On the other hand, he notes: “There is no longer any argument about whether or not reducing class size in the primary grades increases student achievement. The research is quite clear: it does.” There is relatively little opposition to federal support of choice options that include only public schools, as under the Public Charter Schools program. In February 2000, the United States Department of Education released a report, The State o f Charter Schools— 2000, the fourth-year report of a national study on charter schools. The report found that: During 1999, 421 new charter schools opened, bringing the total to 1,484 as of September. (If multiple branches of a school operating under the same charter are taken into account, the total number of charter school sites operating was 1,605.) • The number of students in charter schools increased during the 1998- 1999 school year by nearly 90,000, bringing the total to more than 250,000 students. Of the 36 states with charter laws, 11 allow private schools to convert to charter schools. • Most charter schools are small, with an average enrollment of 137 students. 231 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. • White students made up about 48 percent of charter school enrollment in 1998, compared to about 59 percent of public school enrollment in 1997-1998. Another report by Professor Scott Milliman of James Madison University, Fredrick Hess and Robert Maranto of the University of Virginia, and Charlottesville, Virginia, social psychologist April Gresham reveals that the establishment of charter schools has spurred noticeable differences in the public school system. Based on a March 1998 survey of Arizona public school teachers, the researchers concluded that the power of choice and market competition from charter schools led to the following changes between the 1994-1995 and 1997-1998 years: • Districts made greater attempts to inform parents about school programs and options. • Districts placed greater emphasis on promoting professional development for teachers. < * School principals increased consultation with teaching staffs. Charter schools do not replace district schools but, rather, push district schools to compete, primarily because state subsidies follow the students. In contrast, the most divisive issue is publicly-funded school choice and the inclusion of options to help pupils attend private schools, including religiously- affiliated. Research on parental choice, including choice that extends to private schools, is limited largely by the absence of experience on a large scale with voucher 232 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. programs or with broad-based choice programs that break the link between residential location and school choice. Much remains to be learned about the potential for choice to increase student achievement. The most urgent context for that additional learning appears to be in urban areas, with their large concentration of disadvantaged students (Congressional Research Service, 2001). Public support for school choice appears to be growing; however, it comes with strings attached. For instance, support for vouchers in the recent Gallup Poll was strongest, if the government paid only part of the private school tuition tab. Only 48 percent favored subsidizing all of the costs of private school tuition, while 52 percent favored partial compensation. Three-quarters of those polled believed any private school that accepts tax-funded vouchers should be held accountable to the state for how it spends the public’s money, just as public schools. Seventy percent say private schools that accept vouchers should be required to accept students from a broader range of ethnic and economic backgrounds and academic abilities than is now generally the case. Black parents have joined White parents in deserting the public schools. In fact, despite their longstanding loyalty to public schooling, Blacks are now even more sympathetic to the idea of both public and private choice than are Whites. In a 1989 Gallup Poll on Education, 67 percent of non-whites answered “yes,” as opposed to 59 percent of Whites. Black and White parents seeking to opt out of the public schools have found an eager ally in the Catholic church. After remaining silent on 233 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. the idea in the 1950s and 1960s, the Church has emerged as a very strong supporter of school choice. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the Church strongly lobbied for tuition tax credits. The Catholic church’s enthusiasm for school choice stems from the dire financial straits of the parochial school system. Many parochial schools have closed, and many more are threatened with extinction (Olson, 1991, in Guthrie, Garms, & Pierce, 1988). A study led by Harvard Professor Paul Peterson found that African American students enrolled in privately-funded experimental voucher programs in New York, Washington, DC, and Dayton, Ohio, improved an average of 6.3 points in percentile rank in test scores in math and reading relative to a control group that remained in public schools. Critics of this study as well as other studies on these experimental voucher programs noted that among those who helped pay for the studies and contributed funding to the voucher programs were several conservative research groups and voucher advocates, including Ted Forstmann and John Walton, the businessmen and philanthropists who founded the Children’s Scholarship Fund, the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, and the Milton and Rose D. Friedman Foundation. Support is growing among educators. An annual poll by Phi Delta Kappa—a professional association of educators—recently revealed that support for vouchers rose from 45 percent in 1994 to 51 percent in 2000. Similarly, among parents of public school students, the number rose from 51 percent in 1994 to 60 percent in 2000. 234 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. In 2000, a poll conducted by the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies found that 72 percent of African Americans in low-income households supported vouchers. Programs in Milwaukee, Cleveland, Dayton, New York, and Washington, DC, have been inundated with applications, even though most of these programs require a significant supplementary payment. Nonetheless, in spite of the widespread debate on the issue, a recent report by Public Agenda—a public opinion research organization—found, among other things, that 60 percent of parents in Milwaukee and Cleveland either know very little or nothing about school choice programs. In 2000, 1.25 million low-income children applied for the 40,000 vouchers offered by the private Children’s Scholarship Fund. Although reliable national figures are not available, the National Association of Educational Foundations estimates that, by the year 2000, there will be 4,000 public school foundations throughout the United States. These organizations can fund special projects, including various forms of school choice. Henderson and Berla (1994), in their review of 66 parent involvement studies and reports, found that children are more likely to be successful if their parents play four key roles—teacher, supporter, advocate, and decision-maker. Parents are the first teachers; the learning environment they provide at home is key. Parenting style and the extent to which parents interact with their children in ways that promote achievement are important elements of this environment (Steinberg, 1995). In their 235 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. role as supporters of their children and of the school, parents provide knowledge and expertise; as advocates, they teach negotiation skills and work to ensure that the system treats their child fairly. Parents are involved as decision makers by making choices about the school their child will attend and their potential programs of study. In some cases, parents are involved on committees and governing bodies. It is worth noting, however, that other countries have had more experience with parental choice programs that break the link between place of residence and schooling, including some public funding of private schools, than has the United States. The experience from Europe with those programs provides reasonably clear evidence of the potential for an undesirable side effect of some choice programs, namely that schools may become more socially stratified—Vandenberghe, 1996, for Belgium; Ambler, 1994, for France; and Karsten, 1994, for The Netherlands (ERIC Internet Database). Major Arguments of Proponents and Opponents Evaluating School Choice Proponents Proponents have what they believe to be credible evidence that impressively demonstrates good reasons for supporting school choice. Advocates believe there is currently a crisis in public education, which could effectively be countered through the reorganization of schooling in America into an educational marketplace (Friedman, 1962; Jencks, 1970; Coons & Sugarman, 1970; Friedman, 1980; Murray, 236 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 1984; Lieberman, 1986; Chubb, 1988; Chubb & Moe, 1990; Lieberman, 1989; Peterson, 1990; Finn, 1991; Peterson, 1995). School choice advocates (Chubb & Moe, 1990; Fliegel & MacGuire, 1993) argue that school choice allows parents and students to flee low-quality public schools and move to higher-quality private schools. Thus, school choice forces public schools to improve in order to remain competitive with private schools. Chubb and Moe claim that public schools perform poorly, because expansive centralized bureaucracies limit teachers’ discretion to propose and implement innovative solutions to educational problems. Their underlying premise is the belief that administrators are not street-level bureaucrats and, thus, do not appreciate or understand the day-to-day problems that schools face. Because education is based largely on student-teacher interactions, administrators add little to the core task of teaching. Their lack of day-to-day interaction with students also makes it difficult for administrators to measure student performance; administrators spend their time collecting and analyzing quantitative indicators that may be of dubious value in measuring performance. In 1989, President Bush convened a White House Workshop on school choice. The participants concluded that there was virtually no educational problem that could not be solved by choice. According to workshop participants, choice does at least eight things for education. These are: 237 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 1. Choice can bring basic structural change to our schools. 2. Schools of choice recognize individuality. 3. Choice fosters competition and accountability. 4. Choice can improve educational outcomes. 5. Schools of choice can keep potential dropouts in school and draw back those who have already left. 6. Schools of choice increase parents’ freedom. 7. Choice plans increase parent satisfaction and involvement in the schools. 8. Schools of choice can enhance educational opportunities, particularly for disadvantaged parents (Congressional Research Service,20Ql). If parents were not penalized by having to pay twice to send their children to private schools, however, and particularly if public financial support of both public and private schools were weighted in favor of low-income families, then wealth would be a less important determinant of private school enrollment. For example, children preferring education programs organized around the arts would be brought together regardless of income or social background. Those who support choice proposals that include private schools have argued that, in view of the apparent institutional rigidity and resistance to change in many public school systems, the most effective way in which the federal government can help to improve educational performance, especially for pupils in low-income families, is to increase pupils’ opportunities to select from a range of schools, 238 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. including private and religiously-affiliated schools. Proponents frequently state that helping at least some pupils from low-income families escape their current, often poor-performing, public schools provides an immediate benefit to those pupils and helps to provide pupils with a degree of educational choice and opportunity that those from more affluent families already have. Competition through choice, it is argued, would stimulate major improvements in the performance of many public school systems serving large numbers of poor children. They believe that recent trends in United States Supreme Court decisions indicate that these programs would be upheld, when a relevant case is selected for review by the court. Finally, while recognizing the possibility that new forms of government regulation may accompany public funding, proponents argue that this threat can be limited through statutory prohibitions, especially if the aid is provided indirectly (i.e., through pupils’ families). Opponents The most profound contention of those that oppose school choice is that public schools are necessary to maintain a common core of values and, thus, to promote social cohesion and political stability. Studies have demonstrated that private schools enroll a disproportionate number of students from more affluent groups (Lieberman, 1989). Critics believe choice is likely to increase stratification and exacerbate barriers to educational access, undermine democratic education and public control of schooling, and fail to improve student achievement (Elmore, 1990; 239 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Levin, 1991; Wells & Crain, 1992; Wells, 1993; Witte, Bailey, & Thom, 1993; Henig, 1994; Berliner, 1996; Elmore & Fuller, 1996, in Guthrie Garms, & Pierce, 1988). The conventional case against private schools is that they intensify class differences and emphasize sectarian rather than patriotic values. Also, private schools would avoid low achievers to bolster school reputation. Still another argument against vouchers is that not all students are equally expensive to educate. For example, it usually costs more to educate disabled students than those who are not disabled. Thus, even if vouchers are related to parental income, private schools will seek those students who are the least expensive to educate; the others will be ignored or relegated to inferior schools. Opponents of federal choice proposals that include private schools tend to focus on the limitations of the choice options being proposed and the potentially negative effects on public schools and their pupils, including diversions of attention and resources away from the goal of public school system reform. A system of private schools, even if supported with public funds and required to adhere to minimum standards, would not provide a sufficiently uniform educational experience. Instead, private schools would emphasize individualistic values and transform education into a divisive rather than a unifying force. Private schools may foster class differences, because they often are available only to those who can afford both public school taxes and private school tuition. 240 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Current choice proposals generally involve only a limited number of the potentially eligible pupil population, and they would be available only in one or a few localities, such as the Washington, DC, proposal or only for a selected number of pupils in low-income families nationwide. In addition, they typically are limited in the proportion of private school tuition and fee costs that may be covered and/or the maximum voucher or scholarship per pupil. While these amounts may pay a substantial share of the costs of attending some private—especially elementary— schools, they are typically sufficient to pay the full costs of attending only the least expensive types of private schools. A tremendous drawback to vouchers is that kids who are most troublesome, or whose parents are not overly concerned or are overwhelmed with other problems, would almost certainly end up bunched together in the worst schools. Such schools would become even worse than they were before. Critics of school choice (Henig, 1994; Smith, 1994; Smith & Meier, 1995; Witte, 1991, 1992) point to a large body of empirical evidence showing that few of the alleged benefits of school choice are realized, when such programs are implemented and their effects are examined. Smith and Meier (1994, 1995) argue that bureaucracy can be a positive tool in the management of public schools. They contend that bureaucracy arises from problems in school environments. This is especially true in the case of urban schools where many students live in poverty or come from low-income family backgrounds, requiring administrators to implement and oversee school lunch, remedial education, 241 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. and other poverty-related programs. Bureaucracy can be a positive force, when these problems exist because the absence of administrators would place additional burdens on teachers, forcing them to spend more time on administrative matters rather than teaching students. The effects of competition on public school systems are more likely to be negative than constructive, including a reduction in funds that are linked to enrollment levels, abandonment of public schools by pupils whose families are most alert to the choices available to them, and unequal constraints on public schools (e.g., the public schools must serve many types of hard-to-educate pupils who might be rejected by private schools). Opponents emphasize that no public-private school choice programs that include religiously-affiliated schools have been approved by the Supreme Court. Further, they frequently argue that substantial new forms of governmental regulation will inevitably accompany new forms of governmental financial assistance to them, even if the assistance is indirect. Table 9 presents a brief synopsis of pro- and anti choice sentiments. 242 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. TABLE 9 PRO- AND A N T I-C H O IC E A R G U M E N T S 1 Pro-Choice Arguments Anti-Choice Arguments Choice would require less bureaucracy 1 . Selectivity of students will increase I and more school-level autonomy. inequality between schools. 12. Staff motivation, leadership, and 2. Geographic distribution of students by 1 morale would improve with race and class will produce inequitable I educational choice. choices and increase school 8 segregation. 13. Parental involvement will be greater under choice. 3. Special needs of students with 8 learning disabilities and handicaps will 14. Schools will be more diverse, not be met as well under a choice I innovative, and flexible. system. |5. As a result of 1 through 4, student 4. Accountability will be considerably 8 achievement will increase under reduced, and minimum standards will 1 choice. not be maintained under choice. 16. Competition and market forces will 5. Information on schools will be costly, 9 reduce costs and increase efficiency inadequate, and more readily available 8 under choice. to families of higher socioeconomic 1 status. 6. The common school tradition will be ] lost as educational diversity increases. I Source: Witte, John F. (1992). Public subsidies for private schools: W hat do we know and how do we proceed? In Peter W. C ookson, Jr. (Ed.), The choice controversy. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications. Prom inent V oices R epresenting Popular V iew s A Representation o f U nions’ V iew s Approximately 80 percent o f all public school teachers are covered by union contracts. Two major unions, including their state and local affiliates, dominate the 243 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. scene. The largest—-the National Education Association (NEA)—enrolls about two million members. The American Federation of Teachers (AFT) enrolls about 700,000, mainly in large urban school districts. Because of their large membership, wide geographical presence, and ability to raise hinds and personnel for their preferred candidates, both the NEA and AFT are a formidable presence in political affairs. Their positions on school choice will undoubtedly play a significant role in the politics of the issue. Union opposition is expressed in terms of the fact that private schools are denominational, and aid to them would be a violation of the separation of church and state. Another expressed reason is that aid to private schools would mainly benefit more affluent parents (Lieberman, 1990). Bob Chase, NEA Director, 1999, disagrees with those who say the voucher movement is gaining momentum. “Some supporters have become disenchanted with the concept,” he says, “because student academic performance has not improved as much as anticipated in districts with voucher programs.” He also points out that voucher proposals were soundly defeated at the polls by voters in Oregon, California, Washington, and Colorado over the last 5 years. Director Chase calls the Congressional action on the current Act (signed into law by the President in January 2002) a tremendous disappointment, which fails to support efforts to help children achieve. The law misses the opportunity to truly leave no child behind. He challenges Congress to provide disadvantaged children 244 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. with the same quality public schools now enjoyed by affluent children. He states that the landmark education reform law has noble goals but is woefully short of funding. Sandra Feldman, President, AFT, 1999, states that the momentum of the voucher movement will dissipate, once the public understands the long-term impact. “It sounds terrific until you understand its Orwellian meaning: Give up on public education in American; stop investing in it, siphon off as much of its funding as you can to enable a few deserving poor to go to private, mostly religious, schools and to hell with all the kids left behind.” President Feldman (December 18, 2001) states that the passage of the “No Child Left Behind” Law provides funding that will be a great help to our neediest schools, particularly in light of the economic constraints that states are experiencing as a result of shrinking revenues. The significant Title I funding increase in our urban areas, which is targeted to disadvantaged children, will provide a much-needed injection of dollars into schools that have been shortchanged. But it is just one step. To achieve lasting change will require diligent monitoring and active follow-ups to make sure that the federal commitment does not waver and that additional education investments are made in subsequent years to support reform and improvement efforts. She believes that, with this legislation, we have a framework for a national commitment to education. 245 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. A Representation of Religious Organizations’ Views Since the case of Pierce v. Society of Sisters, which upheld the right of every parent to choose the education of his/her child, until the current round of judicial challenges, the Catholic church has been involved in the political process. It has turned to the courts for action in assuring that their educational interests—protecting their schools, broadening their base, assuring financial support in the future, and creating freedom of education in America—are not disregarded. Baptists and Methodists have become increasingly disenchanted with the public schools and are now endorsing charter schools, private Christian schools, or home schools. Protestants have become active in the debate and are concerned about religious liberty. Turning private schools into government-controlled schools is the worst possible outcome of school choice reform from an Evangelical perspective. Securing resources without surrendering education liberty is the challenge (Morken & Formicola, 1999). An organization closely associated with Evangelicals is known as Focus on the Family. Their strategy is to: • Secure free exercise of religion in public schools. • Exert influence in schools and on school boards. • Protect the autonomy of home schools and private schools. • Provide resources for an alternative to public schools. 246 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Make room for combinations of public, private, and home schools (Morken & Formicola, 1999). A Representation of Teachers’ Views First, teachers fear that they will unfairly be held accountable for transfers out of their schools. Research on choice plans reveal that many transfers are not related to educational quality. Second, choice may have an impact on compensation. Most teachers are paid according to their preparation and years of teaching experience. Tenure, seniority, protection from market forces, assured retirement at comfortable levels as well as other dimensions of job security and stability also appear to be jeopardized. A Representation of Individuals’ Voices Former Mayor Andrew Young and former Colorado NAACP President Willie Breazell have publicly voiced their support for school choice. Senator Edward M. Kennedy stated: “Many of us are concerned about a voucher program, which we see as a failed sort of a concept. I, for one, don’t think we should abandon our schools in order to strengthen them.” A Representation of the Bush AdiniuistratSon’s Views In Education Secretary Rod Paige’s confirmation hearings, he was cautious not to use the word “vouchers”; instead, he stated that the Administration was “committed to parental choice.” Paige stated: 247 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. The power of informed parental choice can change the status quo. Failing schools should be given a definite period to change. If they fail to do so, children of low-income parents should have the option of transferring to another public school or using their share of federal funds to pay for another option, including tutoring, a charter school, or a nonpublic school. While there are pockets of excellence, the Nation as a whole is in the grips of an education recession marked by low student achievement and chaotic schools. Those maladies most often affect low-income and minority students. Paige further states that the downturn can be reversed, if the Nation pursues a reform agenda touted by President Bush. Bush’s plan includes demanding accountability as measured by tests, giving local school systems more control over federal money, emphasizing phonic-based reading between young students, and improving school safety. Paige says that the passage of the “No Child Left Behind Act” authorizing up to $26.5 billion in spending for United States schools will bring deep and broad change to education. He states that this legislation, which raises federal aid for public schools by 20 percent, will be devoted to low-income students from kindergarten to high school in the poorest performing school districts. Presentation and Evaluation of Findings from the Elite Interviewing Instrument Summary of Part I Responses This part was designed to provide a method for respondents to openly identify issues that they believe are relevant to elementary and secondary education. These 248 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. issues set the stage for other parts of the instrument and assist in providing insight on how respondents view the federal government’s role in this arena. I. Identify crucial occurrences that have taken place in elementary and secondary education in the past 20 years. The following summarizes responses to this statement: • The issues of alternatives to public education, including home schooling, charter schools, tax credits, and voucher programs, have emerged. • The big rush for parity of funding and inequitable funding of infrastructures in urban areas is meaningful. • More emphasis is being placed on technology, science, math, and cultural diversity. • The implementation of the Individual’s with Disabilities Education Act has been crucial. • School safety and behavioral problems have been significant occurrences. • Judicial mandates and state takeovers represent crucial occurrences. • The A Nation at R isk Report changed things. ® Declining support for public education has been crucial. ® Emphasis on equity and accountability has increased. • Rolling back desegregation has occurred. • The creation of the Department of Education was a major event. 249 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2. Do you believe that the federal government has changed the way they view and/or fund elementary and secondary education programs? If yes, how? Ten respondents answered “no,” one “not sure,” and the majority (30) responded “yes.” The following represent a summary of the comments: 9 No real initiatives occurred. • We lag behind other nations. • Education is still viewed as a state’s right. e What we lack are adequate resources. • The passing of the Americans with Disabilities Act changed things. ® More autonomy has occurred. • Trying to attain accountability has been a change. • Increased support for anti-discrimination laws has occurred. 9 New directions, such as community participation, accountability, and assessment standards, are emerging. • The recognition of private, parochial schools, and charter schools has increased. • More sensitivity toward parents has occurred. 9 Funding for Title I, Head Start, and Even Start programs has been provided. ® A presidential focus has increased. 9 More open discussion of a federal role has occurred. 9 More political foci on results have occurred. 250 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 3. Are there form s of public/private school arrangements at the elementary and secondary education levels that yon would endorse? If yes, give examples. Respondents replied “yes” 30 times and “no” six times. A summary of the comments follow: • The current system of public education and the practice to institute reward systems that encourage high achievement and improved performance has emerged. • Minimal funding for human resource sharing for private schools and public schools is endorsable. • Vouchers and contracting are endorsable. • Business and community ventures are acceptable. • Tutoring and mentoring programs are appropriate. e Joint programs with public and private partnerships are acceptable. • After- and before-school partnerships are acceptable. • For profit arrangements are acceptable. * » Competition that promotes improvement should be funded. • Choice for parents is acceptable. • The current Title I Law should be fully funded. • Charter schools are acceptable. • Alternative programs are acceptable. • Current arrangements where private and religious schools can get Title I funding are acceptable. • Edison Project is worthy of endorsement. • The Milwaukee decision is a good one. 251 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. (Note: For a complete report on all of the comments given in Part I, see Appendix IV.) Summary of Part II Responses Findings from Part II yielded intriguing data. Interviewees were asked to rank order variables that the literature search revealed as significant, when deciding policy and funding amounts for infrastructure, programs, and research for elementary and secondary schools. Traditional variables were identified and interspersed alphabetically with emerging variables that are being expostulated. This presented an ideal means to open a dialogue in an effort to determine if a paradigm shift has occurred or is in the process of occurring in the way that the federal government sets policy and determines funding levels. The four areas under scrutiny are: (1) policy, (2) funding infrastructures, (3) funding programs, and (4) funding research. The chosen traditional variables are: (1) symbolism, (2) ideology, (3) efficiency, (4) effectiveness, and (5) national image. The chosen emerging variables are: (1) accountability, (2) autonomy, (3) economy, (4) empowerment, and (5) equity. The following findings are based on the number one and number two rankings for the most significant and the number nine and number ten rankings for the least significant. All rankings are presented in respective order. 252 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. What Respondents Relieve the Federal Government “Does Consider” Significant The most significant variables in deciding policy are accountability, national image, and political ideology. The least significant variables in setting policy are parental empowerment and autonomy. • In funding infrastructure, the most significant variables are political ideology, national image, and economy. The least significant variables are parental empowerment and autonomy. • The most significant variables in providing funding for programs are political ideology and national image. Ranking equally in importance are accountability and economy. The least important variables are parental empowerment and equity. • The most significant variables relating to funding research (all received equal rankings) are effectiveness, national image, and political ideology. The least meaningful variables are parental empowerment and autonomy. It is clear that respondents believe that national image and political ideology are on the minds of our decision makers, when deciding policy and providing funding. These two variables are considered traditional. Two emerging variables—economy and accountability—appear to be gaining in significance. Table 10 exhibits all of the responses for each of the four areas under scrutiny. 253 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. TABLE 10 PART II OF THE ELITE INTERVIEWING INSTRUMENT—RESPONSES IDENTIFYING VARIABLES THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT “DOES CONSIDER” SIGNIFICANT IN DECIDING POLICY AND FUNDING AMOUNTS Name 10 None ACCOUNTABILITY Policy Funding Infrastructure Funding Programs Funding Research AUTONOMY Policy Funding Infrastructure Funding Programs Funding Research ECONOMY Policy Funding Infrastructure Funding Programs Funding Research EFFECTIVENESS Policy Funding Infrastructure Funding Programs Funding Research R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. TABLE 10 (continued) Name None EFFICIENCY Policy Funding Infrastructure Funding Programs Funding Research EQUITY Policy Funding Infrastructure Funding Programs Funding Research NATIONAL IMAGE Policy Funding Infrastructure Funding Programs Funding Research PARENTAL EMPOWERMENT Policy Funding Infrastructure Funding Programs Funding Research R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. TABLE 10 (continued) 1 Name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Non [ POLITICAL IDEOLOGY [ Policy 7 7 5 1 2 1 1 3 4 0 6 Funding Infrastructure 8 7 2 2 3 0 2 3 4 0 6 Funding Programs 8 6 3 0 2 2 2 3 5 0 6 Funding Research 6 5 3 0 2 4 4 4 2 0 7 SYMBOLISM Policy 1 4 5 4 2 2 2 3 2 6 6 Funding Infrastructure 1 0 7 4 3 2 2 4 3 4 7 Funding Programs 1 1 4 5 3 5 3 2 2 4 7 Funding Research 1 0 3 7 3 3 4 4 3 2 .7 None = No Selection Made The total number of respondents to Part II was 37. What Respondents Believe the Federal Government “Should Consider” Significant • The most significant variables in deciding policy are effectiveness and accountability. The least significant variables are symbolism and political ideology. The most significant variables in funding infrastructure are effectiveness and equity. The least significant variables are symbolism and political ideology. 256 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. • The most significant variables in funding programs are effectiveness and accountability. The least significant variables are symbolism and political ideology. • The most significant variables in funding research are effectiveness and accountability. The least significant variables are symbolism and political ideology. Plainly, the variables that the federal government should consider significant portray a different emphasis than what the federal government is perceived as considering significant. The three variables that respondents believe that the federal government should consider are effectiveness, accountability, and equity. The variables that should be considered the least important are symbolism and political ideology. Two emerging variables—accountability and equity—are considered significant to respondents. Effectiveness is the common link in examining the variables with a significant ranking from both perspectives. It is clear that respondents believe that symbolism and political ideology—both traditional variables—should not be considered significant. There is a clear and obvious disconnect between what the federal government is perceived as considering important and what respondents believe they should consider significant. Table 11 exhibits all of the responses for each of the four areas under scrutiny. 257 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. TABLE 11 PART II OF THE ELITE INTERVIEWING INSTRUMENT—RESPONSES IDENTIFYING VARIABLES THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT “SHOULD CONSIDER” SIGNIFICANT IN DECIDING POLICY AND FUNDING AMOUNTS 1 Name J 1 j 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 None ACCOUNTABILITY Policy 1 1 5 5 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 8 1 F u n d in g Infrastructure 7 7 4 8 6 4 0 0 0 0 1 | Funding P ro g ra m s 9 8 3 5 5 5 0 0 0 0 2 1 F u n d in g R esearch 11 6 7 6 3 3 0 0 0 0 1 I AUTONOMY j Policy 1 0 1 3 3 6 6 4 2 5 6 F u n d in g I n fr a str u c tu r e 1 0 1 3 3 6 6 4 2 5 6 Funding P r o g ra m s 1 0 4 3 5 5 7 2 1 5 4 F u n d in g R esearch 2 0 3 1 6 7 7 2 0 5 4 ECONOMY Policy 0 3 3 3 8 7 4 2 0 1 6 F u n d in g In fr a str u c tu r e 1 3 6 4 7 4 3 3 0 1 5 I F u n d in g P r o g ra m s 1 3 5 3 8 5 5 1 1 1 4 j F u n d in g Research 1 2 3 4 7 6 6 2 I 0 5 j EFFECTIVENESS 9 Policy 1 4 1 1 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 I Funding Infrastructure 13 12 3 4 1 2 0 0 0 0 2 I F u n d in g P r o g r a m s 1 7 1 1 4 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 | F u n d in g R esearch 17 1 1 3 4 1 0 0 0 0 0. 1 258 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. TABLE 11 (continued) | Name 1 | 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 None 1 EFFICIENCY J Policy I 1 0 10 7 3 0 3 0 0 0 3 F u n d in g Infrastructure 3 1 1 9 6 4 0 2 0 0 0 2 F u n d in g Programs 2 9 10 7 2 1 3 1 0 1 1 F u n d in g R esearch 1 12 9 8 3 0 2 0 0 0 2 EQUITY j Policy 9 4 8 7 4 0 1 0 0 0 4 j F u n d in g Infrastructure 12 3 7 5 4 2 1 0 0 0 3 F u n d in g P r o g ra m s 10 3 7 7 4 2 1 0 0 0 3 F u n d in g R esearch 6 6 7 6 5 0 2 0 0 0 5 J NATIONAL IMAGE I Policy 0 0 1 1 0 1 9 1 1 6 2 6 F u n d in g In fr a str u c tu r e 0 0 3 0 0 4 7 9 7 3 4 J 1 Funding Programs 0 1 1 0 1 2 6 12 6 4 4 I F u n d in g R esearch 0 1 1 0 2 2 6 1 1 5 4 5 j PARENTAL EMPOWERMENT Policy 0 4 2 6 4 1 1 2 1 3 0 4 F u n d in g In fr a str u c tu r e 0 2 2 5 5 8 5 3 2 1 4 F u n d in g P r o g ra m s 0 3 4 7 5 8 3 2 2 0 3 F u n d in g R esearch 0 2 3 6 3 10 3 4 2 1 3 259 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. TABLE 11 (continued) I Name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 10 None 1 | POLITICAL IDEOLOGY I Policy 0 0 0 0 3 2 2 8 9 6 7 I Funding Infrastructure 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 9 1 1 7 5 1 Funding Programs 0 0 0 1 3 2 2 9 7 8 5 Funding Research 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 1 1 9 8 5 SYMBOLISM Policy 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 4 9 1 3 7 I Funding Infrastructure 0 2 0 1 0 0 4 4 9 1 3 4 1 Funding Programs 0 I 1 0 0 0 4 4 1 1 1 1 5 1 Funding Research 0 1 1 0 0 0 5 2 12 1 1 5 None = No Selection Made The total number of respondents to Part II was 37. Responses for all variables in the four subsections (policy and funding, infrastructure, programs, and research) were aggregated to determine if the findings would appreciably change. Again, the highest two and lowest two responses were considered. Tables 12 and 13 illustrate that aggregating the totals does not change the gist of the juxtaposed value for the variables, when deciding policy and funding amounts. Table 12 measures the responses for the variables in determining what the federal government does consider. Table 13 measures the responses for the variable in determining what the federal government should consider. 260 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. TABLE 12 PART II OF THE ELITE INTERVIEWING INSTRUMENT—VARIABLES PLACED IN RANK ORDER BY NUMBER FOR WHAT RESPONDENTS BELIEVE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT “DOES CONSIDER” WHEN DECIDING POLICY AND FUNDING AMOUNTS (Aggregate Totals) Rank Order Accountability Autonomy Economy Effectiveness Efficiency Equity National Image Parental Empower ment Political Ideology Symbolism 1 20 4 30 6 7 14 18 2 29 4 2 18 9 8 25 9 6 28 6 25 5 3 9 8 19 18 28 4 13 7 13 19 4 17 15 21 11 5 13 16 13 3 20 5 19 9 18 17 10 19 4 11 9 11 6 10 16 4 16 19 16 11 9 7 12 7 9 15 13 9 11 18 12 16 9 11 8 8 15 9 15 20 12 11 11 13 13 9 21 7 16 5 15 8 14 21 15 10 10 4 30 3 8 4 23 3 27 0 16 1 constitutes the most im portant; 1 0 the least. K > < 3 \ Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. TABLE 13 PART II OF THE ELITE INTERVIEWING INSTRUMENT—VARIABLES PLACED IN RANK ORDER BY NUMBER FOR WHAT RESPONDENTS BELIEVE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT “SHOULD CONSIDER” WHEN DECIDING POLICY AND FUNDING AMOUNTS (Aggregate Totals) Rank Order Accountability Autonomy Economy Effectiveness Efficiency Equity National Image Parental Empower ment Political Ideology Symbolism 1 38 6 3 61 7 37 0 0 0 0 2 26 1 11 45 42 16 2 11 0 5 3 19 10 17 16 38 29 6 11 0 2 4 24 10 14 14 28 25 1 24 1 2 5 21 18 30 3 12 17 3 17 10 0 6 13 22 22 2 1 4 9 37 8 0 7 0 27 18 0 10 5 28 13 5 15 8 0 11 8 0 1 0 43 10 37 14 9 0 5 2 0 0 0 24 9 36 41 10 0 20 3 0 1 0 13 2 29 48 1 constitutes the most important; 10 the least. As evidenced by Table 12 (aggregate totals of what the federal government “does consider” significant), political ideology and national image received the highest rankings. Those two variables are followed by accountability and economy, which rank equal in importance. Parental empowerment, autonomy, and equity received the lowest rankings. Table 13 (aggregate totals of what variables respondents believe the federal government “should consider” significant) reveals that effectiveness, accountability, equity, and efficiency receive the highest ranking. Symbolism, political ideology, and national image are not of great importance to respondents. Tables 14 and 15 depict aggregate totals in descending rank order—variables representing what respondents believe the federal government does consider as well as should consider when deciding policy and funding amounts. Immediately following are Figures 7 and 8, which present pictorial rankings, further exemplifying this information. 263 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. TABLE 14 PART II OF THE ELITE INTERVIEWING INSTRUMENT—VARIABLES PLACED IN RANK ORDER BY VARIABLE NAME FOR WHAT RESPONDENTS BELIEVE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT “DOES CONSIDER” WHEN DECIDING POLICY AND FUNDING AMOUNTS (Aggregate Totals) Hanking # 1 variable Name Total Count Descending Order Economy Political Ideology Accountability National Image Equity Efficiency Effectiveness Autonomy Symbolism Parental Empowerment Ranking # 3 Ranking # 2 I Variable Name Total Cc Descending Order National Image 28 Political Ideology 25 Effectiveness 25 Accountability 18 | Autonomy |9 | Efficiency 9 I Economy 8 1 Parental Empowerment 6 3 Equity 6 I Symbolism 5 Ranking # 4 Variable Name 6 Total Count 1 Descending 1 I § O rder § J Variable Name Total Coant 1 Descending 1 O rder 1 Efficiency J 28 | pEconoiny 21 Symbolism 1 19 | [symbolism 20 Economy 19 1 | Accountability 1 7 Effectiveness 18 j j * National Image E National Image 13 § 13 § | Autonomy E Political Ideology 1 Equity 264 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. TABLE 14 (continued) V ariable Nam e Accountability Total Count D escending O rder Autonomy Parental Empowerment Equity R a n k in g # 5 Variable Name Total Count D escending O rder Accountability 119____________ Equity 1 19 Economy [18 Parental Empowerment I 11 1 Symbolism | 1 1 J Efficiency jlO j Autonomy § 9 | Political Ideology 1 9 Effectiveness 1 17 j National Image 1]4 J R anking # 7 Variable N am e T otal Count Descending O rder Equity Parental Empowerment Autonomy 18 V ariable N am e Parental Empowerment Total Count j D escending O rder 13 1 Effectiveness 1 Efficiency 11 § 5 § j Political Ideology 3 | 1 R anking # 6 Variable Name Total Count D escending O rder Efficiency 19 j Autonomy 16 Effectiveness 16 Equity 16 Symbolism 12 1 National Image 11 § Accountability 10 § Parental Empowerment 9 § Political Ideology 7 | Economy 4 R anking # f Variable Name T otal Count D escending O rder Efficiency 20 j Effectiveness 15 1 Autonomy 15 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. TABLE 14 (continued) V ariable Name Total Count Descending O rder Economy 13 National Image 12 | Efficiency 11 Symbolism 11 Accountability Political Ideology R anking # 9 Variable Name Total Count D escending O rder Accountability 21 Parental Empowerment Economy Political Ideology Efficiency National Image Symbolism Equity Autonomy Effectiveness Variable Nam e Total Count Descending O rder Political Ideology Symbolism National Image Parental Empowerment Economy Accountability R anking # 10 V anable Name Total Count D escending O rder Autonomy Parental Empowerment Symbolism 16 Effectiveness 8 Efficiency 4 Accountability 4 National Image 3 Economy 3 Political Ideology 0 1 constitutes the most important; 10 the least. 266 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. TABLE 15 PART H OF THE ELITE INTERVIEWING INSTRUMENT—VARIABLES PLACED IN RANK ORDER BY VARIABLE NAME FOR WHAT RESPONDENTS BELIEVE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT “SHOULD CONSIDER” WHEN DECIDING POLICY AND FUNDING AMOUNTS (Aggregate Totals) R anking # 1 V ariable N am e I Effectiveness Total Count 1 D escending 1 O rder | 61 j 1 Accountability' 38 | Equity 37 J ! Efficiency 7 Autonomy 6 Economy 3 National Image ---------------------- 0 Parental Empowerment ° Political Ideology 0 Symbolism 0 R anking # 3 Variable N am e Efficiency Equity Total Count Descending O rder 38 29 Ranking # 2 Variable Nam e Total Count j D escending I O rder | 1 Effectiveness 45 I Efficiency 42 J Accountability 26 Equity 16 Parental Empowerment 11 1 Economy 11 | Symbolism 5 J National Image 2 J Autonomy 1 | Political Ideology 0 R anking # 1 Variable Name Total Count D escending O rder Efficiency Equity Accountability 19 | Accountability 24 Economy 17 Parental Empowerment 24 Effectiveness 16 I Economy 14 11 1 Effectiveness j114 267 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 268 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. TABLE 15 (continued) 1 1 Vunable Name Total Count D escending O rder J Symbolism 15 I Parental Empowerment 13 I Efficiency 10 1 Equity 5 I Political Ideology 5 Accountability 0 Effectiveness 0 R anking # 9 I V ariable Name Total Count j D escending j O rder Symbolism 41 Political Ideology 36 National Image 24 Parental Empowerment 9 Autonomy 5 j Economy 2 1 Accountability 0 Effectiveness 0 Efficiency Equity 1 Variable Name Total Count 1 D escending I O rder | 1 Autonomy 11 J Parental Empowerment 10 1 Economy 8 Efficiency 1 Accountability ........... .............' --------— — - Effectiveness 0 0 Equity 0 R ank in g # 10 V ariable Name Total Cc D escending O rder Symbolism 48 Political Ideology 29 I Autonomy 20 I National Image 13 | Economy 3 I Parental Empowerment 2 Efficiency 1 I Accountability ° 1 Effectiveness £ I Equity • 1 1 constitutes the most important; 10 the least. 269 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. FIGURE 7 PICTORIAL RANKINGS (1-10) OF WHAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT “DOES CONSIDER” WHEN DECIDING POLICY AND FUNDING (Aggregate Totals) R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. R an k in g 1 Autonomy 4 Accountability 20 Symbolism 4 Equity 14 Political Ideology 29 National image 18 Parental Empowerment 2 Ranking 2 Economy 8 Effectiveness 25 Autonomy 9 Accountability 18 Efficiency 9 Equity 6 Symbolism 5 Political Ideology 25 National Image 28 Parental Empowerment 6 271 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. FIGURE 7 (continued) Ranking 3 Effectiveness 18 Autonomy 8 Accountability 9 Efficiency 2 8 | fT^ryryr^T^ Symbolism 19 Equity 4 National Im age 13 Political Ideology 13 Parental Empowerment 7 Ranking 4 Econo*™ ^ Autonomy 15 Effectiveness 11 Accountability 17 Efficiency 5 Equity 13 Symbolism 20 Political Ideology 3 National image 16 Parental Empowerment 13 272 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. FIGURE 7 (continued) Ranking 5 Autonomy 9 Accountability 19 Effectiveness 17 Efficiency 10 Symbolism 11 Political Ideology 9 Equity ' • N ational7m age4] ' [ Parental Empowerment 11 Ranking 6 Efficiency is ] Economy 4 Effectiveness 16 Autonomy 16 Accountability 10 Symbolism 12 Political Ideology 7 Parental Empowerment 9 National Image 11 273 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. FIGURE 7 (continued) Ranking 7 Effectiveness 9 Economy 13 Autonomy 15 Efficiency 11 Accountability 9 Equity 18 Sym bolism 11 Political Ideology 9 National Image 12 Parental Empowerment 16 Ranking 8 Autonomy 15 Accountability 8 Symbolism 13 Equity 12 Political Ideology 13 National Image 11 Parental Empowerment 11 274 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. FIGURE 7 (continued) R anking 9 Autonomy 7 Accountability 21 Symbolism 10 National Image 14 Political Ideology 15 Parental Empowerment 21 R anking 10 Autonomy 30 Equity 23 Symbolism 16 National Image 3 Parental Empowerment 27 275 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. FIGURE 8 PICTORIAL RANKINGS (1-10) OF WHAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT “SHOULD CONSIDER” WHEN DECIDING POLICY AND FUNDING (Aggregate Totals) R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Ranking 1 Autonomy 6 Equity 37 Ranking 2 Economy 11 Autonomy 1 Accountability 26 Symbolism 5 Parental Empowerment 11 Efficiency 42 Equity 16 2 7 7 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. FIGURE 8 (continued) R an k in g 3 Economy 17 Autonomy 10 Effectiveness 16 Accountability 19 Symbolism 2 parental Empowerment 11 f* I 1111 'in Efficiency 38 National Im age 6 Equity 2 9 Ranking 4 Economy 14 Autonomy 10 Accountability 24 Symbolism 2 Political Ideology 1 Parental Empowerment 24 Equity 25 278 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. FIGURE 8 (continued) R anking 5 Autonomy 18 Accountability 21 0 Hj Political ideology 10 National image 3 Ranking 6 Autonomy 22 Accountability 13 #9 Political Ideology 8 Equity 4 National Image 9 Parental Empowerment 37 279 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. FIGURE 8 (continued) Ranking 7 Economy 18 Autonomy 27 Equity 5 Symbolism 15 National Image 28 Political Ideology 5 Parental Empowerment 13 Ranking 8 National Image 43 Efficiency 1 . + V + V + + + V ' M V + W * T + I + I + I+ I+ f■ ■ f c Parental Empowerment *-0 Political Ideology 37 Economy 6 Autonomy 11 Symbolism 14 280 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. FIGURE 8 (continued) Ranking 9 Parental Empowerment 9 National Image 24 Political Ideology 36 ® a m # * + # # ill Economy 2 Autonomy 5 Symbolism 41 Ranking 10 National Image 13 Parental Empowerment 2 V > : * " Political Ideology 29 i ® ® ® j ' ■ -------------------------T®L® • ~ Efficiency 1 Economy 3 Autonomy 20 Symbolism 48 281 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Summary of Part III Responses Statements were made in this part relative to various aspects of education reform. These 15 statements sought to divulge, on a more incisive level, the attitudes of respondents. The statements revolved around the appropriateness of the federal role. The total number of respondents to this part was 41. Statement 1. Privatizing elementary and secondary public schools help motivate all schools in that category to perform better. A large percentage either strongly disagree (26.8) or disagree (43.9) with this statement. This belief goes at the crux of the issue for privatization advocates. Apparently, a vast majority do not believe that privatization is the answer. However, approximately 20 percent remain neutral. Statement 2. Permitting parents to choose the elementary and secondary school their child attends is essential to attaining the best possible education for their child. Over half either strongly disagree (12.2 percent) or disagree (39 percent) with this statement. Approximately 7.3 percent remain neutral. Voucher proponents believe that choice by parents is an essential ingredient that enhances school performance. The majority are not as sure. 282 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Statement 3. The federal government should provide funding to for- profit elementary and secondary schools. Disagreement with this statement is resounding. Those who strongly disagree (41.5 percent) and those who disagree (29.3 percent) represent more than 70 percent of those responding. It is apparent that the majority do not believe this represents an area that the federal government should be funding. Statement 4. The federal government should provide funding to church- based elementary and secondary schools. Disagreement with this statement is also quite strong. Percentages of strongly disagree (34.1) and disagree (26.8) send a clear message that the federal government should not provide funding. Approximately 73 percent reject this notion or remain neutral on the idea. Statement 5. The federal government should take a more active part in providing leadership for elementary and secondary schools. The results of this statement are somewhat homogenized. The percent of those who strongly disagree (7.3) and disagree (34.1) and those who strongly agree (19.5) and agree (24.4) are almost equal; however, those in agreement score 2.5 percent higher. Perhaps a possible explanation for this response is that the definition of leadership has varying connotations. 2 8 3 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Statement 6. The federal government should take a more active part in establishing values for elementary and secondary education. Equal percentages strongly agree or strongly disagree (7.3) with this statement. Those who disagree (34.1 percent) are slightly higher than those who agree (29.3 percent). Those who remain neutral (22 percent) represent a significant percentage. This is clearly an aspect that individuals could be persuaded one way or the other. Statement 7. The federal government should provide more funding for elementary and secondary education. The message given in response to this statement is absolute. Those who strongly agree (58.5 percent) and those who agree (22 percent) represent a significant margin that believes the federal government should provide additional funding. It is clear that the percentage of those either strongly disagreeing (4.9) or disagreeing (2.4) represents a small population. Statement 8. Education at the elementary and secondary school levels should be a state and local responsibility, and the federal government should provide block grants with little or no rules and regulations. Those who strongly disagree (22 percent) and those who disagree (34.1 percent) are in the majority. However, those remaining neutral (12.2 percent) plus those agreeing (22 percent) and those strongly agreeing (9.8 percent) represent a 284 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. significant number of respondents willing to at least consider the idea. During the Reagan years, this method was embraced by his Administration. Statement 9. In the last 10 y ears, factors used to determine elementary and secondary school policy by the federal government have changed. This statement speaks directly to whether or not a paradigm shift has occurred. It is clear that a majority of respondents (65.9 percent—56.1 agree and 9.8 strongly agree) believe that things have changed. The way in which things have changed, however, presents an intriguing difference of opinion. This difference was briefly discussed in Part II, with the acknowledgment that emerging variables received significant rankings. Part I identified various crucial occurrences, such as the passing of various laws and social pressures that have impacted the schooling of our children. Additional factors will be explored when the results of Part IV are presented. Statement 10. In the last 10 years, factors used to determine elementary and secondary school funding levels have changed. A high percentage (9.8 strongly agree and 61 agree) believe that change has occurred. Those remaining neutral (12.2 percent) and those strongly disagreeing or disagreeing (17.1 percent) represent an acknowledgment of reported evidence that funding decisions are being altered, at least to some degree. Additional insight will be identified in Part IV. 2 8 5 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Statement 11. The federal government should offer vouchers to elementary and secondary school students attending schools that have been assessed as failing schools. This statement is significant, because it goes straight to a salient aspect of the Bush Administration’s policy. Equal percentages agree and disagree (31.7) with the statement. However, those that are opposed express strong disagreement (22 percent). Those strongly agreeing (4.9 percent) are not as adamant Respondents who remain neutral (9.8 percent) are obviously still not convinced one way or the other of the merits of Bush’s proposal. A battle is being waged by the Administration for its position. These responses exemplify the fact that a large majority are still receptive to change on this matter. Statement 12. The federal government should provide vouchers, tax credits, or other types of reimbursable financial arrangements to all elementary and secondary school students or parents. The majority either strongly disagree (26.8 percent) or disagree (29.3 percent). However, those strongly agreeing (12.2 percent) and agreeing (12.2 percent) coupled with the neutral (19.5 percent) represent a significant portion of those who could possibly conceptualize a rationale for federal funding. 286 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Statement 13. The federal government should provide vouchers, tax credits, or other types of reimbursable financial arrangements to low-income students or parents. The percentages for those agreeing (31.7) and strongly agreeing (9.8) and those disagreeing (22) and strongly disagreeing (19.5) equal the same percentage (41.5). Neither constitutes a majority. Those remaining neutral (17.1 percent) have not reached an opinion one way or the other. This finding represents an important issue that needs more factual data before determining the actual impact. Statement 14. The federal government should provide vouchers, tax credits, or other types of reimbursable financial arrangements to elementary and secondary home schoolers. This statement plainly represents an issue where solidified opinions were expressed. Those strongly disagreeing (34.1 percent) disagreeing and neutral (both 29.3 percent) constitute a resounding 92.7 percent of those who are not convinced that the federal government should provide funding to parents who school their children at home. Only 7.3 percent agree with this statement. (Note: The literature reflects that, under some school choice proposals, home schoolers will be eligible for federal dollars.) 287 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Statement 15. The federal government should provide leadership, additional funding, and research to state and local school districts. Reaction to this statement overwhelmingly attests to the fact that a clear majority agree (43.9 percent) or strongly agree (46.3 percent) that these are definite roles for the federal government to pursue. Only 4.9 percent strongly disagree or disagree with the notion that the federal government should not provide additional assistance in some form to state and local entities. (Note: Appendix V provides frequency tables for each of these statements.) Summary.,of Part IV Responses This part was structured as a method of providing a means for respondents to discuss aspects of education reforms that they believed were not covered in the other parts of the instrument but should be either elaborated on or acknowledged. A summary of the comments includes: • The role of public school has changed in our society to one where many children, especially in urban settings, receive food, shelter, love and affection, an education, counseling, parenting, etc., but that child is then returned to a threatening, non-productive environment—programs that try to help whole families are the ones that will save our children and our cities. • Bring all schools up to par-—be sure that all schools are top rated—do not just provide vouchers. 288 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. • West Point and Annapolis are federally-funded schools to provide military leaders, and we should have the same emphasis and financial support for educational leadership. • The history of public education administration is bittered with the remnants of the latest trends—the voucher movement is a latest trend. • Political patronage prohibits real change. (Note: For a complete report on all comments, see Appendix VI.) Responses to questions clearly reflect signs of a paradigm shift in the way respondents view the federal government’s role. An illustration of change is reflected in Question 13. Anxiety seems to be expressed in how few choices low- income students and parents have in where children are educated. Responses in Part IV of the instrument, to some extent, accentuate what the literature states and help to clarify Parts II and HI. Value-added dimensions are presented with greater clarity. As an example, the substantive distinctions among providing funds for all elementary and secondary students, low-income students, and home schoolers are brought forward. It is very relevant that most agree that the federal government does have a role in elementary and secondary education beyond providing block grants and turning their backs on education reform in general. Evidence of a Shifting Paradigm Education reform is viewed from a wide variety of perspectives across the United States. Patterns in current practice are aggressively changing. In some ways, 289 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. we have come full circle to the problems and issues that were addressed three decades ago. How elementary and secondary education is assessed and framed are being drastically scrutinized. Even the terminology used in describing this issue is masterfully crafted. Currently, education reform is being referred to as the school choice movement, the voucher movement, the privatization movement, as well as other descriptors that refer to various mechanisms altering the current paradigm or status quo in schooling our children. Applying the relative theories, reviewing the literature, and conducting the elite interviews helped to reinforce the fact that the federal government does have a role beyond providing block grants and allowing state and local governments to individually handle all education reform issues. New paradigm advocates argue that public education should not simply implement certain business practices; they argue that public schools are businesses. They have gone beyond calls for efficiency in public education to arguing that schools should join the ranks of other small businesses that rely on the market for survival. The marketplace does not provide a purpose. Nonetheless, there will be more privatization, more choice, more opportunity, and more danger. Around the Nation, African-American ministers are establishing parish schools of their own. New Catholic schools are under construction, and Evangelicals, Muslims, and Jewish Hasidim are constructing special types of schools. Charter school legislation is proliferating across the country; home schooling is growing in the South and the 290 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Midwest. Milwaukee, Cleveland, and Florida have programs in place to provide tuition funds to the disadvantaged. In a pure choice system many children will not be able to attend their first, second, or even third school of choice. In large urban systems, it is highly unlikely that students will be able to travel long distances to go to schools of their choice without restructuring and refinancing public transportation. Moreover, several recent trends are apparent. First, decision makers are paying greater attention to outputs throughout the broader field of educational policy, and this attention can be seen in school finance equity discussions. Second, while the school district remains an important unit of analysis, the school is increasingly used as well, especially in areas such as governance, accountability, decision making, and school-based budgeting—all foster a focus on the schools’ now frequently-used concepts of adequacy. Third, the courts continue to be used to achieve change that is not possible through the political process and in the state legislatures. Fourth, more detailed databases permit greater differentiation of pupil characteristics and an attempt to acquire equity. As the elite interviewing instrument revealed, equity—an emerging variable—is significant, when deciding policy and authorizing funding. Equity along with accountability and economy have emerged as paramount factors in governing the education of our children. The instrument helped to exemplify distinctive differences of opinions in regard to the appropriateness of providing funds for all elementary and secondary students, low-income students, and home schoolers. 291 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Anxiety seems to be evident in how few choices low-income students and parents have in where children are educated. However, that anxiety has not manifested itself into a clear solidified approach to solving the problem or shifting the paradigm in a specific direction. The instrument also revealed that the federal government is not in congruence with experts in the education field. This lack of congruence has caused confusion and diminished positive results. Traditional variables, such as national image and political ideology for federal policymakers, are still crucial facets. As a result of their reliance upon those variables, real change is not possible. Experts prefer that effectiveness, accountability, and equity become the motivating force spearheading policy and funding decisions. Qualitative research methods (interviews, observations, ethnographies) can incorporate information about how schools work that extends far beyond the statistics gathered in surveys or administrative records that probe not only which but how resources make a difference in learning. However, the methods used for choosing who will be studied in these qualitative ways sometimes lead to serious questions about generalizing the result. Moreover, the canon for qualitative research is less clear and, according to one thoughtful guide to the literature, the profound philosophical difference among those who use these methods may mean there may never be agreement on the standard or good ways of using qualitative research. 292 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. According to Wayne Riddle and James Stedman (Congressional Research Service, 2001), conclusive evidence about the impact of private choice is not available. Much of the evidence that school choice advocates marshal to support their achievement claims derives from their analyses of the effects of private education on student achievement. Cookson (1992) states that most school choice studies are flawed and draw sweeping inferences from very little evidence. Common sense and experience dictate that the private school advantage does not come from choice, but from the nature of the parents and students who choose private schools. There is virtually no way to control statistically for the motivations and the cultural capital resources of those who opt out of the public system. McNamara was, unfortunately, right; he said, in what has come to be known as the McNamara Fallacy: The first step is to measure whatever can be easily measured. This is OK as far as it goes. The second step is to disregard that which can’t be easily measured or to give it an arbitrary quantitative value. This is artificial and misleading. The third step is to presume that what can’t be measured easily really isn’t important. This is blindness. The fourth step is to say that what can’t be easily measured really doesn’t exist. This is suicide. (Handy, 1994) Policy making is a complex and messy business, not easily tidied up in neat theoretical packages unless the theory is at such an abstract level that everything and anything can be accommodated. Theoretical perspectives associated with education 293 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. reform are necessary and useful. However, education reform cannot be easily personified or predicated. Conclusion Educating young people is a major responsibility of adult society. It is a service that deals directly and intimately with people. Controversial education issues have always been a part of the essence of this Nation. The 1960s and, subsequently, the 1970s emerged as a time when the federal role began to change as well as old alliances. The change was in response to criticisms about American education. The federal government became a “change agent,” which meant that it was beginning to play a more active role in policy or at least to create an environment to underwrite others to play the change agent role. Difficulty arose in appraising the extent and meaning of this increased federal role. While school officials at both state and local levels wanted to claim additional new federal funds, they wanted the aid without categorical strings—in their language without federal control. There seems to be a strong correlation between the growing popularity of various reform efforts and the general perception of crisis in the Nation’s public schools. Simmons (1974) describes educational reform as those changes in educational policy that cause major changes in either educational budgets, the slope of the pyramid of school enrollment, or the effect of educational investment on individual and social development. Planned change efforts imply commitments to 294 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. particular views of reality and acceptance of certain modes of realizing those ends (Massachusetts Department of Education, 1991). There still exist serious and widespread concerns that schools are not meeting society’s needs for an educated workforce and citizenry. Basic education consists of the things necessary for effectively functioning in a democracy. This includes the ability to read, write, do basic arithmetic, and knowledge of the operation of democratic government. In some ways, we are on the very edge of the school choice phenomenon; in the next ten years, the organizational picture of schooling in the United States will be different from what it is today. The theories that were presented help us to understand where we are now, how we got here, and how we may move forward. The direct beneficiaries of public schools are, of course, students and parents. However, all members of society gain by the production and dissemination of knowledge. Thus, in America, education is a public good—everyone benefits and everyone pays. As a result, educational governance and the federal role is a potential concern to all. Choice has proven to be a useful tactic in promoting experimentation, and surely the involvement of families in all phases of schooling is important, not only for educational improvement but for democracy. Yet, clearly, school choice is not an educational reform silver bullet. Good schools for all children will only be achieved through finance equity, prepared professionals, high standards, and purpose. While 295 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. competition among schools does have some laudable effects, there is a downside as well. There is a danger that choice will be promoted as a panacea and that, once again, bad public policy will deprive the poor of the opportunities for growth and mobility that are at the heart of the democratic process. A limitation of an open choice system is that accountability is very difficult. In the rush to restructure public education, it is possible to overlook the fact that the bureaucratic structure was meant to institutionalize accountability. Perhaps the existing structure has failed to provide this accountability, but the issue has not disappeared. A chaotic system of small unaccountable schools is a poor blueprint for providing all children with educational excellence. Vouchers were usually espoused by fiscal conservatives, political libertarians, and sometimes by those who viewed them as a means of empowering school choice among the poor. Thus far, they have not proven attractive to a political majority, either nationally or in a particular state. The literature reflects that upper-middle- class families benefit the most from vouchers. The obvious reason is that they can pay for private schools. They also benefit for the less obvious reason—that they have the time and social resources to explore their options. Concepts of equity are likely to remain an issue that, unfortunately, does not appear to be close to resolution. Whether we look across states, within states, across districts, within districts, across schools, within schools, or across groups of students, it is hard to argue that we have achieved equity in education. Wide differences in 296 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. property bases still persist and often lead to inequities in finance and educational outputs. Lifetime outcomes are still highly related to socioeconomic status, race, ethnicity, and gender. Inequality in income and wealth continues at high levels. The traditional wall between church and state has always been open to interpretation. Some religious leaders believe that education options are a moral question, one that must be measured in terms of equity. Businessmen claim that it is a matter of market competition—of using public monies in the most efficient way. Racial activists see the issue in terms of equality. Liberals believe that government should take the lead in providing as much freedom as possible in as many areas as possible. Conservatives believe that school choice is about empowering parents. Libertarians want to go back to American assumptions and question why government plays any role at all in education. In short, there are as many views relative to school choice as there are interest groups (Morken & Formicola, 1999). Although it is reasonably safe to maintain that the financing of primary and secondary education in America will remain public, we can be less sure about the constancy of public provision in the traditional form of public schools organized in local school districts. Various changes that are being debated today, such as voucher schemes and charter schools, may lead to significant structural changes. How concepts of equity that developed within the framework of the traditional school district and public school will or will not fit with these newer arrangements remains to be seen. 297 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Sufficient research has not been conducted on the distributional consequences of school choice. Further, there is very little compelling evidence that school choice is directly related to higher student achievement or school improvement, although there are studies claiming that choice fosters higher test scores. Even if these studies are correct, the basis for a general assertion is so fragile, so limited, and so speculative that only a true believer would seize on this evidence as an argument for the abolition of an accountable school system. Definitive evidence proving that empowering schools or parents or both to make decisions about the use of public funds is not available. Proponents and opponents often cite conflicting findings from most studies, including those from the Milwaukee and Cleveland voucher programs. In the face of uncertainty and controversy, the arguments for change are strongest in places where school performance under current governance arrangements has been hardest to improve. This suggests that urban areas with large concentrations of disadvantaged students are the most compelling targets for such reforms, especially reforms that give parents more choice over the schools their children attend. School choice is a hot education, political, and social issue. Unlike many school reforms, the issue of choice has caught the public imagination and prompted policymakers to work with legislators, businesses, and educators. As an outcome, education reform is now a national movement, and, as such, is changing the way American education is organized. The impact of this national effort has been 298 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. significant, because education reform has compelled educators and other education stakeholders to rethink and redesign how public schools are organized, evaluated, and supported. The paradox of balance in a time of change is to allow the past and the future to coexist in the present. Recommendations The goal of education reform at the elementary and secondary levels should be equal educational opportunity for the entire school-age population. With that goal as our guide, we should move ahead methodologically in a manner that elevates the education of our children to uppermost heights. Our objective should be to facilitate an environment where equity, efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability are nurtured. In attempting to accomplish that objective, it is recommended that federal policymakers: ® Proceed in incremental phases; • Think of children first; • Acknowledge teachers and the importance of their role; • Provide adequate funding; • Balance differing values in a thoughtful manner; • Establish enduring structures and practices from a systematic perspective; • Establish equal accountability mechanisms; ® Establish equity in finance systems; • Assure that all schools are top rate; 299 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. • Behave pro-actively, not re-activeiy; ® Put performance above process; and • Set policy, not just react to judicial mandates. Federal policymakers must be careful to evaluate their intentions before adopting various reform efforts. They must be cautious to choose a path of reform best suited for this Nation. It is essential that they understand that the federal government has a crucial and pivotal role in education reform. There are appropriate and legitimate functions that only the federal government can perform. They must cautiously weigh all options and not make assumptions about the attributes of markets before the facts have been ascertained. The correlation between policy and funding must be realized. This actualization must be given more then just lip service. Most appreciably it is of the essence that we show our children that we care enough to put emphasis on their learning, not our ideologies. If we work toward achieving our goal and objectives, a positive national image will follow. Perspectives on How Stakeholders Can Develop an Effective Path for Future Reforms “Instead of worrying about the future, let us labor to create it.” (Hubert H. Humphrey, 1976) It is the responsibility of stakeholders, such as educators, legislatures, minority leaders, parents, unions, and others closely linked to elementary and secondary education, to create an effective path for decision makers to follow as they 300 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. grapple with future education reform efforts. The variables identified as significant by respondents—effectiveness, accountability, and equity—in this study have also been identified as major facets in the recently passed No Child Left Behind Law. By allocating increased federal education funding amounting to more than $22.1 billion for elementary and secondary schools—a 27 percent increase over 2001, and a 49 percent increase over 2000 levels—a strong signal has been sent. The federal government is willing to invest in elementary and secondary education. Congressional decisions do, to some degree, reflect public opinion. Many premises in this law can be interpreted as a sign that Congress and the Administration are seeking guidance on how to best effectuate effective change in this arena. A window of opportunity has opened, and stakeholders must rush to take advantage of it. Priorities and rapidly changing circumstances must be assessed and addressed. Goals, policies, programs, and actions must be examined closely and charted. Facts must be gathered to reduce the amount of uncertainty. Plans of action should be based on long-range consequences. Certain aspects of stakeholders’ action plans will be generic. However, because this issue is complex, value-laden and enters into uncharted territory, paths will branch off into various directions. A well-developed action plan by individual stakeholders provides a very powerful means of impacting future reforms. Following are perspectives on how specific stakeholders might contribute in the future. 3 0 1 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Educators Educators often perceive themselves as having a limited job description, one of delivering a standardized curriculum to students. Many educators have difficulty endorsing and executing change. Solid research demonstrating effective methodologies coupled with empowerment will aid in eliminating this problem. Educators should present their concerns and work relentlessly to have them positively addressed. Educators must begin to recognize and be receptive to innovations. Private sector approaches, when appropriate, can serve as learning tools. Since student achievement can be enhanced through the use of technology, educators must become more technologically astute. They must aid in developing accountability systems and ways of monitoring progression. They must recognize and support testing for all. It is through testing that successes and problems are detected, including identifying teachers and students that are not properly fitted. Principals and superintendents (the degree depends on the jurisdiction) have power and autonomy and should realize that they are central to determining what is working and what is not. Legislatures Future legislative reform efforts should focus on the child and not the system. Tax dollars should be spent on assuring equity in education. Recently, state governments have taken over entire school systems; Philadelphia and Cleveland are examples. The result has been the establishment of more charter schools, vouchers, 302 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. and privatization. These mechanisms have not proven to be panaceas in assuring equity or improved achievement. Other options should be explored. These options should include working with public schools to address their needs and elevating them to an acceptable level. States should establish academic achievement goals and measurements for all subjects. Funding should be tied to academic achievement and proof of results. Parents of children in persistently failing schools should have the choice of attending other schools, while their school is being brought up to state or local standards. Failing schools should not be allowed to operate indefinitely. Time frames should be established. Legislatures should assure that teachers, parents, and students have options. States must examine their collaborative efforts and come up with innovative approaches to expand their usage. Legislatures should assure that community-based bonds are formed. They must recognize that education is a whole community affair and that the stronger the community, the greater its capacity to assume its role in education. Funding priorities should also include, but not be limited to, the following items: 8 Developing infrastructures; • Implementing effective teaching strategies and programs, • Continued research; 303 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. ® Incentives; • Feedback mechanisms; and • Accountability and monitoring mechanism s. Effectiveness was a variable viewed as very significant from a traditional perspective as well as from an emerging point of view. The responsibility to assure that schools, educators, and programs are administered effectively rests with legislatures. Minority Leaders Minority leaders must realize that pursuing a path for equal education is an important and socially justifiable mission. Public education has failed to deliver the promise of quality education to many minorities. It is acceptable to reflect on the past and admit that Brown vs. the Board of Topeka, Kansas, did not net the kind of equal educational access and learning environment that was anticipated. However, it is unacceptable to follow a path that may turn back the hands of time. Separating into small minority-based schools has that potential. Giving up on public education is not the best path to follow. Visionary leaders must commit themselves to becoming a powerful force in fighting against any and all efforts designed to separate. They must develop ways to unite various constituencies. An example of this kind of unified effort can be found in a partnership, endorsed by President Bush, between the U.S. Department of Education and the National Conference of Negro Women. This partnering effort has 304 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. been designed to reach out to communities in an effort to work on resolving the achievement gap. Ron Paige, U.S. Secretary of Education, states: “Educating every child is the greatest moral challenge of our time.” He also states: “Every child can learn, and we mean it. And we want to act on it.” Minority leaders should work toward showing them how to act on it. They must lead the way in developing a path that will hold Secretary Paige to his words and help provide him with effective strategies to accomplish his goal. They should work with the federal government in assuring that their expanded role is directed toward efforts that have been proven to work in minority communities. Every aspect of elementary and secondary education, including the increased role that private and charter schools are amassing, should be monitored. Priority for minority leaders should include: • Identifying and defining minority interests; • Recognizing common interests with majority populations and creating a sense of common purpose to enhance their power and have a broader base to effectuate change; • Developing collaborative efforts; • Recognizing potential threats; • Seizing every opportunity to assure equality; and 305 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. ® Interpreting the impact of various reform mechanisms on the minority community. Minority leaders must recognize that it takes a long time to educate people. As Rosabeth Kanter (1983) observed: “Every innovation is a failure in the middle.” Parents The elite interviewing instrument revealed that federal policymakers are not perceived as considering empowerment highly significant. This means that it is up to parents to demonstrate that parental empowerment is significant in the education process; parental involvement is a crucial component of school improvement Parents must have a greater voice and take a comprehensive role in their child’s education. There are reform models using federal, state, and locally designed programs that link school improvement with parental involvement and other community development efforts. Parents should aggressively seek to have those types of models implemented into their schools. They must become their child’s best advocate. They must take advantage of all that is offered, such as programs and services sponsored by governments, businesses, private entities, nonprofits, and various other organizations. They must become aware of what is going on, not only in their school but also in surrounding schools. Attaining as much information as possible is key in assuring that their child’s educational experience is as good as possible. Parents 306 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. (voters) should assure that this issue remains in the forefront and that their child is not left behind. Unions Unions have evolved from collective action. It is through collective and collaborative action that education reform should proceed. This makes union involvement in designing a future path for elementary and secondary education somewhat natural. Priority should be given to assuring that opportunities are provided to help educators develop and maintain professional standards. They should press to elevate the image of educators and make certain that they are being treated with great respect and dignity. Involvement in ways to recruit others into the education profession should be a goal. Activities should include lobbying for merit pay systems and bonus systems. Unions should become the main source of information regarding research, laws, ideas that work, and other pertinent resources. University-school partnerships for teacher training, family programs, and other community-based programs should be supported. Support should also be provided for establishing alternative ways of entering into the education profession. Various kinds of union-sponsored training services should be made available. Unions should assure that educators are trained in the practice of doing away with stereotypes and misconceptions about various students. They should help 307 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. educators overcome any stereotypes they may have about parents or other community members and help them to try and overcome any language and cultural differences that may impede their judgment. Further Research In depth, critical analyses should be performed on the individual variables identified in this study and the interplay among them. Additional studies should be performed focusing on critical features, such as governance and finance. Terry Moe (1998) has written much about various aspects of school choice and has a special concern that polls and surveys can be false and manipulated in the policy process, often to the detriment of school choice. Good research is needed on school choice and vouchers, he maintains, first and foremost, for the sake of the truth and, second, to protect the policy process from malicious or inadvertent manipulation. Moe says that parents have a personal interest to protect their children, but they also have a social interest in the welfare of the whole community, especially schools (Morken & Formicola, 1999). Moe’s concern is legitimate. Future researchers should find a way to conduct credible research that is not biased in a way that enhances a certain ideology but is committed to improving education in general. The National Research Council (NRC) has proposed a “large and ambitious” school choice research experiment to determine whether the program might benefit students. The NRC, a federally-financed arm of the National Academy of Sciences, has called for a multi-district, ten-year voucher experiment. If done in an unbiased 308 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. manner, this study may yield useful information on education reform with regard to the school choice issue. Future research is necessary to bring forward more information on demographic concerns. Longitudinal studies on the effects of providing vouchers for low-income students needs to be conducted. Long-term research should also be undertaken on the impact and the effectiveness of various change mechanisms, such as the Florida Scholarship Program and others that espouse voucher schemes. The increasingly diverse number of privatization arrangements suggests that the relationship among these arrangements is a rich area for future study, and further research in this area will serve to increase our understanding of the nature and complexity of the evolving relationship between markets and public schooling. Finally, research should be conducted on current funding mechanisms, authorized under the No Child Left Behind Act that the President just signed into law, to determine its effectiveness and to assure that, indeed, no child is left behind. 3 0 9 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY Ackerman, David M. (2000, December 19). Education vouchers: Constitutional issues and cases. Long report for Congress. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service. Adams, Jacob E., Jr. (1994). Spending school reform dollars in Kentucky: Familiar patterns and new programs, but is this reform. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 16. Alder, Michael, Fetch, Alison, & Tweedie, Jack (1989). Parental choice and educational policy. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press. Alien, Mike (2001, September 11). Back in Florida, bush pushes education plan. The Washington Post. Allison, Graham T. (1971). Essence o f Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. New York: Harper Collins. Anderson, James E. (1997). Public policymaking: An introduction (3rd ed.). New York: Houghton Mifflin Company. Arons, Stephen (1997). Short route to chaos: Conscience, community, and re constitution o f American schooling. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press. Augenblick, John, Fulton, Mary, & Pipho, Chris (1991). School finance: A primer. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States. Bass, Barnard M. (1960). Leadership, psychology, and organizational behavior. New York: Harper & Row. Bohte, John (2001, January/February). School bureaucracy and student performance and local level. Public Administration Review, 61 (1). 310 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Boyer, Ernest L. (1992). School choice in perspective, in Carnegie Fouttdation fo r Advancement o f Teaching, school choice. Unpublished report. Bridge, R., & Blackman, I. (1978). A study o f alternatives in American education, vol. 4: family choice in schooling. Prepared for the National Institute of Education. Santa Monica, CA: Rand. Bryson, John M. (1989). Strategic planning fo r public and nonprofit organizations: A guide to strengthening and sustaining organizational achievement. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Buchanan, James M. (1987). The constitution of economic policy (article based on his lecture delivered upon receiving the Nobel Prize in Economics). Science, 236, 1433-1436. Carlson, Robert V. (1996). Reframing and reform perspectives on organization, leadership, and school change. White Plains, NY: Longman Publishers. Chubb, John E., & Moe, Terry M. (1990). Politics, markets, and America’ s schools. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution. Clinchy, E. (1985). Let magnet schools guide the way to educational reform and diversity. American School Board Journal, 172 (5), 22-35. Clue, William H., & Witte, John F. (1990). Choice and control in American education (Vol. 1). London: Falmer Press. CNN Perspectives (2001, April 15). Vouchers in America: Our past, our selves, our future. Largo, MD: Videotape distribution provided by Federal Document Clearinghouse, Inc. Coleman, James S., Hoffer, Thomas, & Kilgore, Sally (1982). High school achievement: Public, Catholic and private high schools compared. New York: Basic Books. Congressional Quarterly (2001). School vouchers. CQ Reports, 9 (13). Congressional Research Service (2001). Issue brief fo r Congress. Edited by Wayne Riddle & James Stedman, Domestic Social Policy Division. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service. 311 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Cookson, Peter W., Jr. (1992). The choice controversy. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications, Ltd. Coons, J. (1991). As arrows in the hand. In W. Clune & J. Witte (Eds.), Choice and control in American Education. London: Falmer Press. Coons, John E., & Sugarman, Stephen D. (1971). Family choice in education: A model state system for vouchers. California Law Review, 59. Coons, J., & Sugarman, S. (1978). Education by choice: The case for family control Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Corporation for Public Broadcasting (2001, April). The story o f American education. Narrated by Meryl Streep. Televised version presented by PBS. Coser, Lewis A. (1956). The functions o f social conflict New York: The Free Press, a division of MacMillan Publishing Company, Inc. Coulson, Andrew J. (1999). Market education: The unknown history. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Dahl, Robert, & Lindblom, Charles (1992). Politics, economics and welfare. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Deal, T., & Nolan, R. (1978). Alternative schools. Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall. Denhardt, Robert B. (1993). Theories o f public organization. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company. Dewar, Helen (2001, December 19). Landmark education legislation gets final approval in Congress. The Washington Post. Djankov, Simeon Denchev (1999). When does privatization deliver: Evidence from Eastern Europe. UMI Dissertation Number 9929813. Doron, Gideon (1992, Autumn/Winter). Policy sciences . The state of the discipline. Policy Studies Review. Elam, Stanley M., & Gallup, Alec M. (1989). The 21s t annual poll o f the public's attitudes toward the public schools. Phi Delta Kappan report. 312 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Elmore, Richard F. (1986). Choice in public education. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation. Fantini, M. D. (1973). Public schools o f choice. New York: Simon and Schuster. Fink, Gary M. (1980). Prelude to the presidency. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Finn, Chester, & Ravitch, Diane (1995, September). Charter schools—Beware of imitations. The Wall Street Journal First, Michael W. (1970). The politics o f education and the local, state and federal levels. Berkeley, CA: McCurthan Publishing Corporation. Fletcher, Michael A. (2001, January 11). Education nominee sails through his Senate test. The Washington Post. Fletcher, Michael A., & Irwin, Neil (2001, August 16). Public reform, private windfall? Educational firms see opportunities in Bush schools plan. The Washington Post. Forstman, Ted (1998, September). Restoring equal opportunity: How competition can save American education. Children’ s Scholarship Fund. Friedman, Milton (1955). The role of government in education. In Robert A. Solo (Ed.), Economics and the public interest. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Revised as Friedman, Milton (1962). Capitalism and freedom. Chicago, E L : University of Chicago Press. Glatthom, Allan A. (1975). Alternatives in education: Schools and programs. San Francisco: Dodd, Mead & Company, Inc. Glazerman, Steven (1998). Determinants and consequences o f parental school choice. UMI Dissertation Number 9832143. Goglia, Antoinette (1997). Parental choice in public and private education: The effect o f magnet schools on local markets. UMI Dissertation Number 9809004. Golembiewski, Robert T. (1988). Men, management, and morality: Toward a new organizational ethic. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. 313 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Goodlad, 1.1. (1984). A place called school: Prospects fo r the future. New York: McGraw-Hill. Gromley, William T., Ir. (1997). Down from bureaucracy: The ambiguity of privatization and empowerment. The American Political Science Review. Guthrie, James W. (1997, Winter). School finance: Fifth years of expansion, the future of children. Financing Schools, 7 . Guthrie, James W., Garnis, Walter I , & Pierce Lawrence C. (1988). Schoolfinance and education policy: Enhancing educational efficiency, equality, and choice. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Hale, George E., & Pailey, Marian Lief (1983, July). The politics o f federal grants. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press. Handy, Charles (1995). The age o f paradox. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Hanrahan, John D. (1982). Government by contract. New York: W. W. Norton. Harmer, David (1994). School choice: Why you need it—how you get it. Washington, DC: CATO Institute. Harrington, Michael (1980). The crisis o f the American system: A decade o f decision. New York: Simon and Schuster. Hewlett, Michael, & Ramesh, M. (1998). Policy subsystem configurations and policy change: Operationalizing the postpositivist analysis of the politics of the policy process. Policy Studies Journal, 26 (3). Isaac, Stephen, & Michael, William B. (1995). Handbook in research and evaluation: A collection o f principles, methods, and strategies useful in the planning, design, and evaluation o f studies in education and the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). San Diego, CA: EDITS. Jacob, E. (1987). Qualitative research traditions: A review. Review o f Educational Leadership, 57 (11), 1-50. Jeffords, James (2001, September 13). Speech from gala 2001. Committee for Education Funding, The Hyatt Regency, Washington, DC. 314 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Jencks, C. (1970). Education vouchers: A report on financing education by payments parents. Cambridge, MA: Center for the Study of Public Policy. ________ (1970, July). Giving parents money for pay for schooling: Education vouchers. New Republic. Jennings, John F. (1995). National issues in education: Goals 2000 and school-to- work. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa International and Washington, DC: Institute for Educational Leadership. Johanek, Michael (1992). The choice controversy: Private citizenship and school choice. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press, Inc. Joyce, Philip G. (1993, Fall). The reiterative nature of budget reform: Is there anything new in federal budgeting? Public Budgeting and Finance. Katz, Michael B. (1968). The irony o f early school reform: Educational innovation in mid-nineteenth century. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Kaplan, Thomas J. (1986). The narrative structure o f policy analysis. Journal o f Policy Analysis and Management, 5 (4), 761-778. Kingdon, John W. (1995). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. New York: Harper Collins College Publishers. Koch, Kathy (1999, April 1). School vouchers. The CQ Researcher, 9 (13), 281- 304. Kolderie, Ted (1984). Two routes to the improvement o f education, part II. Minneapolis, MN: Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota. ________(1993, July). Governance issues in public education. A speech presented for the Minneapolis Federation of Teachers, Minneapolis, MN. Kozol, Jonathan (1991). Savage inequalities: Children in America’ s schools. New York: Crown Publishers. Kuhn, Thomas S. (1962, 1970). The structure o f scientific revolutions (2n d ed., enlarged). Chicago, E L : University of Chicago Press. 315 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Ladd, Helen F., & Hansen, Janet S. (Eds.) (1999). Making money matter: Financing America’ s schools. Washington, DC: National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences Press. Ladd, Helen F., Chalk, Rosemary, & Hansen, Janet S. (Eds.) (1999). Equity and adequacy in education finance: Issues and perspectives. Washington, DC: National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences Press. Levin, Henry M. (1968, June). The failure of the public schools and the free market remedy. Urban Review. Lewis, Verne B. (1998, Spring). Reflections on budget systems. Public Budgeting and Finance. Lieberman, Myron (1989). Privatization and educational choice. New York: St. Martin’s Press, Inc. ______(1990). Public school choice: Current issues/future prospects. Lancaster, PA: Technomic Publishing Company, Inc. Lines, Patricia M. (1985). Compulsory education laws and their impact on public and private education. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States. Lynch, Thomas D. (1990). Public budgeting in America (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Lynn, Laurence E., Jr. (1980. Designing public policy: A casebook on the role o f policy analysis. Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear Publishing Company, Inc. Lynn, Naomi B., & Wildavsky, Aaron (1990). Public administration: The state o f the discipline. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House Publishers, Inc. MacManus, Susan A., Turner, Patricia A., & Chihak, Lesa M. (1993, September/October). Litigation as a budgetary constraint: Problem areas and costs. Public Administration Review. Maddaus, J. (1990). Parental choice of schools: What parents think and do. Review o f Research in Education, 16, 267-295. Maddaus, J., Marochnik, D., & Marochnik, Marion S. (1992). School test scores as a factor in parental choice o f school. Paper presented in the national meeting o f the American Educational Research Association. 316 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Madison, James (1953). Memorial and remonstrance against religions assessments. Reprinted in Saul K. Padover (Ed.), The complete Madison. New York: Harper Collins. Manheim, Jarol B., & Rich, Richard C. (1991). Empirical political analysis (3rd ed.). White Plaines, NY: Longman Publishing Group. March, James G., & Olsen, Johan P. (1983). Organizing political life: What administrative reorganization tells us about government. American Political Science Review, 77. Massachusetts Department of Education (1991, February). School choice: Doing it right. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Masters, Roger D. (1968). The political philosophy o f Rousseau. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Mazzoni, Tim L. (1989). The politics o f educational choice in Minnesota. Edited by William L. Boyd & Charles T. Kerchner. New York: Flamer Press. Mihm, J. Christopher (1995-1996, Winter). GPRA and the new dialogue. The Public Manager. Mills C. Wright (1959). The sociological imagination. New York: Oxford University Press. Molnar, Alex (1996). Giving kids the business: The commercialization o f America’ s schools. Dunmore, PA: Westview Press. ________(1996, October). Charter schools: The smiling face of disinvestment. Educational Leadership, 54 (2), 9-15. ________(1998). Smaller classes, not vouchers, increase student achievement. Milwaukee, WI: Keystone Research Center. Monahan, Wiliam G. (1975). Theoretical dimensions o f educational administration. New York: MacMillan Publishing Company. Moody, Paul E. (1983). Decision making: Proven methods fo r better decisions. New York McGraw-Hill Book Company. 317 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Morkee, Hubert, & Formicola, Jo Renee (1999). The politics o f school choice. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Morrison, James L., & Renfro, William L. (1983). Applying methods and techniques o f future research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc. Nathan, J. (1991). Free to teach: Achieving equity and excellence in schools. New York: Pilgrim Press. ______ (1996). Charter schools: Creating hope and opportunity fo r American education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. A Nation at Risk (1983). The imperative fo r educational excellence. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. National Center for Education Statistics (1997-1999). Selected papers in school finance. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Olson, L. (1991). Proposals for private school choice reviving at all levels of government. Education week, 1-10. Oplinger, Doug, & Willard, Dennis J. (1999, March 27). Vouchers costing Ohio. Akron Beacon Journal. Ostrom, Elinor (1998, March). A behavioral approach to the rational choice theory of collective action. Presidential address, American Political Science Association. American Political Science Review, 92 (1). O’Sullivan, Elizabethan, & Rassel, Gary R. (1995). Research methods fo r public administrators (2n d ed.). New York: Longman Publishers. Paris, David C. (1995). Ideology and educational reform: Themes and theories in public education. San Francisco, CA: Westview Press. Parry, Rounds Taryn (1997, December). Theory meets reality in the education voucher debate: Some evidence from Chile. Education Economics. Paulston, Rolland G. (1976). Conflicting theories o f social and educational change: Topological review. Pittsburgh, PA: University Center for International Studies Publications. 318 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Pearson, Judith (1993). Myths o f educational choice, Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers. Peterson, P. E. (1990). Monopoly and competition in American education. In W. H. Clune & F. F. Witte (Eds.), Choice and control in American Education (Vol. 1, pp. 47-78). New York: Palmer Press. Piamenatz, John (1970). Ideology. New York: Praeger Publishers. Rabin, Jack W., Hildreth, Bartley, & Miller, Gerald J. (Eds.) (1988). Handbook o f public administration. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc. Radin, Beryl A., & Hailey, Willis D. (1988). The politics o f federal reorganization: Creating the U.S. Department o f Education. Exeter, Great Britain: A. Wheaton & Company, Ltd. Ray, Brian D. (1986). A comparison o f home schooling and conventional schooling: With a focus on learner outcomes. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Department of Science, Mathematics and Computer Education. Raywid, Mary Ann (1987, April). Public choice, yes; Vouchers, no! Phi Delta Kappan, 68 (10), 762-769. ________ (1989). The mounting case fo r schools o f choice, in Public Schools by Choice. Edited by Joe Nathan. St. Paul, MN: Institute for Teaching and Learning. Richmond, Nancy G. (1999). Parental choice in selection o f a charter school in New Jersey. UMI Dissertation Number 9920493. Riddle, Wayne, & Stedman, James (2001, January 11). School choice: Current legislation. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service. Roberts, J. (1990, March 31). Colorado lawmakers again kill schools-of-choice. The Denver Post, p. 2A. Rofes, Eric Edward (1999). What are the effects o f charter laws and charter schools on school districts? UMI Dissertation Number 9925292. Rouse, Cecilia E. (1997). Private school vouchers and student achievement: An evaluation o f the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 319 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Rufo-Lignos, Patricia Marie (1999). Toward a new topology o f public and private schools. UMI Dissertation Number 9939549. Samuelson, Paul A. (1980). Economics (11* ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Savas, E. S. (1982). Privatizing the public sector: How to shrink government. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House. ________ (1987). Privatization: The key to better government. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House. Schick, Allen (1995). The federal budget: Politics, policy, and process. Washington, DC . The Brookings Institution. Schmidt, P. (1991, February 6). Detroit may ask private schools to join system. Education Week, 1-15. Simon, Herbert A. (1977). The new science o f management decision (rev. Ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Smith, Kevin B., & Meier, Kenneth J. (1995), The cade against school choice: Politics, markets, and fools. Portland, OR. Book News. Tucker, Harvey J., & Zeigler, L. Harmon (1980). Professionals versus the public: Attitudes, communication, and response in school districts. New York: Longman, Inc. Tyack, David, James, Thomas, & Benavot, Aaron (1987). Law and the shaping o f public education, 1785-1954. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press. U.S. Department of Education (2001). Fiscal year 2001 budget summary. Washington, DC: Department of Education. U.S. Office of Management and Budget and General Services Administration (1979, 1980, 1998). Catalog o f federal domestic assistance. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Viteritti, Joseph P. (1999). Choosing equality: School choice, the Constitution, and civil society. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution Press. Waldo, Dwight (1992). The enterprise o f public administration, Navato, CA: Chandler & Sharp Publishers, Inc. 320 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Webster’ s international CD encyclopedia (1999). San Francisco, CA: Netertainment Group, Inc. Weimer, David L, & Vining, Aidan R. (1992). Policy analysis: Concepts and practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Wertheim, Sally H. (1973). Alternative schools in greater Cleveland. Cleveland, OH: Jennings Foundation. West, E. G. (1989, Spring/Summer). Open enrollment: A vehicle for market competition in schooling? CATO Journal. _______ (1994). Education and the state: A study in political economy (3rd ed.). Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund. _ _ _ _ _ (1997, February). Education vouchers in principle and practice: A survey. The World Bank Research Observer. Wingert, Pat, & Kantrowitz, Barbara (2001, February 5). Putting poor kids first. Newsweek, p. 26. Witte, John F. (1984). The politics and development o f the federal income tax. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press. Witte, J. F., Sterr, F., & Thorn, C. A. (1994). Fourth-year report: Milwaukee parental choice program. Report to the Wisconsin State Legislature, Madison, WI. Witte, J. F., Sterr, F., & Thom, C. A. (1995). Fifth-year report: Milwaukee choice report. In Making money matter: Financing America’ s schools. Washington, DC: National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences Press. Young, Timothy W., & Clinchy, Evans (1992). Choice in public education. New York: Teachers College Press. Zey, Mary (1992). Decisionmaking: Alternatives to rational choice models. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications. 321 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Internet References American Federation of Teachers (1998, December). What kind o f accountability would the public expect under a voucher program? Available: http://www.aft.org/accountability.htm. _ _ _ _ _ _ (2001, December 11). AFT is optimistic about wide-ranging education bill. Available: http://www.aft.org/ppress/2001/121201.btml. _______ (2001). Vouchers and the accountability dilemma. Available: http://www. aft. org/vouchers/dilemma/page 1. htm. Baker, Amy, & Laura Soden (1998, April). The challenges o f parent involvement research. ERIC/CUE Digest No. 134. Available: http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed419030.html. Battle, Phil (2001). Elements o f community strength. Available, http ://www. sen. org/cmp/empo. htm. Black Alliance for Educational Options (2000, October). The truth about school vouchers: Vouchers save money. Available: http ://www. schoolchoiceinfo. org. Bolender, Merla (2001). A study o f the evolving image o f a new school within the context o f school effectiveness. SSTA Research Centre Report #97-08. Available: http://www. ssta.sk. ca/research/school_improvement/97-Q8. htm. Brownell, Mary (1997, August). Coping with stress in the special education classroom: Can individual teachers more effectively manage stress? ERIC Digest #E545. Available: http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed414659.html. Center for Education Reform (2000, 13 January). Answers to frequently asked questions about school choice. Available: http:edreform.com/school_reform_faq/school_choice.htm. Chase, Bob (2001, December 21). Education bill: Right goals, wrong means. Available: http://www.nea.org. Coulson, Andrew J. (1998). Why we should consider alternatives to government schooling. Available: www. schoolchoices. org. 322 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Darling-Hammond, Linda, & Ascher, Carol (1991, April). Accountability mechanisms in big city school systems. ERIC/CUE Digest No. 71. Available: http ://www. ed/gpvdatabasesERIC_Digests/ed334311 .html. Department of Education (1998, November 19). Guidance on standards, assessments, and accountability. Available: http://www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/StandardsAssessment/acct.html. Department of Education (2001). No child left behind: Achieving equality through high standards and accountability. Available: http://www.ed.gov/inits/nclb/part3.html. Education Week (2001, August 7). Privatization o f public education. Available: http://www.edweek.org/context/topics/issuespage.cfin. Education Week (2001, August 7). School-based management. Available: http://www.edweek.org/context/topics/issuespage.diii. ERIC Database, EJ422288 (1991, February). Harris J., Ill, and Others. What should our public choose? The debate over school choice policy. Education and Urban Society Web Site: http://ericir.syr.edu. , EI537005 (1994, Summer-Fall). Hilton, James J. Local autonomy, educational equity, and school choice: Constitutional criticism o f school reform. New England Journal of Public Policy Web Site: http://ericir.syr.edu. , EJ516013 (1995, December). Smith, Kevin B,, & Meier, Kenneth. School choice: Panacea or pandora ’ $ box? Phi Delta Kappa Web Site: http ://ericir. syr. edu. ________, ED460198 (2001, December 5). Reid, Karla Scoon, & Johnson, Robert C. Public debates, private choices. Education Week Web Site: http://ericir. syr.edu. Feldman, Sandra (2001, December 18). Statement on final passage o f the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Available: http://www. aft. org/press/2001/121801 .html. Glass, Sandra Rubin (1997, January 6). Education policy analysis archives: markets and myths— autonomy in public and private school. Available: http ://oiam. ed. asu.edu/epaa/v5nl. html. 323 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Healy, Tim (2000). Paradigms. Santa Clara University Web Site: http://www.ee.scu.edu/eefac/healy/keliii.html. Heritage Foundation (2000). A school choice glossary o f terms. Available: http: //heritage, org/ schools/glossary .html. Heyneman, Stephen P. (1998, September). A Defense from the Outside: U.S. schools command the world’ s envy fo r forging common bonds, while falling short in fostering in children a sense o f due respect. American Association of School Administrators’ Web Site: http://www.aasa.org/publications/sa/1998_09/Heyneman.htm. Krajewski, Bob, & Malkin, Melva (2001, September). Community empowerment: Building a shared vision. National Association of Elementary School Principals’ Web Site: http://www.naesp.org/comm/pl 196a.htm. Kristol, Irving (1996). Keeping up with ourselves. Available: http://www.english.upenn.edu. Lashway, Larry (1996, July). The limits o f shared decision-making. ERIC Digest, Number 108. Available: http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed397467.html. Linn, Robert L. (2000, December). Assessments and accountability. ERIC/AE Digest. Available: http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed447220.html. LittlecMld, S. C. (2001). Buchanan and shackle on cost, choice and subjective economics. Available: http://www.gmu.edu/jbc/fest/files/littlechild.htm. Lye, John (1997). Ideology: A brief guide. Available: http ://www.brocku. ca/english/jlye/ideology.html. Machan, Tibor R. (2001). The normative basis o f economic science. Available: http ://www. gmu. edu/jbc/festoid/files/ machan. htm. Mosaica Education (2001, September). Paradox: Galvanizing public education. Available: http://www.mosaicaeducation.com/paradox.html. National Center for Education Statistics (1999). Homeschooling in the United States: 1999. Available: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/quarterly/fall/q3-2.asp. 324 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. National Education Association (1999, April). School vouchers: The emerging track record. Available: http://www.nea.org/issues/vouchers/voutrak.html. (2001). Accountability and school reform. Available: http ://www. nea. org/publiced/standards/ccount. html. National Research Council (2001). National academics, behavioral and social science, national academy press. Available: http://www.nae.edu/. Rees, Nina Shokraii (2001). School choice 2000 annual report. Heritage Foundation Web Site: http ://www.hertiage.org/schools/2000/intro.html. Reich, Robert B. (2000, September). The Wall Street Journal article on Education reform, reprinted by the Institute for the Transformation of Learning, Marquette University. Available: http: //www. schoolchoiceinfo. org. Riley, JimL. (2001). Introduction to political ideologies: Why study political ideologies? Available: http://members.iex.net/jriley/introide.htm. Riley, Richard W. (1999, February 16). New challenges, a new resolve: Moving American education into the 21s t century. Available: http://www.ed.gov/Speeches/02-1999/990216.html. Rousseau, lean Jacques (1755). A discourse on political economy. Available: http://www. constitution, org/jjr/polecon.htm. United States Department of Education (1997, September 23). Public schools, democracy andfree enterprise. Available: http://www.ed.gov/Speeches/09- 1997/part 1.html. 325 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. APPENDICES 326 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. APPENDIX I CBS REPORT FOR CONGRESS R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Order Code RL30805 CRS Report for Congress R e c e iv e d th ro u g h th e C R S W e b School Choice: Legislative Action by the 104t h Through 106t h Congresses January 17, 2001 James B. Stedman Specialist in Social Legislation and Wayne C. Riddle Specialist in Education Finance Domestic Social Policy Division C ongressional R esearch S ervice ♦ The Library o f C ongress 328 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Contents Introduction................................................................................................ 1 Background................................................................................................ 1 Overview of Legislative Proposals................................................................ 3 Choice Options in Ecrdng Programs....................................................3 Demonstration or Targeted Choice Programs........................... 4 Block Grants...................................... 4 Tax Benefits................ 4 Action by the 106* Congress.........................................................................5 P.L 106-554 (H.R 45"), Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001 ... 5 P.L. 106-113 (H.R. 3194), Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2003 .. 5 H.R 4141, the Educaron Opportunities to Protect and Invest in Our Nation’s Students (Education OPTIONS) A c t.......................5 S. 2, the Educational Opportunities A c t ............................................. 5 H.R 2, the Student Results A c t ......................................................... 6 S. 625, Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1999/ S. 3046, Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2300 .......................................................................7 Education Individual Retirement Accounts/Education Savings Accounts, H.R". S. 1134 and H.R. 2488 ....................................7 Action by the 105* Congress...................................................................... 8 P.L. 105-278 (H.R. 2616), the Charter School Expansion Act of 1998 ................................................................................................8 P.L. 105-34 (H.R 2014), the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 199” . . . 8 H.R. 4380, FY1999 District of Columbia Appropriations Act/ S. 1502, District of Columbia Student Opportunity Scholarship Act of 1998/P.L. 105-100 (H.R. 2607), District of Columbia Appropriations, Medical Liability Reform, and Education Reform Act of 1998 .................................................... 8 H.R. 2646, the Educadon Savings and School Excellence Act of 1998 ............................................................................................9 H.R. 2746, Helping Empower Low-Income Parents (HELP) Scholarship Amendments of 1997 ................................................ 9 S. 1415, National Tobacco Policy and Youth Smoking Reduction A ct.............................................................. 10 Action by the 104* Congress...................................................................... 10 H.R. 2546, FY1996 Appropriations for the District of Columbia P.L. 104-134 (HJL 3019), FY1996 Omnibus Appropriations .. 10 329 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Introduction The U.S. Congress has frequently considered and, at times, acted on proposals to provide federal support for school choice. School choice proposals axe intended to give parents greater options in choosing the elementaxy and secondary schools in which they enroll their children. These proposals have proven to be controversial at the federal and other levels, especially when the options they would support encompass private, religiously affiliated K-12 schools. Debate over these proposals has centered on such issues as whether they would improve education, not only for the students exercising the choice, but also for students who do not, and whether the participation of sectarian schools would violate the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.1 The present report provides an overview of the school choice legislation acted on by the 104* Congress (1995 and 1996), 105* Congress (1997 and 1998), and the 106* Congress (1999 and 2000). This review is not intended to be comprehensive; rather, it focuses on the major proposals receiving congressional action in those three Congresses.2 This is a background document and will not be updated. In the sections below, this report provides a brief overview of school choice programs currently in operation at the local, state, and federal levels. It also considers a range of potential proposals for federal support Finally, the report concludes with sections reviewing the school choice legislation acted on by the 106* Congress back through the 104* Congress. Background Extant school choice programs have many different features. States and localities currently support school choice in roughly four broad configurations: 1 CRS Report RL30165, Education Vouchers: Constitutional Issues and Cases, by David M . A ckerm an. 2 The focus is on legislation that was the object of congressional action beyond the initial act of introduction and referral to com m ittee. As a result, legislative options that were the subject of introduced bills that received no further action are not generally considered in this report, no m atter how many relevant proposals there w ere. 330 R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. CRS-2 • intradistrict public choice i srjdents may choose among some or all public schools in a district).: • interdistrict public choice i students may choose public schools in different districts), • charter schools (public schools operating under charters granting them statutory and regulamry flexibility in exchange for outcome accountability; frequently, by law, they are schools in which students voluntarily choose to email),* and • private school choice (students are given the publicly funded option of enrolling in private schools)5 — often referred to as voucher programs.6 Among other kinds ofnon-fedcral choice efforts are privately financed programs. These have been established in a number of localities by private groups to heb pay tuition and related costs of private elementary and secondary school attendance for pupils from low-income families. The federal government currently provides relatively limited support for public school choice efforts through several statutory authorities. Among them are the following; • Magnet Schools Assistance program, authorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA, Title V, Part A) supports magnet schools in LEAs that are implementing school desegregation plans. • The education for the disadvantaged program under ESEA Title I addresses school choice in several ways, such as authorizing a waiver allowing schools with 25% low-income enrollment to participate in Title I if they are involved in desegregation programs under which students change schools (otherwise, the threshold is typically at least 35% in the affected LEAs), and permitting local educational agencies (LEAs) to use Title I funding to establish choice programs involving public schools with Tide I programs. FY2000 and FY2001 1 O ne of the key examples of the first kind of choice noted above (intradistrict choice) are m agnet schools, designed to promote voluntary school desegregation by providing schools with features that voluntarily attract a desegregated student enrollm ent. * As of this writing, 38 states have charter school laws and nearly 1,700 charter schools are in operation 5 Few states and localities support this last option — at the tim e of this report, the prim ary examples included a statewide Honda program, and program s in Cleveland, O hio, and M ilwaukee, W isconsin. A federal coot of appeals recently found the Cleveland program to be unconstitutional. In addition, a few states provide credits or deductions on state income taxes for expenses related to K-12 enrollment, including enrollm ent in private schools. 6 In this report, the term voucher program is used to describe school choice programs in which public funds are used to pay for tuition and fees associated with enrollm ent in private schools. If those program s use terminology other than voucher to describe the mechanism for financing the choice option, such as certificate or scholarship, those latter term s are also used in the descriptions below. 331 R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. CRS-3 appropriations language generally [ requires LEAs a offer public school choice options to pupils attending public schools determined to be in seed of improvement under the accountability provisions of ESEA Trie I, Part A. Under the FY2001 appropriations language, this provision does not apply to LEAs in states receiving the minimum grant provided to small states. • Public Charter Schools program (ESEA Title X, Part C) provides federal assistance for implementation of state charter school programs. * Overview of Legislative Proposals The range of school choice proposals that the U.S. Congress might consider is broad. Some of the major kinds of initiatives are reviewed briefly in tins section, particularly those that came before the K M " 1 through 106® Congresses. In addition, this section provides an analysis of whether and how the kinds of proposals that received action changed over this period. School choice legislation can be clustered into at least four basic groups — choice options in existing programs, demonstration or targeted choice programs, block grants, and tax benefits. These are not mutually exclusive. Each of these is reviewed below. Early in the time period under analysis, choice proposals before the Congress more frequently- contained demonstration or targeted choice programs, particularly voucher propcsals for the District o f Columbia (D.C.). This shifted later in the period, as choice proposals often called for amending existing programs, especially ESEA Title I, to increase choice options, and for expanding tax benefits for savings associated with private school enrollment Choice Options in Existing Programs. Advocates of school choice may seek to amend existing federal education programs in various ways, such as removing possible program barriers to choice, adding school choice to authorized uses of funds, expanding current choice provisions, or reconstituting programs to focus them on choice. They may also consider appropriations language directing how program funds may be spent The primary examples in this category that were acted on during this period, and in particular by the 105® and 106* Congresses, involved ESEA Title I. As noted above, Title I has certain choice-related provisions. These proposals have sought, among other things, to authorize or require school choice under Title I for special groups of students or schools, such as for victims of violence on school grounds or for students enrolled in poorly performing schools. Each of these Congresses acted on proposals of this nature. Choice amendments to Title I also endeavored to include private school enrollment among its choice options. Among the most expansive Title I proposals have been those in the 106* Congress that would convert Title I grants into vouchers or make them “portable” so they would follow eligible children into whatever schools they chose to enroll. 332 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Demonstration or Targeted Choice Programs. Federal support for schorl choice might be fashioned to demonstrm; the impact of school choice in a discrete number of locations (e.g., specific cities or a limited number of places around the county, such as empowerment zones) or :o target choice in a similarly limited fashim to particular kinds of students (e.g., low-income) or to include particular kinds :: schools (e.g., those with low student test scores). There was action on this kind of proposal in each of the Congresses under review here. Both the 104* and 105* Congresses extensively debated, but failed enact, proposals to establish a public and private school choice program in ±e Washington, D.C.; the 106* Congress did not return to similar proposals. All three Congresses sought to expand choice options for special groups of students (e.g., low- income students, victims o f violence on school grounds) or students in specific kinds of schools (e.g., schools characterized by poor levels of academic performance). As noted above, some of these proposals were in the context of amendments to ESEa. Title I. Block Grants. Block grants are federal grants to states that provide a him degree of flexibility in the ways in which aid may be used, perhaps coupled with mere specific requirements for accountability in terms of outcomes. They are frequency proposed as the outcome for a consolidation of several existing federal educarim programs. Under a block grant, school choice might be an explicitly authorized usr. a required use (peihaps of some specified portion of funding), or a precondition frt participation (Le., federal funds are available only to those implementing choice plans). Among the options considered by these Congresses was the consolidation :f several federal education programs into a single source of assistance that could be used more broadly and more flexibly than the assistance that might be provided under the individual antecedent programs. At times, choice programs have been expliciiv included among the authorized uses offends under these block grant proposals or me authorities are sufficiently open for choice to be supported without explicit mention. Tax Benefits. Advocates of federal support for school choice may turn to tie federal income tax system in order to provide tax benefits — deductions, credits, :r exemptions from taxation of certain income — for families paying tuition or relared costs for K-12 education. During the 1995-2000 period, the Congress considered amending the federal income tax code to provide support for K-12 choice.’ Both the 105* and 10P Congresses moved but failed to enact legislation to provide tax benefits for families saving for K-12 expenses, including those at private sectarian schools. The specific target of this action — the Education Individual Retirement Account (IRA) — was first enacted by die 105* Congress. 7 In each of these Congresses, bills were introduced that would have provided federal incoce tax credits for am ounts spent by families for elem entary and secondary education. They w ere not acted on. o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. CRS-5 Action by the 106* Congress The 106t h Congress considered numerous proposals to increase federal support of school choice, many in the context of legislation to reatnfcorize the ESEA. However, with the exception of provisions in FY2000 and FY2001 appropriations legislation (see below;, none of these was enacted. Proposals on which formal legislative action occurred are described below, those enacted into law are described first. P.L 106-554 (HJR. 4577), Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001. The legislation requires LEAs to offer public choice options to pupils attending at least some public schools determined to be in need of improvement under the accountability provisions ofESEA Title I, Part A. They have the option to enroll in different public schools within the same LEA (unless it is not possible, consistent with state and local law, to offer such choice options to all eligible pupils). This provision does not apply to LEAs in states receiving the minimum grants provided to small states. The legislation also authorizes and funds a program to demonstrate ways of leveraging financing for charter school facilities. P.L. 106-113 (HJL 3194), Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2000. This legislation included provisions regarding public choice similar to those enacted in the FY20Q1 appropriations legislation (see above). The small state provision was not part ofthe FY2000 language. P.L. 106-113 also repealed, effective at the end ofFY20Q0, ' die state grant program under Title m ofthe Goals 2000: Educate America Act The state grant program supported, in part, public school choice. ELR. 4141, the Education Opportunities to Protect and Invest in Our Nation’s Students (Education OPTIONS) Act. As reported by the House Education and the Workforce Committee, on May 4,2000, H.R. 4141 included the following choice provisions: (a) states and LEAs would have been authorized to use ESEA Title VI (Block Grant) and ESEA Title X-A (Fund for the Improvement of Education) funds for public school choice activities, as well as use ESEA Title IV (Drug and Violence Prevention and Education) funds for transportation and other costs for pupils who transfer from an unsafe public school to another public school in the same state; and (b) with regard to charter schools, the Public Charter Schools program would have been amended so that charter schools aided under this program would be allowed to select pupils through a “nondiscriminatory manner consistent with state law” (not just through a “lottery”), and ESEA Title VI funds could have been newly used for charter school start-up costs. S. 2, the Educational Opportunities Act. On April 12, the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions reported S. 2, a comprehensive ESEA reauthorization bifl. The bill was debated briefly on the Senate floor. S. 2 provisions related to school choice are briefly described below. ESEA Title I, Part A. As under H.R. 2 (see below), LEAs would have been required to offer public school choice options to pupils attending Title I schools identified as needing improvement or corrective action, as well as schools where violence has occurred. In addition, up to 10 states, as well as up to an additional 20 LEAs in other states, would have been authorized to provide Title I aid to pupils in 334 R eproduced with perm ission o fth e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. CRS-6 the form of portable grants. Under this opdbn, Title I funds received by a state or LEA, including additional incentive grants, would have been distributed on a per pupil basis. Parents of eligible pupils could have used them to procure supplementary educational services at a public school or a tutorial services provider.’ Magnet Schools. S. 2 would have contutued and amended the Magnet Schools Program, authorizing funds for capacity building, such as professional development, and providing greater flexibility to serve sntdents in a school who are not in the magnet program in that school. Optional Performance Agreement/Grant Consolidation Proposals and School Choice. S. 2 contained two versions — and R R . 2300, as passed by the House, contained one version — of a proposal allowing states or LEAs to choose to administer one or more specified federal education programs under a performance agreement, whereby most of the statutory and regulatory program requirements would not apply. Federal funds under these agreements could have been used for a wide variety of educational purposes, presumably including support for public school choice programs. Debate over these proposals focused at times on the possibility that participating states or LEAs might have used these funds to support vouchers or aid involving private (including religiously-affiliated) schools. There is substantial ambiguity regarding this question, though it seems much less likely that federal funds could have been used for private school vouchers under the Education Performance Partnership and Academic Achievement for All provisions of S. 2 (as the latter was amended in Senate floor debate) than under the Academic Achievement for Alt provisions of H.R. 2300. H.R. 2, the Student Results A ct On October 21,1999, the House passed H.R. 2, the Student Results Act. Among other provisions, H.R. 2 would have expanded current authority to use Title I funds for public school choice programs, and required LEAs to offer public school choice options, consistent with state and local law, policy, and practice, to pupils attending schools in need of improvement, or designated unsafe schools (victims ofviolem criminal offenses on school grounds also would have a choice option). The school safety elements in the Title I language were added on the floor by amendment H.R. 2 would also have amended and extended the Magnet Schools program, and included a new competitive grant program for innovative approaches to public school choice. Choice Amendments Considered on House Floor. During floor consideration of H.R 2 on October 21, 1999, the House considered three choice-related * Proposals to convert Title I funding into p o r t a b l e g r a n t s would require reconsideration o f many aspects of Title 1 as it currently operates, such as pupil eligibility criteria or requirem ents for participating schools. W hile funds are allocated on the basis of num bers of poor children under the current program , Title 1 is now structured as a s c h o o l a id program , focused on serving concentrations of disadvantaged pupils, not an i n d i v i d u a l p u p il aid program . However, p o r t a b l e g r a n t concepts might be more com patible than the current program structure with such trends as the increasing number of disadvantaged pupils attending charter schools or other schools of choice. For further inform ation on these proposals, see CRS R eport RL3Q372, E S E A T i t l e I " P o r t a b l e G r a n t " P r o p o s a l s : B a c k g r o u n d a n d I s s u e s , by Wayne Riddle. 335 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. CRS-7 amendments. The House debated but rejected an amendment requiring LEAs to allow eligible Title I students who are victims of school violence to attend any public or private school in their stare and permitting LEAs to provide these same choices to eligible students who are attending “unsafe” public schools. This amendment would have authorized a new program of funding to states to support public or private school vouchers to parens of students attending “academic emergency schools,” public elementary schools consistently failing to meet minimum stare standards and with a student body more than half of which is eligible for free or reduced priced school lunches. Another amendment was considered, but did not pass, which would have authorized the provision of Title 1 services in the form ofportable grants that might be used by the parents or guardians of eligible children in up to 10 states in order to obtain supplementary services at any public school chosen, or to help pay the costs of attending private schools or for commercial or other tutorial services. As noted above, an amendment was adopted to extend Title I public school options to students who attend designated unsafe schools or who are victims of violent crimes on school grounds. S. 625, Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1999/ S. 3046, Bankruptcy Reform Act of2000. S. 625, as amended on the Senate floor on November 10,1999, would have authorized the use of ESEA Title I funds to pay for eligible pupils who are victims of violent crime on school grounds to attend an alternative public school or a private school. This bill, including this provision, was later incorporated into H.R. 833, as passed by the Senate February 2 ,2000. S. 3046 was introduced on September 14, 2000 and placed on the Senate calendar on September 15, 2000. It included the ESEA Title I choice provision regarding school violence. None of these bills was enacted. Education Individual Retirement Accounts/Education Savings Accounts, HJR. 7, S. 1134 and HJfL 2488. H.R. 7 (as reported by the House Committee on Ways and Means on March 24,2000), S. 1134 (as passed by the Senate on March 2, 2000), and H.R. 2488 (vetoed by the President on September 23,1999), would each have expanded a current authority for Education Individual Retirement Accounts. They would have increased the level of tax-advantaged savings which may be deposited in these accounts from $500 to $2,000 per year, and allowed the proceeds to be used to pay the coss of public or private elementary and secondary education, in addition to postsecondary education. For further information on these proposals, see CRS Report RS20289, Education Savings Accounts for Elementary and Secondary Education. In addition, during Senate floor consideration of S. 1429 (companion legislation to H.R. 2488) on July 28, 1999, the Senate debated an amendment to establish a program of scholarships of S2,000 per year for pupils from low-income families who attend public schools with low achievement levels. The scholarships could have been used to pay the costs of private school tuition, transportation, educational programs at public schools, or supplemental academic services. The amendment was ultimately ruled out of order. 336 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. CRS-8 Action by the 105th Congress j Proposals on which formal legislative actite occurred are described below; those enacted into law are described first. PX. 105-278 (BLR, 2616), the Charter School Expansion Act ofl998. This legislation was passed by the Senate on October 8, 1998, and by the House on October 10,1998, and was signed into law on October 22,1998. It revised the Public Charter Schools statute to increase its authorization to $100 million for FY1999. The Act established priority for grants to states than (1) provide charter schools with financial autonomy; (2) have increased their number of charter schools; (3) either authorize multiple agencies to grant charters or allow charter applicants to appeal rejections oftheir applications; and (4) periodicity review the performance of charter schools. P.L. 105-278 also expanded technical assistance to charter schools, especially regarding their eligibility for federal a rd programs, and attempted to ensure that charter schools receive the federal aid for which they are eligible from the first year of their operation. PJL 105-34 (HJL 2014), the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1997. The Senate-passed version of this legislation would have allowed withdrawals from tax- advantaged education savings accounts (Education Individual Retirement Accounts) to be used for public and private elementary and secondary, as well as postsecondary education expenses. It was an amendment adopted on the Senate floor (amendment to S. 949, Senate-version of the legislation, adopted June 27,1997) that provided for the inclusion of elementary and secondary expenses. The elementary and secondary portion of this authorization was dropped in conference and, therefore, not included in the enacted version. HJL 4380, FY1999 District of Columbia Appropriations Act/S. 1502, District of Columbia Student Opportunity Scholarship Act of1998/P.L. 105-100 (HJL 2607), District of Columbia Appropriations, Medical Liability Reform, and Education Reform Act of 1998. Proposals to authorize private school tuition scholarships for pupils from low-income families in the District of Columbia were considered on several occasions during the 105* Congress. Several essentially similar proposals were debated in the context of annual D.C. appropriations legislation, or as separate bills. On October 9,1997, the House passed HJL 2607, FY 1998 D.C. appropriations, with such scholarship provisions; these provisions were not included in the conference version of the legislation which was signed into law as P.L. 105-100. Free-standing D.C. scholarship legislation, S. 1502, was passed by both the House and Senate, but was vetoed by the President on May 20,1998. On August 7, 1998, the House passed HJL 4380, which incorporated similar provisions in Title II: District of Columbia Student Opportunity Scholarships. These provisions were added in a floor amendment agreed to on August 6,1998. There was no further action on this bill, and no privatE school scholarship provisions were included in final FY1999 D.C. appropriations legislation (P.L. 105-277, H.R. 4328). 337 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. CRS-9 The bills on which there was action would have authorized scholarships for District of Columbia resident students in grades K-12 from low-income families to attend public or private schools in the District or nearby suburbs, or to pay the costs of supplementary academic programs outside regular school hours for students attending District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS). The program would have been administered by a non-governmental District of Columbia Scholarship Corporation. The proposal placed an emphasis at first on pupils who were attending public schools in D.C., but pupils already in private school might have received scholarships as well. If funds were insufficient to provide scholarships to all eligible applicants, recipients would have been selected by lottery. There would have been two types of scholarships: (a) “tuition scholarships” to pay the costs of tuition and fees at a public or private school in D.C. or the inner ring of suburban jurisdictions; and (b) “enhanced achievement scholarshqjs” to pay the costs of tuition, fees, and transportation for programs of instruction outside ofregular school hours to supplement me regular school program. Limits tied to family income were placed on the dollar amount of these scholarships. For families below the poverty level, the tuition scholarships could not exceed S3,200; for families with incomes between 100% and 185% of poverty, the cap was $2,400. For families below 185% of poverty, the enhanced achievement scholarships could not exceed $500. Students whose family income exceeded 185% of poverty could receive neither scholarship. Certification of eligibility of a school’s students for either tuition or enhanced achievement scholarships could be revoked for “good cause,” or if 25% or more of the scholarship recipients at the school M ed to “make appropriate progress.” Participating institutions could not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or sex, although schools might operate single-sex classes or institutions. Participating religiously-affiliated schools might give preference to members of a specific religion in admissions or employment; scholarship funds could be used for sectarian purposes by such schools. Student rights and obligations of the DCPS under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act would be continued. HJL 2646, the Education Savings and School Excellence Act of1998. This legislation would have expanded the P.L. 105-34 authorization for Education Individual Retirement Accounts to provide tax benefits for withdrawals used to pay qualified public and private elementary and secondary education expenses, and also would have increased the allowable annual contribution to the accounts from $500 to $2,000. This legislation was passed by the House on October 23, 1997. The Senate adopted a revised version of this bin, including several provisions in addition to the education savings account language, on April 23,1998. The conference version 'w as passed by the House on June 18,1998 and by the Senate on June 24,1998. The bill was vetoed by the President on July 21,1998. HJL 2746, Helping Empower Low-income Parents (HELP) Scholarship Amendments of 1997. On November 4,1997, the House debated and voted down legislation that would have amended ESEA Title VI (Innovative Education Program Strategies) to allow SEAs and LEAs to use funds for choice programs that include private schools, in accordance with state law. Under ESEA Title VI, funds may currently be used by SEAs and LEAs, at their discretion, for a wide variety of 338 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. CRS-10 activities related to educational innovation or reform. It may be assumed that public- only school choice programs could already b ej supported with ESEA Title VI funds. H.R. 2746 would have reduced the share of ESEA Title VI funds reserved by SEAs from the current 15% to 10% in general. However, SEAs would have been allowed to reserve an additional 15% (beyond the 10% ) if those funds were used for “voluntary public and private parental choice programs” for children in low-income families, authorized by state law, which included one or more private schools, and which were located in either high poverty or sparsely populated areas. Eligibility for such choice programs would have been limited to low-income pupils. The amount of a scholarship provided under a qualifying choice program could not have been less than 60% of die average expenditure per pupil (AEPP) for the LEA in which the child resides, or the amount oftuition charged by the school he or she chooses to attend, whichever is less; and could not have been more than 100% of the AEPP. The choice programs would have been required to give priority to aiding children who transfer from public to private schools, and to include sectarian private schools. HJL 2746 would also have added “voluntary public and private parental choice programs,” meeting the conditions described above, to ESEA Title Vi’s list of authorized uses of funds by LEAs. However, a state that used Title VI funds for choice programs could not have required LEAs to use any of their Title VI funds for this purpose. S. 1415, National Tobacco Policy and Youth Smoking Reduction Act. On June 9, 1998, the Senate adopted an amendment to S. 1415, a Ml concerning regulation of the tobacco industry and other matters, that would have authorized the use of ESEA Title I funds to pay the costs for Title I-eligible pupils who are victims of crime at school to attend a different public or private school chosen by their parents. However, on June 17,1998, the Senate M ed to invoke cloture on S. 1415, and the bill did not receive further Senate consideration during the 105* Congress. Action by the 104th Congress9 HJL 2546, FY1996 Appropriations for the District of Columbia/ P.L. 104- 134 (HJL 3019), FY1996 Omnibus Appropriations. On November 2, 1995, during House floor consideration ofH.R. 2546, FY1996 appropriations legislation for D.C., an amendment was passed which authorized a private school choice program for D.C. students. Although the Senate-passed veision of H.R. 2546 dropped the 9 Although proposals to support private school dem onstration projects were not acted on, they were pait'of the debate during this Congress. Under these bills (HJL 1640, S. 618, S. 1210, and S. 1904), education “certificates” would have been m ade available to low-income students in the dem onstration areas to hdp meet tuition, fees, and allowable transportation costs in public and private schools, including religiously affiliated schools. Similar proposals were offered and acted on in previous Congresses. In the IttT * Congress, one such proposal was offered as a floor am endm ent to die Neighborhood Schools Improvement Act, S. 2, on January 23,1992. It was not adopted. In the 103* Congress, on February 4,1994, an am endm ent was offered to S. 1150, the Goals 2000: Educate America Act (P ll 103-227) but not agreed to. The third such proposal was also offered during the 103* Congress as an amendment to S. 1513, the Senate version of the Improving America’s Schools Act, on July 27, 1994. It also was net adopted. 339 R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. CRS-II private school choice provisions, the conference version included them The conference version was passed by the House but foiled in the Senate when cloture could not be invoked on a filibuster against the legislation. The private school choice provisions in HJL 2546 were similar to the program considered by the 105* Congress (see above). The following description is based on the conference version of the h u L It would have supported two kinds of scholarships for low-income students residing in D.C. The program would have been administered by a non-government corporation. Tuition scholarships would have been available to pay the tuition and mandatory fees for students choosing to attend private schools in D.C. only, including those that are religiously affiliated, The size of these scholarships could have been as high as S3,000 for students from families at or below poverty, and as high as $1,500 for students from families with incomes not in excess of 185% of the poverty level Enhanced achievement scholarships would been available to meet the tuition, fees, and transportarion costs for students to receive services to enhance their academic achievement. These services would have been provided outside of regular school hours. These particular scholarships could have been as high as $ 1,500 for students from families at or below die poverty level and as high as $750 for students from families with incomes not in excess of 185% of the poverty level. In addition to the scholarship program, H.R. 2546 included language authorizing the establishment of public charrer schools in D.C. The charter school language was added to the bill on the House floor along with the private school choice program. It was retained by the Senate and included in the conference agreement Ultimately, charter school language was included in the FY1996 D.C. appropriations legislation that was finally enacted (HJL 3019, P.L. 104-134). The scholarship program described above was not included in the enacted legislation. Under the charter school language, these schools are open to enrollment by all District pupils o f fee relevant grade level and subject specialization (if the school has one), and cannot charge tuition to D.C. residents. They are to be governed by a board of trustees, and can be established as new schools, or by conversion of existing public or private schools of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. A P PE N D IX H TH E ELITE IN T E R V IE W IN G IN ST R U M E N T R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. ELITE INTERVIEWING INSTRUMENT Name of Interviewee: Title:_____________ D ate:_____________ Introduction This information is being collected and will be presented in a dissertation examining whether factors currently being identified to decided policy as well as establish funding levels fo r elementary and secondary education at the federal level have changed, thus creating a paradigm sh ift Important factors that were identified during the intense and prolonged debate that occurred before 1980 as reasons to establish a cabinet level department o f education will serve as the basic foundation that federal policymakers traditionally utilized in influencing a national role and authorizing funds. Part I 3. Identify crucial occurrences that have taken place in elementary and secondary education in the past 20 years. 4. Do you believe that the federal government has changed the way they view and/or fund elementary and secondary education programs? If yes. how? 5. Are there forms of public/private school arrangements at the elementary and secondary education level that you would endorse? If yes, give examples. 342 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Part II Please rank order the following factors by placing a number under each term that you believe the federal government does consider when deciding policy and funding amounts for infrastructure, programs, and research for elementary and secondaiy schools (one constitutes the most important 10 the least). Note: Each factor will be ranked four separate times. Policy Funding Infrastructure Programs Research # # # # Accountability Autonomy Economy Effectiveness Efficiency Equity N ation al Im age Parental Em powerm ent Political Ideology Sym bolism 343 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Please rank order the following factors by placing a number under each term that you believe the federal government should consider when deciding policy and funding amounts for infrastructure, programs, and research for elementary and secondary schools (one constitutes the most important 10 the least). Note: Each factor will be ranked four separate times. P olicy Funding Infrastructure P rogram s Research # # # # A ccou n ta b ility A utonom y E con om y E ffectiveness E fficiency Equity N ational Im a g e P a r en ta l E m p o w e rm e n t P olitical Ideology S ym b o lism P a r t I B Please circle the number that best describes how you feel about the following statements. 1. Privatizing elementary and secondary public schools help motivate all schools in that category' to perform better. 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree 2. Permitting parents to choose the elementary and secondary school their child attends is essential to attaining the best possible education for their child. I 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree 344 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 3. The federal governm ent should provide funding to for-profit elementary an d secondary schools. 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree 4. The federal governm ent should provide funding to church based elem entary an d secondary schools. i 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree 5. The federal governm ent should take a more active part in providing leadership for elem entary and secondary schools. 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree 6. The federal governm ent should take a m ore active part in establishing values for elem entary and secondary education. 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree (7) The federal governm ent should provide m ore funding for elem entary and secondary education. 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Disagree N eutral Agree Strongly Agree (8) Education at the elem entary and secondary school level should be a state and local responsibility and the federal governm ent should provide block grants with little or no rules and regulations. 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree (9) In the last 10 years, factors used to determ ine elem entary and secondary school policy by the federal government have changed I 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree (10) In the last 10 years, factors used to determ ine elem entary and secondary school funding levels have changed. I 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Disagree N eutral Agree Strongly Agree 345 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. (11) The federal government should offer vouchers to elem entary and secon d ary' school students attending schools that have been assessed as failing schools. 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree (12) The federal governm ent should provide vouchers, tax credits, or other types of reimbursable financial arrangem ents to all elem entary and secondary school students or parents. 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree (13) The federal governm ent should provide vouchers, tax credits, or other types of reimbursable financial arrangem ents to low-income students or parents. 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree (14) The federal governm ent should provide vouchers, tax credits, or other types of reimbursable financial arrangements to elementary and secondary home-schoolers. 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree (15) The federal governm ent should provide leadership, additional funding, an d research to state and local school districts. I 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Disagree N eutral Agree Strongly Agree Part IV Additional comments are welcomed: 346 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. APPENDIX HI RESPONDENTS TO THE ELITE INTERVIEWING INSTRUMENT R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Respondents to the Elite Interviewing Instrument Bames, Phnesha M. Manager, Labor/Employee Relations and Performance Management Division Washington, DC Bodie, Dianne Elementary School Teacher Maryland Bradford, Patricia D. Teacher (Former Principal) Flowers High School, Washington, DC Brockington, Lee E. Director, Office of Budget and Management, Public School System Newark, New Jersey Brown, Cindy Council of Chief State School Officer New Jersey Bums, Bobby C. Assistant Superintendent Administration and Personnel Ohio Cooper, Bill Deputy Superintendent Montana Dailey, Kelly Learning Support Staff Shippingsbury University, Pennsylvania Davis, Beverly Recruiter (Parent) Washington, DC Green, Marilyn Retired School Teacher Alexandria, VA 348 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Gregory, Malvolia Middle School Counselor Springfield, VA Griffin, Arthur Chairman - Charlotte-MecMenburg Board of Education Charlotte, NC Hairston, Julia Reading Specialist, Charles Houston Elementary School Mount Vemon, Virginia Hardy-Coley, Phyllis School Teacher Florida Jones, Adam Assistant Commissioner for Government Relations Texas Jones, Eletta G. Professor/Administrator Emeritus Shippingsburg University, Pennsylvania Jones, Rhone Teacher Anne Beers Elementary School, Washington, DC Kaylor, R. David Minister, Presbyterian Church Charlotte, NC Lewers, Vera Assistant Principal Charlotte, NC Lewers, Calvin Retired Middle School Principal Charlotte, NC Marshall, Paul Director, Office of Budget and Governmental Relations, Department of Education Ohio 349 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Matlock, Larry Deputy Associate Director Education and Human Resources Division, Office of Management and Budget Washington, DC Mayhew, Carol Education Associate Director for Regulations Delaware McDonald, Renee Congressman Jim Moran’s Office Washington, DC Minnie Lipsey Elementary Teacher Herndon, VA Mosley, Dwight Chief, Human Resources Office for the District’s Public Schools Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Oman, Ray C. Senior Researcher, American Society for Public Administration Washington, DC Phelan, Fred Principal Charlotte, NC 29.Pressman, Sue, PhD Career Management Consultant, Department of Education Washington, DC Radin, Beryl Author/ Educator Washington, DC Robinson, Stacy Special Assistant, Paterson School System Paterson, New Jersey, 350 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Rosenberg, Bella Assistant to President, American Federation of Teachers Washington, DC Santiago, Julia Extended Learning Coordinator Washington, DC Slade, Frederick D. Principal, Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools Charlotte, NC Snyder, Andy Intergovernmental Affairs Coordinator, Department of Education Vermont Steward, Mary Associate Professor Shippingsburg University, Pennsylvania Stumbough, Kurt Executive Controller of School System Paterson, New Jersey Toman, Janelle Director of Policy and Accountability South Dakota Weaver, Roosevelt Doctor/Professor of History Charlotte, NC White, Barry Director Government Performance Project Counsel for Education in Government Washington, DC Wildy, Candice D. Director, Employment Services Paterson, New Jersey, School System R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Consultants for Elite Interviewing Instrument (Pretest) Flanagan, Dan (Expert In the field of education finance) Expert for this Dissertation Consultant California Futrell, Mary (Former President of the National Education Association) Dean of Graduate Studies, George Washington University Washington, DC Warts, Ruby Retired, Elementary School Teacher Alexandria, YA 352 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. APPENDIX IV PART I OF THE ELITE INTERVIEWING INSTRUMENT R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Part I of the Elite Interviewing Instrument Question 1: Identify crucial occurrences that have taken place in elem entary and secondary education in th e p ast 20 years. C om m ents The whole Issue of alternatives to public education Including the surge in home schooling, charter schools, and voucher programs. The big rash for parity of funding. The concept of “whole language” practiced in schools. Reading integrated into other subjects. This model had detrimental effects on learning of inner city children. School-based management. High stakes state testing. More emphasis on technology as a supplemental instrumental tool. More cultural diversity. More thematic units. Black Scheduling. Since 1980, the following events described as crucial occurrences that have taken place in elementary and secondary education: A Nation At Risk, America 2000, and IDEA. In addition, the computer has given educators and students alike more opportunities in education and in the world. School violence has become part of the curriculum and has put everyone on guard. School reform has been the buzz word and supposedly schools are becoming more child-centered with parents and communities being asked to take an active role in the education process. Technology. Inclusion of disabled students. Collaborative teaching. Small groupings. Recognizing learning disabled children, establishing educational standards at the state level such as the standards of learning. Education reform. School safety. Vouchers. Tax Credits. Other strategies offering alternatives. 354 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. The advent of computerized instruction, the growing strength of teacher unions, increased concern over accountability. In 1965 schools were folly integrated in Alexandria, VA., things changed including the transferring of teachers. Head Start. Gifted and Talented. Adult Education. Technology. Standardized tests. Influx of foreign students. Increase of nonwhite non affluent children. Less community support and parental involvement. SAT/ACT scores of potential teachers much lower. Lack of technology infrastructures. Lack of building infrastructures. School vouchers. State takeovers. Alternative education. The imposition of judicial mandates for thorough and efficient education in urban areas. Special education mandates. Inequitable funding of infrastructures in urban areas. Funding theory is flawed. Blacks always playing catch up. Emphasis on educating all children. Movement toward high state testing of students and schools. Decline in the number of qualified teachers and administrators. Americans with Disabilities Act-504. Technology and the Internet. Criminal history capabilities. Special education. At risk. Goals 2000. Title I. Class size reduction. The elimination from many school curricula of practical, skill oriented courses, such as home economics, and industrial arts; music and geography have been eliminated. The contracting out of courses, such as drivers training has often made for poor quality education. Many parents do not support teachers in disagreements, but side with their children. Behavioral problems. Hungry. Lacking parental participation. Home visitations. More innovation from the State. Special education—IDEA. So success at the federal level. 355 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Declining public support for public education. Increasing enrolment in private schools, which draws support away from public schools. Increasing demand for testing as a way of measuring success. There has been increased emphasis on test improvement results. Charter schools and other initiatives are based on results. Equity and accountability emphasis have increased in the past 20 years. This actually began about 25 years ago, but the focus on providing educational services to children with disabilities has had a tremendous impact on primary and secondary education, both good and bad. The good is that educators were forced to address the needs of a population that had, to a large extent, been ignored. The bad is that the costs of providing services to these children have soared over this period, impacting dollars available to educate other children (in my opinion). Busing students to achieve racial balance has had a negative impact on our urban school districts. More affluent families (regardless of race) have tended to flee urban schools, leaving behind the most disadvantaged students. Public schools appear to have lost the confidence of a sizeable portion of our population. The perception (which I feel is erroneous) is that schools were once good, but are now failing our students. The perceived rise in school violence also plays into this perception. There is increasing emphasis on accountability, which tends to manifest itself in the form of state-mandated standardized tests. This has been both good and bad, forcing schools to address their deficiencies, yet sometimes overemphasizing the importance of single tests. Standard assessments and accountability standards. Integration of programs. Community participation. Site management. Greater emphasis on science and math. Expanded counseling services. Reduced emphasis on the arts/ math. Expanded kindergarten. Inclusion of students with disabilities (main streaming). Less residential schooling of disabled. Competition. Shift in attitude. Resources. Demographics. Standardized movement. Contentious political movement. Rolling back desegregation. Impact of special education. Introduction of new math (elementary). Sex education. Breakfast program. Technology in classroom. Equal Education Opportunity Act (1997). 356 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Accountability. Increased activity of feds. Extensive testing. Less funds to support at-risk programs. Technology advances. Money. Decline in behavior, respect discipline. Increase in weapons, drugs. Accountability. Testing Standardized testing directly associated with high school diplomas. Accreditations of schools based upon students test score results. Inclusion of special needs students into regular education classes. Globalization, an increase discrepancy between American students tests scores and their industrialized counterparts. An increased need for higher technical skills in the workforce, and the breakdown of American families. Creation of the Education Department. Standards of performance. Resistence of teachers unions to performance standards. Compensation. More federal government involvement. Availability of other employment opportunities for women. Vouchers. Tax credits. Awareness of disparities of quality of education. Value of teachers more acknowledged. Governors got involved. Became political issue. Performance movement and outcomes. Devolution processes. Parents wanting home schools. Teacher participation. Trying to integrate. Affluence. 357 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Question 2 % Do you believe that th e federal government has changed the way they view and/or fund elem entary and secondary education program s? If yes, How? C om m ents No. I believe our federal government lags behind the governments of other nations in that there is no real national emphasis on education. There is a lot of talk, but no real initiatives. Yes. Money that has been allotted by the federal government for schools to use has been given/disbursed in different ways. It has been given to school systems to disseminate to schools in their districts based on their economic needs. It has been given to states to disburse as needs emerged. Most recently, money is given to schools of a 50 percent or greater poverty level directly to use in ways that will help these particular students in whatever needs to be done to help them achieve academically. Government still views education as a state’s right, they only intercede in matters of civil rights by providing special funding to absorb the cost. Yes. Less funding (financial support). Yes. Less generous. Yes. The federal government, in my opinion, has created laws with goals and objectives that are unrealistic without the funding they promised to provide. The schools seem to be struggling to provide the teachers with the materials they need while striving to meet the federal guidelines for laws put into place that lack the federal funding needed. However, I don’t see this as a change from earlier years. It has been my understanding that the government has tried to restrain from getting too involved in state government issues while still wanting to insure excellence in education. Yes. I think the federal government has put funds into schools to help them—not just to police or support specific programs. Beginning with the Kennedy-Johnson Administrations to present day, the Department of Education has poured millions into education. Yes. Americans with Disabilities Act. Catering to children. Various rule changes. Schools have more autonomy. Schools can apply directly for some grants. 358 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Yes. I believe that the federal government changed the way that they view elementary and secondary education programs by realizing that it has a pivotal role for increasing the accountability of both state and local entities. Yes. Much more autonomy. Classroom size reduction. Literacy programs. Yes. Far more targeted programs with formula grants v. block grants, and programs now targeted for teacher improvement, not just for student services. Yes. Emphasis on education. Realize that change is necessary. Investing more money. No. (IDEA still underfunded). Teacher training at university and college level unfocused and under financed. No. They still fond schools/programs on test scores. Urban school test scores are higher than inner city scores. Monies are still appropriated that way. Yes. The view may have changed to a more hands on approach with the goal of accountability. No. They have not changed. They have not been supportive of federal programs already in place, i.e., accountability. Yes. Insufficient resources. No. Not significantly. Yes. In the past 35 years support has increased for anti-discrimination laws. Yes. I believe that funding for programs such as the school lunch has been reduced. Not sure. Must do more to get funding. No. Taken baby steps. Go for performance—not process. Yes. Efforts to eliminate Department of Education signaled diminished support for education during Reagan years. Conservatives have dropped that attempt and Bush voices more concern for a federal role. Yes. The federal government is interested in results based on funding. School reform funding is based on improvement in test results. 359 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Yes. Today good schools are viewed as those where all students perform on grade level. Therefore, funding is related to performance and accountability. No. Not really. For many years the federal government has been a key participant in the few (but important) programs. The first real change in the federal role has come in the last few months. If either S. 1 or H.R. 1 passes, it will denote a significant change in the federal role in education. The federal government will become a much more active driver of education policy in this country, especially through the mandated math and reading assessments in grades three through nine. To me, this is the most serious change in the balance of power in education since passage of PL. 94-142 (children with disabilities). Yes. New directions such as-community participation, accountability, and standard assessments. Yes. Greater emphases on drag free school programs. Inclusion of environments, females in math and science. Charter schools development. Recognition of private and parochial schools. No. However, SEA is the touchstone. More political foci on results. Yes. More sensitive to parents and their concerns about where their children attend school (i.e., voucher programs). Yes. Increased focus on assessment and accountability. Yes. Four to five years of accountability. Yes. Head Start. Early Start. Emphasis on testing. Technology. How it is viewed. Paradigm shifted to technology. Counselors are appreciated since school shootings. Yes. Funding for Title I schools. Federal funding for free and reduced lunch programs. Federal grants for schools with low test scores. Yes. I believe that the federal government has changed the way they view and fund elementary and secondary education programs. The federal government has placed more emphasis on standardized tests and accountability. Funds are no longer given based on need but by the conception of student outcomes. Yes. Vastly increased size of real investment. 360 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Yes. Funding. Presidential focus. Accountability. Yes. Slowly. Voucher movement to assist low-income families. No. Have not changed—just a different kind of pressure on federal agencies. Yes. Economic Opportunity Act of 1965. Head-Start. Chapter I of Title I. Reading is Fundamental. Technology use standard of learning. Standards of learning requirements. IDEA, Public Law 94-142. Standard teaching requirements. Whole language approaches. Yes. Since rules passed in 1980 with the Department of Education. Q uestion 3: Are th ere forms of public/private school arrangem ents at the elementary and secondary education level that you would endorse? I f yes, give exam ples. Yes. The current system of public education with some modifications: - Institute a rewards’ system for both students and teachers which encourages high achievement and improved performance. ® Have a means of addressing students at both ends of the learning achievement spectrum. It’s time to end the cookie-cutter approach to education. I would endorse minimal funding and fill! human resource sharing of private schools with public schools. Yes. Example: The idea that schools with a 50 percent or more level of their student population showing an economic need is given federal funds directly and proposes to use the funds for students based on the needs of that school is an idea I feel that is really meeting needs and providing solutions. Yes. More efforts to curtail school violence. My opinion on the issue of public/private school arrangements differs somewhat from some of my colleagues. The controversial school voucher’s topic is just one of the issues that I feel may be a way to boost the public schools to improve the education they provide to their students. However, I am also aware that unions and funding play a large role in being able to radically improve a school’s ability to provide excellent education. Unions have created difficult environments to realistically evaluate teachers’ teaching 361 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. abilities. Students’ education suffers in the hands of incapable teachers that cannot be replaced by much more able teachers because the administration fears a fight from the union. In addition, important supplies that are needed to provide excellent education cannot be purchased if there is not money. Public schools are much different from a for-profit business. I guess my best answer for this question would be that I don’t know that there is one program that can answer all the questions and that can fix every school. I think private organizations, business and community must increase their work in schools by tutoring, mentoring teaching, offering jobs to teachers in the summer or after school, etc. Keep schools in a realistic and pro active mode. If more people really knew and understood what happens daily in our public schools there would be less of this bashing and criticizing public education. Our schools are mirrors of our society and teachers cannot change that alone. Yes. Public private partnerships. Joint programs with other public/private efforts. No. Yes. Public/private arrangements. Parents to get remedial help. Yes. Strongly endorse charter schools. Yes. Vouchers. If not vouchers, something that parents could use to transfer students out of non performing schools until those schools are brought up to par. Yes. After school or before school partnerships. I do not support for-profit schools or other arrangements. We need to strengthen the present system. Our education history indicates a failure to educate all children either in a private, religious, or any other type of arrangement. Yes. Teen pregnancy. Vocational education. Programs to discourage dropouts. Gifted programs. Alternative education. Yes I agree with the concept of introducing competition to promote improvement, but I am not convinced that the net effect of charter schools is positive. 362 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Yes. Choice for parents, charter schools, private schools - all deserve funding from all sources. No. Not in Montana. Yes. Current Title I Law. Yes. I favor more competition. I think that large county school systems, e.g., Montgomery County, are large organizations, who are often not accountable. Some way (maybe some voucher system) to increase competition and give parents more choice between county school systems and/or individual schools might help. Yes. Funding should be given to all; religious or not. Public schools are the best. Work with them, monitor them, keep people on their toes. Yes. Charter schools - they work if watched. Finance. Management. Magnet schools. Open attendance. No. None that I can think of; I do not oppose private schools. People have the right to operate them. But I oppose any government programs to support them, such as vouchers, text books, transportation, etc. Yes. I would endorse support for alternative programs that are successful. Yes. Properly constructed, public-private partnerships make sense. There are dangers, however, in that some businesses see some ventures as opportunities to make money, not help schools. For example, in Ohio some companies are making money from managing charter schools. An example of a positive partnership can be found in some of our vocational programs. In Southern Ohio, the vocational school assesses the suitability of prospective employees for a specific job. By screening applicants for the company, turnover has been greatly reduced. Also, vocational programs work closely with local businesses often changing their curricula to match the employment needs of the local community. Yes. Private sector involvement such as mentors. Resources for technology. Charter schools. Partnerships. 363 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Yes. Science/math focus. Arts/music/humanities focus. Main streaming education. Yes. Current arrangement—private and religious schools can get Title I funding. Child benefit theory. Some contradiction to private non-profit schools getting money. No. Yes. Use of school facilities for pre-school and after-school activities sanctioned by privates. Yes. Charters. Military schools. Yes. Use of tax dollars for charter schools. Gifted programs for students. Use of computer technology as a tool for teaching. I would endorse public/private school arrangements that would provide students from both institutions the chance to interact and work together. Yes. Title I in Parochial schools with barriers. Contracts, vouchers, and other ways. Yes. Partnerships between private and public. Don’t just give it away. Yes. Charter schools. Improve public schools. Yes. Charter schools. Edison Project worthy of support. Charters. Milwaukee Decision. Bonding decision to develop schools. 364 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. APPENDIX V PART ID OF THE ELITE INTERVIEWING INSTRUMENT (FREQUENCY TABLES AND GRAPHS) R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Frequencies Question 1 Statistics Privatizing elementary and secondary public schools helps motivate all schools in that category to perform better. N Valid 41 Missing J 0 Privatizing elementary and secondary public schools helps motivate all schools in that category to perform better. Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent || Valid Strongly Disagree 11 26.8 26.8 26.8 Disagree 18 43.9 43.9 70.7 Neutral 8 19.5 19.5 90.2 Agree 3 7.3 7.3 97.6 1 Strongly Agree 1 2.4 2.4 100.0 1 Total 41 100.0 100.0 1 366 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Frequencies Question 2 Statistics Permitting parents to choose the elementary and secondary school their child attends is essential to attaining the best possible education for their child. N Valid 41 Missing 0 Permitting parents to choose the elementary and secondary school their child attends is essential to attaining the best possible education for their child. ....................................” ” .................................................................. Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative 1 Percent | Valid Strongly Disagree 5 12.2 12.2 12.2 Disagree 16 39.0 39.0 51.2 Neutral 3 7.3 7.3 58.5 Agree 15 36.6 36.6 91.1 Strongly Agree 2 4.9 4.9 100.0 Total 41 100.0 100.0 .......................................- J 367 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Frequencies Question 3 Statistics The federal government should provide funding to for-profit elementary and secondary schools. N Valid 41 Missing 0 The federal government should provide funding to for-profit elementary and secondary schools. Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative 1 Percent | lid Strongly Disagree 17 41.5 41.5 41.5 Disagree 12 29.3 29.3 70.7 Neutral 6 14.6 14.6 85.. Agree 6 14.6 14.6 100.0 Total 41 100.0 100.0 368 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Frequencies Question 4 Statistics The federal government should provide funding to church-based elementary and secondary schools. N Valid 41 Missing 0 The federal government should provide funding to church-based elementary and secondary schools. Valid Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent | Strongly Disagree 14 34.1 34.1 34.1 Disagree 11 26.8 26.8 61.0 Neutral 5 12.2 12.2 73.2 Agree 10 24.4 24.4 97.6 Strongly Agree 1 2.4 2.4 100.0 Total 41 100.0 100.0 ......................1 369 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Frequencies Question. 5 Statistics The federal government should take a more active part in providing leadership for elementary and secondary schools. 1N Valid 41 | Missing 0 The federal government should take a more active part in providing leadership for elementary and secondary schools. I Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent 1 Valid Strongly Disagree 3 7.3 7.3 7. Disagree 14 34.1 34.1 41.5 Neutral 6 14.6 14.6 56.1 Agree 10 24.4 24.4 80.5 Strongly Agree 8 19.5 19.5 100.0 Total 41 100.0 100.0 370 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Frequencies Question 6 Statistics The federal government should take a more active part in establishing values for elementary and secondary education. N Valid 41 Missing 0 The federal government should take a more active part in establishing values for elementary and secondary education. Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree Total icy Percent V alid Percent C um ulative P ercent 3 7.3 7.3 7.3 14 34.1 34.1 41.5 9 22.0 22.0 63.4 12 29.3 29.3 92.7 3 7.3 7.3 100.0 41 100.0 100.0 371 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Frequencies Question 7 Statistics The federal government should provide more funding for elementary and secondary education. N Valid 41 Missing 0 The federal government should provide more funding for elementary and secondary education. Valid Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly Disagree 2 4.9 4.9 4.9 Disagree 1 2.4 2.4 7.3 Neutral 5 12.2 12.2 19.5 Agree 9 22.0 22.0 41.5 Strongly Agree 24 58.5 58.5 100.0 Total 41 100.0 100.0 372 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Frequencies Question 8 Statistics Education at the elementary and secondary school leyels should be a state and local responsibility and the federal government should provide block grants with little or no rules and regulations. N Valid 41 Missing 0 Education at the elementary and secondary school levels should be a state and focal responsibility and the federal government should provide block grants with little or no rules and regulations. I Frequency Percent V alid P ercent Cumulative Percent Valid Strongly Disagree 9 22.0 22.0 22.0 Disagree 14 34.1 34.1 56.1 Neutral 5 12.2 12.2 68.3 I Agree 9 22.0 22.0 90.2 I Strongly Agree 4 9.8 9.8 100.0 1 Total 41 100.0 100.0 373 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Frequencies Question 9 Statistics In the last 10 years, factors used to determine elementary and secondary school policy by the federal government have changed. N Valid 41 Missing 0 In the last 10 years, factors used to determine elementary and secondary school policy by the federal government have changed. Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative 1 Percent § Valid Disagree 7 17.1 17.1 17.11 Neutral 7 17.1 17.1 34.11 Agree 23 56.1 56.1 90.2 Strongly Agree 4 9.8 9.8 100.0 1 Total 41 100.0 100.0 374 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Frequencies Question 10 Statistics In the last 10 years, factors used to determine elementary and secondary school funding levels have changed. N Valid 41 Missing 0 In the last 10 years, factors used to determine elementary and secondary school funding levels have changed. Valid Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly Disagree 1 2.4 2.4 2.4 Disagree 6 14.6 14.6 17.1 Neutral 5 12.2 12.2 29.3 Agree 25 61.0 61.0 90.2 Strongly Agree 4 9.8 9.8 100.0 Total 41 100.0 100.0 375 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Frequencies Question 11 Statistics The federal government should offer vouchers to elementary and secondary school students attending schools that have been assessed as failing schools. N Valid I 41 Missing j 0 The federal government should offer vouchers to elementary and secondary school students attending schools that have been assessed as failing schools. Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree Total p e n c y Percent V alid Percent C um ulative Percent 9 22.0 22.0 22.0 13 31.7 31.7 53.7 4 9.8 9.8 63.4 13 31.7 31.7 95.1 2 4.9 4.9 100.0 41 100.0 100.0 376 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Frequencies Question 12 Statistics The federal government should offer vouchers, tax credits, or other types of reimbursable financial arrangements to all elementary and secondary school students or parents. N Valid 41 Missing 0 The federal government should offer vouchers, tax credits, or other types of reimbursable financial arrangements to all elementary and secondary school students or parents. | Frequency Percent Valid Percent C um ulative Percent I Valid Strongly Disagree 11 26.8 26.8 26.8 1 Disagree 12 29.3 29.3 56.1 Neutral 8 19.5 19.5 75.6 Agree 5 12.2 12.2 87.8 Strongly Agree 5 12.2 12.2 100.0 | Total 41 100.0 100.0 377 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Frequencies Question 13 Statistics The federal government should provide vouchers, tax credits, or other types of reimbursable financial arrangements to low-income students or parents. N Valid 41 Missing o 1 The federal government should provide vouchers, tax credits, or other types of reimbursable financial arrangements to low-income students or parents. Valid Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly Disagree 8 19.5 19.5 19.5 Disagree 9 22.0 22.0 41.5 Neutral 7 17.1 171 58.5 Agree 13 31.7 31.7 90.2 Strongly Agree 4 9.8 9.8 100.0 Total 41 100.0 100.0 378 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Frequencies Question 14 Statistics The federal government should provide vouchers, tax credits, or other types of reimbursable financial arrangements to elementary and secondary home schoolers. IN Valid 41 I | Missing 0 | The federal government should provide vouchers, tax credits, or other types of reimbursable financial arrangements to elementary and secondary home schoolers. 1 Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Strongly Disagree 14 34.1 34.1 --------------------- 34.1 Disagree 12 29.3 29.3 63.4 I Neutral 12 29.3 29.3 92.7 I Agree 3 7.3 7.3 100.0 1 Total 41 100.0 100.0 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Frequencies Question 15 Statistics The federal government should provide leadership, additional funding, and research to state and local school districts. 1N Valid 41 | Missing 0 The federal government should provide leadership, additional funding, and research to state and local school districts. Valid Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cum ulative 1 Percent | Strongly Disagree 1 2.4 2.4 2.4 Disagree 1 2.4 2.4 4.9 Neutral 2 4.9 4.9 9.8 Agree 18 43.9 43.9 53.7 Strongly Agree 19 46.3 46.3 100.0 Total 41 100.0 100.0 I 380 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. APPENDIX VI PART IV OF THE ELITE INTERVIEWING INSTRUMENT R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Part IV of the Elite Interviewing Instrument Additional Comments Uniforms might help discipline. These questions were difficult to answer due to my views on improving education and those regarding governmental involvement in regulating education. The role of the public school has changed in our society to one where many children, especially in urban settings, receive food, shelter, love and affection, an education, counseling, parenting, etc. But then that child is returned to a threatening, non productive environment. I think programs that try to help whole families are the ones that will save our children and our cities. I encourage funding o f after school and Saturday programs (more extracurricular activities as well) any close monitoring of their implementation. Design schools to benefit students not teachers. Other schools monitor and watch DC schools, the reason is because we know what we are doing. Catholic churches take children and kick them out without rehabilitating bad students—no second chances. Consider why schools are failing and do whatever is necessary to bring them up to par. The federal government needs to play a substantial role in funding state and local entities, in order to raise the standards of education in America. Bring all schools up to par. #4, 5, 7, and 15—West Point, Annapolis, are federally funded schools to provide military leaders. We should have the same emphasis and financial support for educational leadership. An academy for urban principals. The history of public education administration is bittered with the remnants of the latest trends. The voucher movement is a latest trend and I am skeptical of its long term success. Charter schools in NJ are having difficulty establishing themselves as viable alternatives and they are claiming financial resources. I agree the status quo in NJ urban districts is unacceptable. I am uncertain of the solution if one exists. Talk increasing in the area of testing. If vouchers are given—should go to failing schools. 3 8 2 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Be sure that all schools are top rate1 —don’t just provide vouchers. Performance-based approach. States should direct elementary and secondary policy. Block grants are good—fewer strings. OCR’S role is good for disadvantaged. Bush’s interest in schools is highly suspicious in my view. His ideology rather than social educational principles seem to drive Ms policy. I also think the educational bureaucracies needs to reform themselves and devote their energies to providing the best education for children rather than guarding their turf. Title I has improved. TMngs are getting better—they really are. Give teachers what they need. Pay teachers. Parental involvement. Equity. Improve all schools. Give materials before accountability Clean up schools. Set higher standards. Better educators. More funds. Make tMngs better for school children regardless of social status or economic status. Political patronage prohibits real change. 383 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

An organizational history of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration: A critical comparison of administrative decision making in two pivotal eras

PDF

An analysis of third -party regulatory audit systems for medical device safety

PDF

Educational reform for private state -approved schools in California

PDF

A search for theory: Performance management to improve transportation safety

PDF

Adapting and applying a mission-focused strategic framework for emergency management

PDF

Engaging communities in the planning of new urban public schools

PDF

Development of a family risk-factor measure that predicts imminent risk of placement and appropriateness for family-based, wrap -around services

PDF

Historical perspectives and future horizons of local government managers and the International City /County Management Association

PDF

Ideologies and champions: Universal Service from Congress to your telephone bill

PDF

Interoperability among complex defense computer -based systems: The Navy case

PDF

Internal venturing in public agencies

PDF

Executive development and effectiveness: A study of mobility assignment experiences of career executives in federal research and development agencies

PDF

Federal mentor -protege programs: A pilot study on protege survival and growth

PDF

Faith -based organizations, international development agencies, and environmental management

PDF

An analysis of health risk selection and quality of care under Medicare fee -for -service and Medicare managed care health care systems

PDF

Bridled boldness: Reengineering the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Lessons learned

PDF

Determining risk propensity of government program managers for high risk /high payoff projects

PDF

Electric system restructuring and system reliability

PDF

Executive spending power: Flexibility in obligation and outlay timing as a measure of federal budgetary and policy control

PDF

Care management for the uninsured: A force field analysis of the business case

Asset Metadata

Creator Garrett, Jacqueline J. (author)

Core Title Education reform: Variables associated with establishing policies and authorizing funding for elementary and secondary education

School School of Policy, Planning and Development

Degree Doctor of Public Administration

Degree Program Planning and Development Studies

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag education, elementary,Education, Finance,Education, Secondary,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Cicchetti, Charles J. (committee chair), Carter, Robert M. (committee member), Flanagan, Daniel (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c16-551682

Unique identifier UC11334953

Identifier 3094410.pdf (filename),usctheses-c16-551682 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 3094410.pdf

Dmrecord 551682

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Garrett, Jacqueline J.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA