Political and Social Roots of Education Reform: A Look at the States in the Mid-1980s.

Field: Social Sciences (Social Sciences)

Between 1983 and 1987, every state in the United States adopted some sort of education reform. This paper presents findings of an analysis of reform activity in the 50 states during the mid-1980s, with a focus on several education and socioeconomic indicators. The conceptual framework was grounded in general-systems theory, which attributes some of the reform activity to the messiness of human political behavior. Data were collected through a national survey of state-level, education policy reforms for the years 1983-87, which elicited a 94 percent response rate. State statutes were also reviewed. Dependent variables included types of reforms: increased graduation requirements, increased or instituted student testing, curriculum-materials policies, increased teacher entry requirements, teacher-compensation reforms, longer school day or year, and increased state funding of education. Independent variables that influenced the educational policymaking process included indicators of: educational performance, fiscal effort on behalf of education, socioeconomic status and fiscal capacity, administrative organization, the education-policy subsystem structure, and the general context of the states (political culture). Guttman Scalogram analysis was used to discern patterns among the dependent variables. Univariate correlations and stepwise regression analysis were conducted to determine relationships between dependent and independent variables. The data show that: (1) the wave of reform for 1983-87 was characterized by greatly expanded participation; (2) although the reform was centered in state capitols, the reforms were national in scope and character; (3) traditional education interest groups played minor roles in education reforms; (4) the involvement of business and political leaders reflected the heightened political salience of education for both groups; and (5) the most extensive reforms occurred in states that were hypothesized to have the least interest in reform and may well reflect the previous conclusions. Six tables are included. Much bibliographic data is contained in 35 notes. (LMI) Political and Social Roots of Education Reform: A Look at the States in the Mid-1980s' U.S DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Othce 01 Educe !tonal Research and improvement EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CE NTE R (ERIC) Firms document has been reproduced as received from the person or organizahon cmgmating Mmot changes have been made to rrnprowe reproduchon quahly Points ol aret Or opmrons staled m I hrs docu menu do not necessahly repreeenl ettict31 OE RI posrhon or poircy Robert E. Feir Introduction PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC). Between 1983 and 1987, every state adopted some education reforms. There is great similarity in the resultant policies adopted by the states, particularly those which increased high school graduation requirements, those which instituted teacher accountability measures, those which increased the testing of students, and those which increased (and sometimes revised the method of) compensation of teachers. Most states enacted reforms designed to increase the centralization of decisionmaking at the state level, but a few chose to reform the school system in ways that enhanced the authority of local school districts, individual school buildings, or even individual parents. In the face of great public scrutiny and efforts by the Reagan Administration to focus attention on education at the state level, and in the face of remarkable similarity in state responses, why did some states act in ways that were different from the norm? What factors influenced decisions to centralize power or to disperse it? What factors influenced decisions to enact sweeping reforms or to act more selectively? This study reports on an analysis of reform activity in the 50 states during the mid1980s, with particular attention to a number of education and socioeconomic indicators which are described in detail below. The study is grounded in the discipline of political science, and its principal conceptual framework is general systems theory.' Within this framework, it is useful to explore explicitly the policymaking processes,' the roles of groups,3 the expansion of political conflict,' policy issue networks,' the limited array of possible policy mechanisms,' and the tendency toward centralized education decisionmaking in the states.' While this conceptual framework is useful in explaining much of what happened in the states, some of the most interesting activity is attributable to the messiness of human political behavior.' This paper was prepared for presentation at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association in San Francisco, April 19, 1995. The author is executive director of Pennsylvania 2000, a coalition of business, education, and government leaders protioIg education improvement in that state. This research was conducted in conjunction with the author's doctoral studies at The Pennsylvania State University and is not intended to be representative of the views of the Pennsylvania 2000 Board of Directors. Notes appear at the end of the text. 2 BEST COPY AVAILABLE