Abstract
Amid the growing debates over the globalization of schooling, the United States seems both to embrace and to defy the idea that there can be one model for education. Despite the absence of a national curriculum and despite significant control of education located in school districts, researchers and policymakers in the United States typically lament the limited number of distinct and successful approaches to education. Some have suggested that the striking lack of variation across schools reflects a de facto “one best system” that governs school operations and instruction (Tyack 1974). At the same time, states and districts have pursued several significant and arguably systematic efforts to support the development of alternative educational approaches that reflect the needs and interests of local communities. For example, since the 1970s, the creation of magnet schools has been a popular means of instituting distinctive instructional goals and pedagogies to meet the needs of particular students, employers, and others (Blank, Levine, and Steel 1996). In recent years, the advent of charter schools and small schools reflects a renewed enthusiasm for developing schools that are free from many of the constraints of state and district bureaucracies and more responsive to the concerns of local community members (Bulkley and Fisler 2002; Clinchy 2000; Nathan 1996).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Blank, R. K., R. E. Levine, and L. Steel. 1996. After 15 years: Magnet schools in urban education. In Who chooses? Who loses? edited by B. Fuller and R. R Elmore with G. Orfield. New York: Teachers College Press.
Bulkley, K., and J. Fisler. 2002. A decade of charter schools: From theory to practice (CPRE Policy Brief No. RB-35). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
Clinchy, E. 2000. Creating new schools: How small schools are changing American education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Cohen, D. K., and D. L. Ball. 1999. Instruction, capacity, and improvement: CPRE research report series. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration Program. 1997. http://www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/compreform/2pager.html
Elmore, R. E, C. Abelmann, and S. H. Fuhrman. 1996. The new accountability in state education policy. In Holding schools accountable: Performance-based reform in education, edited by H. Ladd. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution.
Fuhrman, S. H. 1999. The new accountability (CPRE Policy Brief No. RB-27). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
Fuhrman, S. H., and R. E Elmore. 1990. Understanding local control in the wake of state education reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 12 (1): 82–96.
Goertz, M. E., R. E. Floden, and J. O’Day. 1996. The bumpy road to education reform (CPRE Policy Brief No. RB-20). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University, Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
Hatch, T. 2002. When improvement programs collide. Phi Delta Kappan 83 (8): 626–639.
Hess, F. M. 1999. Spinning wheels: The politics of urban school reform. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.
Massell, D. 1998. State strategies for building local capacity: Addressing the needs of standards-based reform (CPRE Policy Briefs No. RB-25). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
Massell, D. 2000. The district role in building capacity: Four strategies. (CPRE Policy Brief No. RB-32). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
McDonald, J. P. 1996. Redesigning School. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Nathan, J. 1996. Charter schools: Creating hope and opportunity for American education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
O’Day, J., M. E. Goertz, and R. E. Floden, 1995. Building capacity for education reform (CPRE Policy Brief No. RB-20). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University, Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
Smith, M. S., and J. A. O’Day. 1991. Systemic school reform. In The politics of curriculum and testing, edited by S. Fuhrman and B. Malen. Bristol, PA: Falmer Press.
Spillane, J. P. 1996. School districts matter: Local educational authorities and state instructional policy. Educational Policy 10(1):63–87.
Tyack, D. 1974. The one best system: A history of American urban education. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Editor information
Copyright information
© 2003 Kathryn M. Anderson-Levitt
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hatch, T., Honig, M. (2003). Getting Beyond the “One Best System”?. In: Anderson-Levitt, K.M. (eds) Local Meanings, Global Schooling. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781403980359_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781403980359_5
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Print ISBN: 978-1-4039-6163-1
Online ISBN: 978-1-4039-8035-9
eBook Packages: Palgrave Social & Cultural Studies CollectionSocial Sciences (R0)