Listening and Learning from the Field: Tales of Policy Implementation and Situated Practice

  • Milbrey W. McLaughlin
Chapter

Abstract

Why are policies not implemented as planned? Why are classroom practices so hard to change? The “implementation problem” was discovered in the early 1970’s as policy analysts took a look at the school level consequences of the Great Society’s sweeping education reforms. The 1965 passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), with its support for compensatory education, innovation, strengthened state departments of education, libraries and, subsequently, bilingual education, signaled the substantive involvement of the federal government in local educational activities. ESEA’s comprehensive intergovernmental initiatives meant that implementation no longer was just primarily a management problem, confined to relations between a boss and a subordinate, or an administrator and a teacher, or even to processes within a single institution. Implementation of the Great Society’s education policies stretched across levels of government — from Washington to state capitals to local districts and schools — and across agents of government-legislative, executive, administrative. As federal, state and local officials developed responses to these new education policies, implementation issues were revealed in all their complexity, intractability, and inevitability.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Berman, P., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1978). Federal programs supporting educational change: Volume VIII. Implementing and sustaining innovations. Santa Monica: The RAND Corporation, R-1589/8-HEW.Google Scholar
  2. Cohen, D. K. (1990). A revolution in one classroom: The case of Mrs. Oublier. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12 (3), 327–345.Google Scholar
  3. Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1996). Policies that support professional development in an era of reform. In M. McLaughlin & I. Oberman (Eds.), Teacher learning (pp. 202–218). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  4. Elmore, R. (1979–1980). Backward mapping: Implementation research and policy decisions. Political Science Quarterly, 94 (4), 601–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Lieberman, A. (1996). Practices that support teacher development. In M. McLaughlin & I. Oberman, (Eds.), Teacher learning (185–201). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  6. Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  7. McLaughlin, M. W., & Oberman, I. (1996). Teacher learning: Newpolicies, new practices. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  8. McLaughlin, M.W., & Talbert, J. E. (1993). Contexts that matter for teaching and learning. Stanford University: Center for Research on the Context of Secondary School Teaching.Google Scholar
  9. McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (forthcoming). Schoolteaching in context. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  10. Pressman, J., & Wildavksy, A. (1973). Implementation: how great expectations in Washington are dashed in Oakland; or, Why it’s amazing that Federal programs work at all, this being a saga of the Economic Development Administration as told by two sympathetic observers who seek to build morals on a foundation of ruined hopes. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  11. Raudenbush, S. W., Rowan, B., & Cheong, Y. F. (1992). Contextual effects on the self-perceived efficacy of high school teachers. Sociology of Education, 65, 150–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Weatherley, R., & Lipsky, M. (1978). Street level bureaucrats and institutional information: Implementing special education reform. Harvard Educational Review, 47, 171–197.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Milbrey W. McLaughlin
    • 1
  1. 1.Stanford UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations