Governance and Accountability in the Michigan Partnership for New Education: Reconstructing Democratic Participation

  • Lynn Fendler
Chapter

Abstract

From 1989 to 1996, the Michigan Partnership for New Education (MPNE) operated as an institution that joined Michigan State University (MSU), public schools, businesses, local governments, and communities into a cooperative network. Organized around the purpose “to improve the educational outcomes for Michigan’s children,” the Partnership offered advantages to all participants in exchange for their contributions. Local schools received money, resources, and expertise; the university was provided with research venues and student-teacher placements; communities and businesses gained a formal voice in educational policy-making; and everyone was offered the prospect of a better-educated workforce. In these ways, the Partnership promised to guide school reform in a way that would benefit a wide array of constituents in Michigan. The keystone of the Michigan Partnership was the establishment of Professional Development Schools (PDSs), in which the Teacher Education Department of Michigan State University worked closely with local schools to provide professional development and school improvement. In August 1993, 26 PDSs were active in Michigan.

Keywords

Educational Reform Charter School School Reform School Improvement Civic Participation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ball, S. (1991). “Policy Sociology: Critical and Postmodern Perspectives on Education Policy.” Havens Center Lecture, Madison, WI, February 24, 1999.Google Scholar
  2. Bradley, A. (December 12, 1990). “M.S.U. Education School is on a Mission: ‘Teaching for Understanding.’” Education Week, from http://www.edweek.org.
  3. Deleuze, G. (Winter 1992). “Postscript on the Societies of Control.” October, 59, 3–7.Google Scholar
  4. Etzioni, A. (2000). The Third Way to a Good Society. London: Demos.Google Scholar
  5. Foucault, M. (1979). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
  6. Furst, L.G. (January 25, 1996). “The Short but Very Curious Legal History of Michigan’s Charter Schools.” Education Law Reporter, 105, 233–245.Google Scholar
  7. Geltner, B.B. (1994). “Juggling the Reinvention of Michigan’s Public Schools.” International Journal of Educational Reform, 3(4), 401–413.Google Scholar
  8. Giddens, A. (1998). The Third Way. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  9. Kaplan, G.R. (1996). “Profits R Us: Notes on the Commercialization of America’s Schools.” Phi Delta Kappan, 7(3), K1–K12.Google Scholar
  10. Kliebard, H.M. (1986). Struggle for the American Curriculum. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  11. Labaree, D.F. (Spring 1997). “Public Goods, Private Goods: The American Struggle over Educational Goals.” American Educational Research Journal, 34(1), 39–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Michigan Legislature. (1990). Revised School Code. Public Act 25 (380.1277).Google Scholar
  13. Michigan Partnership for New Education. (September 1993). 1993–1994 Plan. Vol. 1. Submitted to the Michigan Department of Education.Google Scholar
  14. Mintrom, M. (2000). Leveraging Local Innovation: The Case of Michigan’s Charter Schools. Michigan State University: Author.Google Scholar
  15. Mintrom, M. (November 2001). “Educational Governance and Democratic Practice.” Educational Policy, 15(5), 615–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Peters, S. (2002). “Inclusive Education in Accelerated and Professional Development Schools: A Case-Based Study of Two School Reform Efforts in the USA.” International Journal of Inclusive Education, 6(4), 287–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Popkewitz, T.S. (1998). Struggling for the Soul: The Politics of Schooling and the Construction of the Teacher. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  18. Popkewitz, T.S. and Bloch, M. (2001). “Administering Freedom: A History of the Present: Rescuing the Parent to Rescue the Child for Society.” In Hultqvuist, K. and Dahlberg, G. (Eds.), Governing the Child in the New Millennium (pp. 85–118). New York: RoutledgeFalmer.Google Scholar
  19. Rose, N. (1999). Powers of Freedom: Reframing Political Thought. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rose, N. (June/July 2000). “Community, Citizenship, and the Third Way.” The American Behavioral Scientist, 43(9), 1395–1411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Schmidt, P. (January 19, 1994). “E.A.I Reaches Tentative Accord to Run Michigan Schools.” Education Week, from, http://www.edweek.org/ew/ew_printstorycfm?slug=17eai.h13.
  22. Sederburg, W. (June 3, 1994). The 1993–93 [sic] Michigan Education Poll: Focus on Reform. Lansing, MI: Public Sector Consultants, Public Opinion Research Institute, from, http://www.publicsectorconsultants.com/PSR/Adv/1994/060394.cfm.Google Scholar
  23. The Leona Group. (2002). Background, from, http://www.leonagroup.com/boct.html.Google Scholar
  24. Tyack, D. (1974). The one Best System: A History of American Urban Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Tyack, D. and Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering Toward Utopia: A Century of Public School Reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Barry M. Franklin, Thomas S. Popkewitz, and Marrianne N. Bloch 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lynn Fendler

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations