![[Table of Contents]](/icons/up.gif){kind=icon}
The impetus for education reform differed between California and Michigan and Vermont, due in part to the timing of the reform efforts and the nature of the states' economies. California has long been a leader in education change. One of the first states in the country to address the educational needs of economically disadvantaged students and students with special educational needs in the 1970s, the impetus for change in the 1980s came from a combination of factors: the state's increased role in education funding under the Serrano decision, new revenues for education generated by an expanding economy, and a perceived failure of the policies of the 1970s to stem declining student academic performance (Kirst and Yee, 1994). Systemic reform efforts in Michigan and Vermont emerged later in the decade and were driven largely by economic forces. Structural changes in Michigan's economy had reduced the number of high paying manufacturing jobs, especially in the automotive industry. The Vermont economy, based on agriculture and natural resources, was also in a state of decline, and tourism, a major economic activity, was sensitive to swings in the national economy. As a result, business leaders and policy makers in these states called for the creation of a better educated workforce that could compete in an international, post-industrial economy. To use the words of Vermont's chief state school officer, their choice was "high skills or low wages" (Mills, 1993).
Although the impetus for reform differed, the overall goal of reform was similar for all three states: to identify and establish more challenging academic standards for all students and to develop education policies that were aligned with and supported these standards. The reform strategies adopted by these states, however, reflect a different balance of state and local control over education policy. While all three states consider themselves local control states, the history of state involvement in education policy varies considerably. State policy makers in California, including the state department of education, have been proactive in education policy since the 1960s. Bill Honig was elected state superintendent in 1982 on a reform platform emphasizing a return to high academic standards, a comprehensive, statewide reform strategy and increased public support for education. The California legislature soon passed an omnibus reform bill that contained 65 components addressing issues ranging from graduation requirements to mentor teacher programs, but focused on establishing a rigorous academic core program for all students. These reforms were not mandated, but provided much needed resources to districts and schools that chose to participate (Kirst and Yee, 1994).
In Vermont, an aversion to state mandates led to a change strategy built around the development and promotion of consistent general guidelines, rather than the establishment of a specific curriculum or instructional approach. Because local curriculum is "sacred ground," the Vermont State Department of Education walks a tightrope between providing enough guidance to local school districts so they can improve their curriculum and instructional practices and not interfering with local practice. Thus state activities like the developing curriculum frameworks are viewed as a bridge between national standards, the state's general Common Core of Learning, and local actions. The commissioner of education and the state department of education also see alignment of state policies around the Common Core as critical for setting a clear direction for local school districts.
Michigan's reform strategy reflects a continual tension between the state's tradition of local control and the legislature's (and business community's) desire to be more prescriptive. In the early 1990s, the state moved from a long-standing system of statewide assessments and assessment goals and objectives designed primarily to inform and guide local curriculum reform to a set of policies that linked student assessments, curriculum standards and student and school accountability more tightly together. The agenda for 1995, however, is to retreat from these more prescriptive policies, returning to the use of state assessments and standards as policy guides, rather than policy mandates.
Another important aspect of the political context in these three states is the often conflicting interests of legislators, governors and the education establishment. In Michigan, the state board of education, chief state school officer and state department of education have traditionally been weak actors in education policy in the state, and they are currently under attack (along with the rest of the education community in the state) by the Governor and the Republican-controlled legislature who have set the reform agenda. Educational policy making is also highly politicized in California, but until recently a partisan alignment of the Democratic state superintendent and legislature counterbalanced the Republican governors and the state board of education members they appointed. The departure of Honig--the architect of California's systemic reform--coupled with Republican gains in the state legislature in 1994 threaten the continuity of California's reform efforts. Mills, an appointee of the Vermont State Board of Education, has enjoyed the support of the governors and legislators of that state to date, but Mills himself says that he has had to make some "Faustian bargains" with the state legislature. In particular, the legislature wants a clearer picture of the results for student learning, something that has been impeded by difficulties with developing reliable scoring for the state's portfolio assessment. In the year of our study, the legislature was consumed with debates about school finance. Although willing to include some of the additional professional development days recommended by Mills in finance legislation, the legislature was unable to approve any reforms of school finance.
Michigan typifies northern industrial states in the country, with a smaller percentage of minority students who are primarily African-American and who are concentrated in the state's declining cities. While the state is about average on a number of measures, including tested student performance and education spending, like California, there are large achievement gaps between majority and minority students. In contrast, Vermont is small, rural and has a predominately White student body. [California adds twice as many students in one year--200,000--than Vermont has in its public schools.] Its racial and ethnic homogeneity does not extend, however, to income or special needs; the state has pockets of rural poverty. Education funding in Vermont has increased over the last 15 years, and the state now spends at about 120 percent of the national average.
Thus the three states face somewhat unique challenges in the years ahead. California, more than the other states in our study, must contend with rapid growth, growing numbers of students with special educational needs, and a faltering economy. While the student populations of Michigan and Vermont are more stable, these states must address entrenched racial/ethnic and socio-economic disparities within their borders. While educators must address issues of urban education in California and Michigan, Michigan shares with Vermont the challenges of reaching geographically-isolated populations.
-###-
[Systemic Reform Policies]