This article has been retrieved
times since April 24, 2001
This article has been retrieved
Education Policy Analysis Archives | ||
Volume 9 Number 13 |
April 24, 2001 |
ISSN 1068-2341 |
|
Editor: Gene V Glass, College of Education Arizona State University
Copyright 2001, the
EDUCATION POLICY ANALYSIS ARCHIVES. Articles appearing in EPAA are abstracted in the Current Index to Journals in Education by the ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation and are permanently archived in Resources in Education. |
School Reform Initiatives as Balancing Acts:
|
|
Abstract
School reform initiatives during the last two decades in Japan, Korea, England, and the United States can be understood as balancing acts. Because policymakers in England and the United States saw their school systems fragmented and student outcomes mediocre, they focused reform efforts on raising educational standards, tightening curriculum and assessment, and improving academic achievement. In contrast, policymakers in Japan and Korea, who saw their school systems overstandardized and educational processes deficient, focused their reform efforts on deregulating schools, diversifying curriculum and assessment, and enhancing whole-person education. While school reform policies were formulated and adopted in response to each country’s unique problems, they also were driven by globalization forces that fostered an international perspective. If implemented successfully, such cross-cultural policy variations (i.e., standardization vs. differentiation in curriculum, unification vs. diversification in assessment, and privatization vs. democratization in governance) would make distinctive educational systems more alike. Cultural and institutional barriers to educational convergence between the Eastern and Western school systems are discussed. |
|
While school reforms worldwide during the last two decades
have been concerned with similar goals and values (Note 1),
their
organizational articulation tends to vary between countries.
Indeed, education reform in many countries during the last
two decades seems to have been shaped by two sets of forces.
One is growing public distrust of educational bureaucracies
in a climate of rapid political change (Wong,
1994a). (Note 2) The other is growing international
competition in the context of the global economy (Kearns and
Doyle, 1991). Since the consequences of these factors for
education policies were also likely to vary between
countries with different cultures and institutions, global
school reform processes and outcomes would benefit from
examination from a comparative perspective.
Building upon this premise, this study examines major school reforms in four selected industrial countries, two (Japan and South Korea) from the East and two (England and the United States) from the West that differ significantly in terms of educational institutions and cultures. Japan and Korea have highly centralized school governance systems and homogeneous educational values. In the United States and England, educational governance is decentralized and educational values are relatively heterogeneous. (Note 3) These four countries were also selected for their contrasting approach to school reform over the last two decades. In England and the U.S., where lack of focus and accountability were identified as major deficiencies of their educational systems, efforts were made to standardize curriculum, tighten assessment practices and introduce market-like competition into their public school systems. (Note 4) Similar political and economic challenges, on the other hand, resulted in policies to differentiate curriculum, diversify assessment, and decentralize school governance in Korea and Japan. In these two countries, uniform control and excessive competition were blamed for the lack of humane education despite their past contributions to academic performance and industrial development. The objective of this study is to understand the variation in school reform policies among those four different countries and to explore their implications for educational convergence. To this end, this paper reviews school reform literature, related government reports and newspaper articles. |
Overview of School Reform InitiativesIn the following sections, brief overviews of the four countries' major school reform initiatives during the last two decades are provided.JapanIn Japan, education has played a critical role in national development. Japan has been successful in providing equal educational opportunity and accomplishing high educational standards. On the other hand, the Japanese school system has neglected children's social and emotional development, paying exclusive attention to academic achievement. Since the 1970s, serious problems have been identified, including high rates of suicide in children, children refusing to attend school, violence in school and homes, and insidious school bullying. There has also been increasing public criticism expressing distrust of schools, teachers, and the education sector as a whole. The educational system in Japan was in a grave "state of desolation" and awareness of these problems has caused nationwide educational reform efforts (Sasamori, 1993).The National Council on Education Reform (NCER) was established in 1984, as an ad hoc advisory committee to then Prime Minister Nakasone. The Council submitted four reports in which it identified fundamental principles for educational reform: (1) putting emphasis on individuality; (2) putting emphasis on fundamentals; (3) the cultivation of creativity, thinking ability, and power of expression; (4) the expansion of opportunities for choices; (5) the humanization of the educational environment; (6) the transition to lifelong learning; (7) coping with internationalization; (8) coping with the Information Age. The NCER described its mission as nothing less than completing the third great educational reform in modern Japanese history that was begun by the Central Council on Education in 1974 (Lincicombe, 1993). School reform policies that the Ministry of Education actually enforced based on the recommendations from the Council were very limited (Sasamori, 1993). Educational reform lost impetus in the midst of the resignation of Nakasone cabinet and political turnover, and policy adoption lagged. (Note 5) Moreover, most of the recommendations were not implemented because of the passive attitudes of educators and administrators. There were also other barriers to policy implementation such as the increasing cost of education, declining family support for schooling, and highly competitive college entrance examinations. Particularly, college entrance examinations influenced not only the content of courses of study but also the attitudes of students and educators toward the goal of teaching and learning. Nevertheless, the country hasn't changed its reform goals and revived its reform agenda in the 1990s. For instance, the Curriculum Council, with an inquiry from the Minister of Education in 1996, comprehensively discussed how to help children's well-balanced development and how to educate them to be sound members of the nation and the society (Japanese Ministry of Education, 1998). The Council again recognized the importance of the emotional and moral education in response to such problematic behavior as bullying among children, their refusal to go to school, juvenile delinquency and children's poor morality and sociality. It recommended changes in teaching and grading methods as well as changes in curriculum and school hours: narrowing the scope of required courses and increasing elective courses. KoreaVery much like Japan, Korean education has expanded rapidly, elementary and secondary education has become universal and higher education is highly accessible. This remarkable educational development, enabled by national planning efforts and public investments in education, contributed to mass production of human capital and resulting economic growth. However, this growth has been accompanied by serious educational problems such as schooling becoming a tool for college entrance exam passage and excessive government regulation of schools. All of this inhibited development of individual students' creativity, accommodation of differences in student aptitude and interest, and moral and personal development. Moreover, prevailing cramming institutions and private tutoring distorted schooling practices and put excessive economic burdens on parents.Under these circumstances, the Presidential Commission on Education Reform (PCER) was established in 1994, and has been instrumental in Korean education reform (Gahng, 1988; Si-gan-gwa-gong-gan-sa, 1995). Beginning May 31, 1995, the PCER made four sequential reform proposals. For the reform of K-12 education, the proposals included new curricula for humanities and creativity, creation of autonomous school communities, and a new college admission system. While introducing more authentic student assessment, the reform requested that schools maintain a "comprehensive personal record" for each student, including all personal data and that the record be given substantial weight in the college admissions process. Each school was also required to organize a school council which involved parents and teachers in schoolwide decisionmaking. At the same time, different kinds of high schools and specialized programs were allowed to be established. To hold school districts and schools accountable, the government's administrative and financial support was linked to their performance evaluation results. The transition of education reform has been smooth despite changes in the government regime (Kim, 1998). The seventh revision of the national curriculum was made in 1997, following the vision and framework of school reform envisioned by the PCER (Huh, 1998). Schools could have increased time for activities that are deemed educationally appropriate for their students. However, the extent of allowed changes was minimal. For example, the number of hours for optional activities at each school's discretion increased from 0-1 hours a week to 2 hours a week in elementary schools and from 1-2 hours to 4 hours a week in middle schools. In addition, differentiated curricula were introduced in which different learning contents and objectives were prepared for different groups of students. However, little effort was made to reduce class size and increase teacher support, which makes it unlikely that this measure alone could reduce the need for private tutoring. Despite their broad appeal to the public, those reform policies were also under criticism by educators because of their top-down approach and exclusion of teachers (KATO, 1997). While such comprehensive, sweeping school reform efforts have been made, national newspapers have reported so-called 'collapse of classrooms' or 'desolation of education' phenomena across the nation's high schools (Chosunilbo, August 23, 1999; Joongangilbo, October 20, 1999). This includes absenteeism, truancy, resistance to school authority and challenge to teachers, apathy, and other behavioral problems observed in schools and classrooms. It remains to be seen whether the above- mentioned school reform measures can successfully address these challenges. EnglandHere the need for educational change arose from concerns about relatively low academic standards and poor student achievement (Pring, 1995). Several reports criticized schools for poor and falling standards. Many also viewed the country's poor economic performance since World War II, relative to that of other competing nations, as due largely to the poor training and inadequate skills of the workforce. Commenting on the origins of the 1988 Education Reform Act, a deputy secretary at the Department of Education and Science (DES) pointed out a growing conviction that economic well-being was being adversely affected by the performance of an education service and a need to reduce and control public expenditure in proportion to GDP and to be more sure about getting value for money (Thomas, 1993).The Education Act of 1988 introduced a national curriculum which was articulated in terms of attainment targets and program of study within a range of core and foundation subjects. Each subject programs of study specified what content needed to be covered for key stages 1-4. The attainment targets in each subject were at ten levels, so that progression in each subject could be established and teacher, child and parent would know how the pupil performed relative to the objectives and to other pupils. This ties in with the national tests that check whether students are meeting these targets. The 1988 Education Reform Act sought to simultaneously centralize and decentralize control of policy and practice (Thomas, 1993). By introducing national curriculum and assessment systems, the reforms tended to shift the traditional control of local school districts to central governments. By introducing site-based management system known as the Local Management of Schools (LMS), the reforms also tended to move control over educational resources from school districts to individual schools. The 1988 reform also served to privatize education to some extent and increase school competition, enhancing the power of the client in relation to that of the provider. It introduced grant-maintained schools, which allowed schools to apply for maintenance from the central government and ceased to be maintained by the LEA. (Note 6) These comprehensive school reform measures were not free from criticisms. The reform took a top-down approach: teachers were excluded from the process of setting the reform agenda because the purpose was to challenge producer interest (Thomas, 1993). It was argued that the country's hasty implementation of a national curriculum and assessment led to an unmanageable curriculum and an ineffective assessment system (Silvernail, 1996). Moreover, the potential of the national curriculum to enhance equity has been questioned since it hardly ensures valuable and relevant learning experiences for working-class students (Burwood, 1992). School governance reform also raised challenges both for schools that may opt out of district control in order to receive the extra money and preserve the status quo and for the central government that deal directly and efficiently with growing numbers of grant-maintained schools (Wholstetter and Anderson, 1994). |
United StatesEducation reform in the U.S. is very difficult to characterize because the substance and structure of reform varies widely across the country. However, most of the reform efforts during the last two decades may be put under the label of standards- based systemic education reform, which was "a uniquely American adaptation of the education policies and structures of many of the world's highly developed nations" (O'Day and Smith, 1993). Adopted school reform policies varied among states but all were aimed at raising academic standards for all students and improving the quality of public school systems.The 1983 national report, A Nation at Risk, created a crisis atmosphere, connecting U.S. economic decline with relatively poor educational performance and suggesting that educational upgrading would lead to economic revitalization (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983). In response to the policy challenge, many states became more active in standards-based education reform during the 1980s: the states increased course credit requirements for graduation, raised standards for teacher preparation, mandated teacher tests for certification, set higher levels for teacher pay, developed state curriculum frameworks or guides, and established new statewide student assessments (Lee, 1997). These policies, which emerged since A Nation at Risk, culminated with the 1989 national education goals (enacted into the Goals 2000 in 1994). U.S. school governance reform was very slow and diffused. But, as with England, it may also be characterized by a combination of centralization and decentralization measures along with a privatization trend. State legislatures and state boards of education increasingly set top-down performance standards for local boards and schools. At the same time local boards yielded autonomy to the state, they further lost control of schools through adoption of site-based management practices and local school council. This often led to local-board and central-office "disintermediation" (Wang and Walberg, 1999). Increasing numbers of charter schools in many states increased school choice and competition. At the same time, public vouchers and tax credits for private school tuition strengthened consumer power over education. While many systemic school reform efforts have been made across the nation, findings from the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) showed that the U.S is far from achieving the national goal of being first in the world in mathematics and science achievement by the year 2000 (NCES, 1996). The TIMSS curriculum study also pointed out the prevailing problem of current U.S. curricula, that is, "a mile wide and an inch deep" characterizing broad, superficial coverage of many topics (Schmidt et al., 1997). While these findings may enhance controversies about the adoption of voluntary national curriculum standards and assessments, their ultimate outcomes remain to be seen. Some have expressed the concern that simply tinkering toward unrealistically high goals would bring endless cycle of educational crisis and new reform (Tyack and Cuban, 1995). Similarities and Differences in School Reform InitiativesComparison of school reform initiatives across the four different countries reveals the fact that educational reform policies share common goals and reflect the utopian view that educational reform can change schools and advance society. In each of the four study countries, education reform was initiated primarily to solve their social or economic problems, and gained relatively wide public attention and/or support. During this process, education, specifically public school, was blamed for the broader problems, but at the same time reforming education was seen as a promising solution.In each of these countries, and regardless of the issues to be addressed, reports/proposals from national commissions or government agencies played catalystic roles by giving momentum and legitimacy for nationwide school reform efforts. In the U.S., the National Commission on Excellence in Education, a prestigious ad hoc panel, issued A Nation at Risk in 1983, which triggered a wave of reform activity in the states (Koppich and Guthrie, 1993). In England, the Department of Education and Science white papers and ministerial speeches developed the theme of education reform, and some of the proposals shaped the Education Act of 1988 (Pring, 1995). In Japan, the National Council on Education Reform, set up in 1984 as an ad hoc advisory committee to then Prime Minister Nakasone, submitted four reports which provided the principles of educational reform (Sasamori, 1993). In Korea, the Presidential Commission on Education Reform, established in 1994, has been instrumental in education reform by producing four sequential reform proposals (Gahng, 1998). Remarkable similarities are observed in the policies of countries that share cultural and institutional heritages. On the one hand, Japan and Korea were very similar in the nature and scope of their national reforms. While the Japanese government adopted comprehensive reform proposals that included advancement of lifelong education and internationalization of education (Lincicombe, 1993), the Korean government followed a similar reform path later utilizing the same catch-phrases (KATO, 1997). This arises primarily from policy imitation as enhanced by the two countries' proximity and shared problems in education. On the other hand, policy similarity was also observed between England and the U.S., which may be attributed to their common educational issues and mutual learning/problem-solving efforts (Wholstetter & Anderson, 1994; Silvernail, 1996; Levin, 1998). Table 1 summarizes major school reform themes and policies in the four countries. In response to diversified individual needs for humane development as well as emerging social needs for national competitiveness in a global economy, Japan and Korea attempted to differentiate their national curricula and to decentralize their governance systems during the last two decades. In contrast, a concern with national economic performance was injected into the policy debate on educational standards and school choice in England and the U.S. during the same period. Thus, England established a national curriculum and test, and extended parental choice and market-like school competition. The U.S. promoted national- or state-level educational standard-setting activities along with an increase in school choice programs. |
Table 1
|
Reform Themes and Goals |
Improving academic standards
|
Enhancing whole-person education
|
| Standardization/Intensification
|
Differentiation/Enrichment
| |
Reform Policies |
Unification/Tightening
|
Diversification/Loosening
|
Reform Policies |
Disintermediation/Privatization
|
Decentralization/Democratization
|
Figure 1. Convergence of four national traditional education systems and their school reform effortsWhether such movements lead to expected policy outcomes depends on the culture and institution of each country affecting educational policy implementation. Reforms have a better chance to be implemented if they are aligned with institutionalized values, rules and procedures (Meyer and Rowan, 1978; Rowan, 1982; Fuhrman, Clune, and Elmore, 1988; Cuban, 1992; Lee, 1996). Policy success also depends on the mechanisms that coordinate or connect the flow of resources and practices within the multi-layered school system (Gamoran and Dreeben, 1986; Barr and Dreeben, 1988; Loveless, 1993; Wong, 1994b; Lee, 1996). The school reform processes in those four countries were not always smooth because of policy implementation barriers. Implementation of reform policies that require breaking up with traditional values and practices should face more severe resistance from vested interest groups and more frequent interruption or even demise subject to political changes. Indeed, the reform initiatives were under criticisms in all four countries because of their radical approach to educational changes and exclusion of teachers in their top-down reform processes. While the goals of school reform remain legitimate and policy renewal efforts by a subsequent government have the reforms move along, future reform process is hard to anticipate accurately, and its end results may look quite different from what was expected initially. Thus, educational convergence between those Eastern and Western countries may further lag as a result of their lagged school reform processes. The policy challenge in the U.S. and England is to implement a national curriculum or standards that will provide a common unifying learning experience and promote equity under the influences of increasingly diverse student population and market-like school competition. In Japan and Korea, on the other hand, the challenge is to implement enriched educational programs and practices that will provide student-centered learning experience and promote individual creativity under the circumstances of prevailing private tutoring for college entrance exam and eroding public support for schools and teachers. The ultimate success of school reform initiatives in the four countries are likely to be restricted by the extent that their traditional values and institutional arrangements underlying contemporary educational practices prevail. DiscussionExamination of major school reform efforts in England, Japan, South Korea and the U.S. reveals cross-cultural policy variation. All four study countries blamed public education for their social or economic problems and initiated school reforms to solve the alleged problems. England and the U.S. found their school systems problematic in terms of students' low academic achievement and focused their reform efforts on improving academic standards. Policymakers in those Western countries often found their school systems too fragmented and loose, and they attempted to make the systems more coherent and accountable. In contrast, Japan and Korea saw their school systems deficient in terms of students' emotional and behavioral development and focused their reform efforts on enhancing whole-person education. Policy makers in those Eastern countries often found their school systems too standardized and rigid, and they attempted to make the systems more diverse and democratic.While school reform policies were adopted by the countries in response to their unique social problems, they were also driven by globalization forces that influenced their perception of the problems from a comparative perspective. In other words, the school reforms introduced in England, U.S., Japan and Korea were balancing acts toward optimal educational values, practices and outcomes. Traditionally, countries of different culture and institutional histories have quite different systems of education. In fact, different cultural values and institutional arrangements often influence their optimal educational values and processes: academic vs. personal development, uniformity vs. diversity, centralization vs. decentralization, government vs. market. While policy choices are often made on the continuum in congruence with cultural and institutional heritage, globalization forces seem to destabilize such long fixation on an extreme position. Indeed, the Eastern and Western countries took contrasting school reform approaches (i.e., standardization vs. differentiation, unification vs. diversification, and privatization vs. democratization), which ironically may make their remarkably distinctive educational systems more alike. While the cases of four selected countries may not be generalized to other industrial countries in their regions, the perspective gained from this case study has implications for international school reform initiatives. If American and English school systems imitate their Eastern counterparts as a result of their reform efforts, will their students' academic achievement improve as well? If Japanese and Korean school systems become more similar to their Western counterparts, will their students' personal development improve as well? While actual policy impact remains to be examined in the long run, it is likely that these four countries keep facing policy implementation challenges that come from struggles with traditional cultural values and institutional arrangements. Nevertheless, it is also likely that the reform initiatives as balancing acts will continue with certain modifications until school systems as a whole sense that their education has recovered proper balance relative to their rivalry systems in the world. NotesAn earlier version of this article was presented at the 2000 Annual Meeting of the American Educational research Association in New Orleans.
ReferencesBurwood, L. R. V. (1992). Can the national curriculum help reduce working-class under-achievement? Educational Studies. 18(3), 311-321. Cuban, L. (1992). What happens to reforms that last?: The case of the junior high school. American Educational Research Journal. 29(2), 227-251. Fuhrman, S. H., Clune, W. H., & Elmore, R. F. (1988). Research on education reform: lessons on the implementation of policy. Teachers College Record. 90(2), 237-257. Gahng, T. J. (1998). The context of education in Korea. In Paik et al. Educational Development in Korea: An Analysis of Investment and Development Strategies. Seoul: KEDI. Gamoran, A., & Dreeben, R. (1986). Coupling and control in educational organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly. 31, 612-632. Huh, K. (1998) Curriculum Development Policies in Korea. In Paik et al. Educational Development in Korea: An Analysis of Investment and Development Strategies. Seoul: KEDI. Japanese Ministry of Education (July 29, 1998). Synopsis of the Curriculum Council Report "National Curriculum Standards Reform for Kindergarten, Elementary School, Lower and Upper Secondary School and Schools for the Visually Disabled, the Hearing Impaired and the Otherwise Disabled." (http://www.monbu.go.jp/series-en/00000016/) Kearns, D. T., & Doyle, P. D. (1991). Winning the brain race. San Francisco: ICS Press. Kim, G. (1998) The Educational Policy and Administration in Korea. In Paik et al. Educational Development in Korea: An Analysis of Investment and Development Strategies. Seoul: KEDI. Koppich, J. E., & Guthrie, J. W. (1993). Examining contemporary education reform efforts in the United States. (Ch. 4) In Beare, H. & Boyd, L. (Eds.). Restructuring schools: an international perspective on the movement to transform the control and performance of schools. London: Falmer Press. Korea Association of Teacher Organizations. (1997). Comprehensive evaluation of education reform and government policy. Seoul, Korea: KATO. Lee, J. (1996). Multi-level linkages of state education reform to instructional practices. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of American Educational Research Association, New York. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 397 469) Lee, J. (1997). State activism in education reform: Applying the Rasch model to measure trends and examine policy coherence. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 19(1), 29-43. Lee, J. (1999). Missing links in international education studies: Can we compare the U.S. with East Asian countries? International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning[Online]. 3 (18). Available: http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~iejll/volume3/lee.html. Levin, B. (1998). An epidemic of education policy: (what) can we learn from each other? Comparative Education. 34(2), 131-141. Lincicombe, M. (1993). Focus on internationalization of Japanese education, Comparative Education Review. 37(2), 123-151. Loveless, T. (1993). Organizational coupling and the implementation of tracking reform. Administrator’s Notebook. 30(8). Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1978). The structure of educational organizations. In M. W. Meyer et al. (Eds.), Environments and organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Meyer, J. W. et al. (1979). The world educational revolution, 1950-1970. In J. W. Meyer, & W. R. Scott (Eds.), National development and the world system: Educational, economic and political change, 1950-1970. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. National Center for Education Statistics. (1996). Pursuing excellence: A study of U.S. eighth-grade mathematics and science teaching, learning, curriculum, and achievement in international context. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for education reform. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. O'day, J., & Smith, M. (1993). Systemic reform and educational opportunity. (Ch. 8) In S. Fuhrman (Ed.) Designing coherent educational policy. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Pring, R. A. (1995). Closing the gap: Liberal eduation and vocational preparation. London: Hodder & Stoughton. Ramirez, F. O., & Boli, J. (1987). Global patterns of educational institutionalization. In G. W. Thomas et al. (Eds.), Institutional structure: Constituting the state, society, and the individual. Newbury Park: SAGE. Rohlen, T. P. (1983). Japan's high schools. Berkeley: University of California Press. Rowan, B. (1982). Organizational structure and the institutional environment: The case of public schools. Administrative Science Quarterly. 27, 259-79. Sasamori, T. (1993). Educational reform in Japan since 1994. (Ch. 8) In Beare, H. & Boyd, L. (Eds.). Restructuring schools: an international perspective on the movement to transform the control and performance of schools. London: Falmer Press. Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C. C, Raizen, S. A. (1997) A Splintered Vision: An Investigation of U.S. Science and Mathematics Education. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Si-gan-gwa-gong-gan-sa (1995). 5.31 Education Reform. Seoul: Author. Silvernail, D. L. (1996). The impact of England's national curriculum and assessment system on classroom practice: Potential lessons for American reformers. Educational Policy. 10(1), 46-62. Stevenson, H. W. & Stigler, J. W. (1992). The learning gap: Why our schools are failing and what we can learn from Japanese and Chinese education. New York: Summit Books. Taylor, S. (1999). Globalization and education policy. Journal of Education Policy. 14(1), 1-97. Thomas, H. (1993). The education-reform movement in England and Wales. (Ch. 3) In Beare, H. & Boyd, L. (Eds.). Restructuring schools: an international perspective on the movement to transform the control and performance of schools. London: Falmer Press. Tyack, D. & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public school reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wang, M. C. & Walberg, H. J. (December 1, 1999). Decentralize or "Disintermediate"? Education Week. Wholstetter, P. & Anderson, L. 1994. What can charter schools learn from England's grant-maintained schools? Phi Delta Kappa. 75, 486-91. Wong, K. K. (1994a). Bureaucracy and school effectiveness. International Encyclopedia of Education, Vol. 6. Educational Administration.
Wong, K. K. (1994b). Governance structure, resource
allocation, and equity
policy. (Ch. 6) In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.),
Review of Research in
Education, 20. About the AuthorJaekyung LeeCollege of Education and Human Development University of Maine e-mail: jklee@umit.maine.edu Jaekyung Lee is an assistant professor of educational policy and research at the University of Maine. He is a National Academy of Education/Spencer Postdoctoral Fellow and was a Korea Foundation for Advanced Studies Doctoral Fellow. His past and current research also has been supported by the American Educational Research Association, the National Center for Education Statistics and the National Science Foundation. His research interests include assessing the impact of education policies on teaching and learning and identifying elements of systemic school reform which impact academic excellence and equity. |
Copyright 2001 by the Education Policy Analysis ArchivesThe World Wide Web address for the Education Policy Analysis Archives is epaa.asu.edu General questions about appropriateness of topics or particular articles may be addressed to the Editor, Gene V Glass, glass@asu.edu or reach him at College of Education, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-0211. (602-965-9644). The Commentary Editor is Casey D. Cobb: casey.cobb@unh.edu . EPAA Editorial Board
|