Policy Studies Review, Vol. 3, No. 2, February, 1984

B. Substantive Applications

EDWARD MORGAN

TECHNOCRATIC V . DEMOCRATIC OPTIONS FOR EDUCATIONAL POLICY

O f the many areas o f pub l i c pol icy, publ ic education has probably the longest reco rd of tension between technocratic a n d democratic values. Indeed, the h i s to ry o f pub l i c education is replete w i t h ten- sions between two pa i r s o f dichotomies: lay ( o r c i t izen) ve rsus p ro - fessional ( o r e x p e r t ) cont ro l o f educational decisionmaking, and localism ve rsus central izat ion in educational governance. While these are theoretical ly d i s t i nc t dichotomies, they have been l i nked in most educational pol icy s t ruggles. Cit izen contro l and localism have most o f ten ref lected the democratic model o f educational governance--in pa r t i cu la r t he value o f accountabi l i ty--while exper t decisionmaking and central izat ion have ref lected the technocratic model and the value o f eff iciency.

From i t s o r i g ins in the mid-nineteenth c e n t u r y , pub l i c education was steeped in democratic rhetor ic . "Dis in terested amateurs" and the local community p layed a c r i t i ca l role in shaping the common school. Gradually, w i t h impetus from the Progressive movement and "scienti f ic management ,I1 education became increas ing ly bureaucratized, cen- tral ized, and professionalized. Some a rgue convinc ing ly tha t the h i s to ry o f education, in fact, has been one o f gradual bureaucratic entrenchment (Katz , 1971) and central izat ion (Cronin, 1973).

Despite t h e apparent dominance o f the technocratic model o f educa- t ional decisionmaking, tensions between the two models have persist- ed, in p a r t because the values o f democracy continue to be compel- ling. A t two points in the past 20 years, the democratic model has p rov ided a framework fo r major challenges to mainstream educational governance. In the late 1960s. the community contro l movement at tacked the c i t y school bureaucracy for i t s unresponsiveness to the needs and demands o f inner-c i ty , minor i ty populations; simultaneous- ly, a more l i be r ta r i an c r i t i que o f "schooling" was launched, a rgu ing tha t bureaucrat ic schools genera l ly were s t i f l i ng and anti-educational.

T h e school bureaucracies responded t o these c r i t i ques by adopt ing such policies as school decentral izat ion, open classrooms, and magnet o r a l ternat ive schools. A rguab ly , however, these policies represented a technocratic way o f accommodating the democratic values o f collec- t i v e o r i nd i v idua l accountabi l i ty put fo rward by the community contro l movements and l i be r ta r i an cr i t iques. ' For the most p a r t , publ ic education has cont inued t o re f lect t he technocratic model and i t s correlates--central izat ion, bureaucracy, and s tandard izat ion-- through the cont inu ing regional izat ion o f r u r a l schools, t he closing o f many c i t y neighborhood schools, c i ty -wide and metropoli tan desegregation, computerized learning, and competency test ing.

Nonetheless, publ ic satisfact ion w i t h schools has declined (see Gallup, 1980), parental f rus t ra t i ons have led to an increase in p r i va te school attendance, and general dissatisfact ion w i t h the qua l i t y or cost o f pub l i c services has been l i nked to a " taxpayers ' revo l t . "2 In addi t ion, alarming rates o f t ruancy , vandalism, and violence,

263

264 Pol icy Studies Review 3:2 Feb. 1984

par t i cu la r l y in u r b a n schools, may b e i n te rp re ted as evidence o f widespread s tuden t alienation.

The p r inc ipa l he i r s o f t he sixt ies' c r i t i ques have been the c i t izen par t ic ipat ion movement (and more radical, co l lect iv is t e f f o r t s ) and t h e l iber tar ian advocacy o f policies l ike educational vouchers. The c i t izen part icipation movement is, in fact, an ou tg rowth o f federal policies during the Johnson Administrat ion (broadened t o inc lude a vas t a r r a y o f publ ic in terest and environmental g roups ) . In the area o f educa- t ion, ci t izen par t ic ipat ion ref lects the democratic objective o f enhanc- ing the input of lay par t ic ipants (pa r t i cu la r l y large ly excluded, low-income parents) in educational decisionmaking. In ef fect , it v iews publ ic dissatisfact ion as evidence o f the lack o f accountabi l i ty in educational pol icymaking.

Most recent ly , the Reagan Administrat ion has tapped and g i ven d i rect ion t o pub l i c dissatisfact ion t h r o u g h i t s "New Federalism" pol- icies. B y reducing federal funding fo r categorical g ran ts , emphasiz- ing state and local decisionmaking t h r o u g h a b lock g r a n t s t ruc tu re , and suppor t ing p r i va te education t h r o u g h proposed tu i t i on tax cred- i ts , the New Federalism stresses var ious ways o f making publ ic edu- cation more accountable to ind iv idual consumers and d i ve rgen t local- i t ies. (O the r aspects o f Reagan's educational policies, such as dereg- u la t ion, have been advocated in the name o f e f f ic iency. T h i s claim wil l be discussed below. )

It would appear, then, t h a t b o t h t h e New Federalism and the cit izen par t ic ipat ion movement re f lect democratic t h r u s t s against t he predominance o f technocratic decisionmaking in education (and o the r pol icy f ie lds) . Given such an appearance, an assessment must b e made o f t he degree t o which these pol icy movements, in fact, repre- sent a democratic challenge t o technocratic decisionmaking. In o rde r to do so , we must d is t inguish the pr inc ipa l dif ferences between these movements and evaluate the c u r r e n t and potential balance between technocratic and democratic models.

In o rde r to assess b o t h the New Federalism and t h e c i t izen pa r - t icipation movement, i t wi l l be he lp fu l t o c l a r i f y t he theoretical o r value underp inn ings o f each. T o do th i s , it is necessary t o consider two value dimensions: eff iciency-accountabi l i ty and equal i ty - l iber ty . Most educational po l icy approaches have ref lected var ious combinations o f these values. It wi l l be a rgued below that , while the c i t izen par t ic ipat ion movement and the New Federalism appear t o share roots in the democratic emphasis on accountabi l i ty , t hey d i ve rge c lear ly on the equal i ty - l iber ty dimension. In effect, t hey represent two o f f ou r d i s t i nc t educational pol icy approaches o r ideologies.

TECHNOCRACY AND DEMOCRACY: THE EFFICIENCY-ACCOUNTABILITY DIMENSION

Technocratic and democratic models o f educational governance ref lect basic tensions w i th in t h e family o f l iberal-democratic va l - ues-technocracy represent ing the l ibera l emphasis on universal ism, democracy the more par t icu lar is t ic emphasis on par t ic ipat ion. As applied t o education, t he technocratic model subscribes t o an emphasis on bureaucrat ic organization as a means o f maximizing ef f ic iency, professional autonomy to enhance p r o d u c t i v i t y t h r o u g h expert ise, and rat ional decisionmaking as a procedure fo r inst i tu t ional effect iveness. The democratic model, on the o the r hand, has stressed the t w i n

Horgan/Options for Educational Policy 265

objectives o f c i t izen o r lay contro l and localism. We may b r i e f l y consider the normative foundation o f b o t h exper t -c i t izen and cen- tralization-localism dichotomies as applied t o education.

Exper t v. Cit izen In emphasizing the ro le o f the exper t , t he technocratic model rests

on f o u r assumptions about pub l i c education: (1 ) education i s i nhe r - en t l y rat ional and universa l , and t h u s can b e standardized; ( 2 ) the most e f f ic ient mode of learn ing i s t h r o u g h ins t ruc t i on by e x p e r t s in a g i ven subject matter (and presumably in ef fect ive pedagogical tech- niques); ( 3 ) learn ing proceeds in a bui ld ing-b lock manner and t h u s can b e ordered in progress ive steps: and ( 4 ) educational inst i tu t ions can evaluate learn ing outcomes by quant i f ied, comparative measures.

T h e democratic side o f t h e expert-cit izen dichotomy counters these premises by asser t ing tha t ( 1 ) education is also subjective and pa r t i c - u lar , and t h u s must re f lect t he in terests , motivations, and needs o f d iverse ind iv idual learners; ( 2 ) while inst ruct ion, o r external d i rec- t ion, is a necessary component o f meaningful learning, an empathy for t he i n te rna l wor ld o f t he s tudent i s equally c r i t i ca l (more radical l iber tar ians, o f course, would a rgue tha t t he in ternal wor ld o f the learner is a l l t ha t is necessary for education t o take place; t h e ex- ternal wor ld is a g iven, t o be explored accord ing t o the needs and motivations o f each learner) ; ( 3 ) al though learn ing involves cumula- t i ve levels o f sophist icat ion, intel lectual development cannot be pack- aged in a standardized manner for a l l learners; ( 4 ) while performance measurements a re usefu l f o r inst i tu t ional purposes (even if biased), they do no t accurately re f lect t he range of valuable educational outcomes produced by learn ing experiences (these include some tha t are subjective and noncomparable).

As a resul t of i t s normative orientat ions, the democratic model asserts tha t lay cit izens ( i nc lud ing learners) have a qua l i t y o f "ex- per t ise" tha t must p lay a s ign i f icant role in shaping educational policies. In ef fect , t he "cit izen" side o f t he dichotomy views educa- t ion as something tha t i s i nhe ren t l y pol i t ical since it must ref lect the subjective wor ld o f learners and the values o f parents. Much of the t h r u s t o f professional izat ion in education, on the other hand, has been l inked t o an e f f o r t t o " take pol i t ics ou t o f education."

Central izat ion v . Localism The other dichotomy found in t h e tension between technocratic and

democratic models o f education ref lects the organizational implications o f each side o f t he exper t -c i t izen dichotomy. Central izat ion is a means o f organiz ing the universa l funct ion o f education in an ef f ic ient manner. Given the premise o f standardized learn iny and the goal o f l iberat ing young people f rom narrow, subjective l imitat ions, education- a l pol icy contains a built-in impetus toward increasing central izat ion ( the ult imate, o f course, i s un i ve rsa l c i t izenship and a wor ld c u r r i c u - lum).

On the other hand, an educational ideology which emphasizes the importance of d iverse circumstances, needs, and in terests places greater s t ress on t ies between the school and the local community (whether those t ies be racial, e thn ic , o r re l ig ious) . Localism, in short, re f lects the value o f regional and cu l tu ra l p lura l ism and a preference fo r smaller-scale inst i tu t ions, face-to-face relat ions be- tween parents and teachers, and a sense o f community belongingness.

266 Policy Studies Review 3:2 Feb. 1984

M i r r o r i n g these va lues, educat ion in t h e U n i t e d States r e s t s o n con- s t i t u t i ona l o r i g i n s t h a t p lace t h e respons ib i l i t y o n states a n d local i t ies r a t h e r t h a n t h e fede ra l government .

EQUALITY AND L IBERTY: THE EVOLUTION OF POLICY IDEOLOGIES

In theo ry , t h e movement toward cen t ra l i za t i on has l a rge ly been associated w i t h t h e technocrat ic goal o f e f f i c i ency , wh i l e t h e t r a d i t i o n o f localism has been associated w i t h t h e democrat ic goal o f ac- countabi l i ty . In actual fact , however , t h e tendency toward cen- t ra l i za t i on may b e more s t r o n g l y associated w i t h po l ic ies des igned t o enhance equal educat ional o p p o r t u n i t y , wh i l e localism has l ong defend- e d in t h e name o f l i be r t y - -o r " f reedom f rom ou ts ide in ter ference."

Publ ic educat ion p l a y s a cen t ra l ro le in a l ibera l democracy by c o n t r i b u t i n g t o equal l i fe chances for a l l a n d by l i b e r a t i n g t h e y o u n g f rom r e s t r i c t i v e c i rcumstances a n d empowering them t o make t h e b e s t o f t h e i r ab i l i t ies as a d u l t c i t izens. With t h e impl ied emphasis o n universa l ism a n d mer i tocracy, t h i s educat ional f unc t i on has gone hand- in-hand w i t h s u c h technocrat ic dev ices as s tandard i zed c u r r i c u l a a n d per formance measures, profess ional impar t i a l i t y , a n d in tegrat ion. In o r d e r t o a t ta in these goals un i ve rsa l l y , educat ional po l icymaking has s h i f t e d t o h i g h e r leve ls o f gove rnmen t a n d t h u s has become more centra l ized.

In ef fect , t h e emphasis o n equa l i t y has become associated in p rac - t ice w i t h the technocrat ic model o f educat ional governance, a com- b ina t i on t h a t expresses t h e essence o f l i be ra l ideology in American pol i t ics . However , as we shal l see below, t h i s i s o n l y one o f t w o fundamental approaches t o equal i ty ; t h e o t h e r is rep resen ted by the c i t izen pa r t i c i pa t i on movement ( a t least t h a t aspect t h a t concentrates o n t h e empowerment o f lower-income g r o u p s ) . T h u s we may d i sce rn b o t h a technocrat ic ( l i be ra l ) a n d democrat ic ( p a r t i c i p a t o r y o r rad i ca l ) ve rs ion o f educat ional equa l i t y .

Much o f t h e centra l izat ion in educat ional po l icymaking has come in the form o f new in te rven t ions by governmen t in educat ional op- erat ions, State requi rements f o r s tandard i zed c u r r i c u l a , teacher ce r t i f i ca t i on , a n d mandated special p rog rams f o r needy p u p i l s have r e s t r i c t e d t h e f reedom o f local school d i s t r i c t s t o operate as t h e y please. S imi lar ly , federa l i n t e r v e n t i o n in t h e form o f school l unch programs, categor ica l a i d for needy p u p i l s a n d cou r t -o rde red deseg- regat ion has imposed new requi rements on b o t h s tate a n d local po l i cy - makers .

As a consequence, t h e res is tance to centra l izat ion (usua l l y labeled "conservat ive") has o f t e n h a d t h e e f fec t o f downp lay ing t h e emphasis on equa l i t y a n d e leva t i ng t h e va lue o f l i b e r t y - - o f local o r consumer freedom o f choice. Fo r t h e most p a r t , t h i s pos i t ion has simply ad- vocated less centra l izat ion a n d less o f an emphasis o n egal i tar ian pol ic ies wh i l e remain ing loya l t o t h e technocrat ic s t ress on e f f i c i ency , professional ism, a n d bu reauc ra t i c organizat ion. Such a po l i cy ap- p roach m i g h t b e cal led "neo-conservat ive"; moderate levels o f compen- sa to ry educat ion, f o r example, wou ld b e v iewed as a n acceptable approach t o w a r d enhancing educat ional equa l i t y w i t h o u t sac r i f i c i ng e i t h e r profess ional exper t i se o r subs tan t i a l local po l icymaking.

However , w i t h t h e adven t o f t h e Reagan Admin i s t ra t i on ( i n p a r t i c - u l a r , t h e emergence o f t h e L ibe r ta r i an P a r t y a n d t h e New R i g h t ) , one

HorgadOpt ions f o r Educat ional Policy 267

can d iscern a fundamental disenchantment w i t h technocratic off-shoots l ike standardization and bureaucracy-- in e f fect , a d i f f e ren t b r a n d o f "romantic" conservatism. As t h e Reagan Admin is t ra t ion juggles conf l ic t ing consti tuencies, it i s no t su rp r i s ing tha t t he New Federalism places g rea te r emphasis on l i b e r t y (a conservative deemphasis on equal i ty ) while trying t o balance the technocratic va lue o f e f f ic iency w i th the democratic va lue o f accountabi l i ty.

A t t he theoretical level, then, we may d i s t i ngu ish fou r models o r ideologies o f educational po l icy a n d governance--i l lustrated in Table 1 . Each combines two values from the eff iciency-accountabi l i ty and equal i ty - l iber ty dimensions. A s such, t he fou r ideologies p rov ide a framework fo r evaluating var ious pol icy approaches. In considering the c i t izen par t ic ipat ion movement and t h e New Federalism, however, it is readi ly apparent t h a t actual policies embody the conf l ic t ing s t ra ins o f more than one ideology.

Table 1 Po l i cy Ideolog ies

E f f i c i e n c y ( "Technocrat i c " )

Equal i ty (More p u b l i c L i b e r a l P a r t i c i p a t o r y i n t e r v e n t i o n

L i b e r t y (Less p u b l i c Neo-Conservative Romant i c i n t e r v e n t i o n ) Conservative

THE CITIZEN PARTICIPATION CHALLENGE

With ideological roots in the pol i t ical act ivism o f t he 1960s . cit izen par t ic ipat ion has taken many forms--from the shor t - l ived community contro l movement t o community organiz ing, the pro l i ferat ion o f publ ic i n te res t groups, court-mandated c i t izen adv isory councils, and the l ike. While these forms o f c i t izen par t ic ipat ion v a r y widely in the i r funct ions, character is t ics o f t h e i r par t ic ipants , and the degree o f par t ic ipant input in to po l icy decisions, they embrace the fundamental democratic values o f accountabi l i ty and equal i ty . In o rde r t o evaluate the effect iveness o f t he c i t izen par t ic ipat ion movement, it i s necessary t o examine b o t h objectives.

F i r s t , c i t izen par t ic ipat ion ref lects the norm tha t policies (or more genera l ly , government) should b e responsive t o t h e views o f po l icy const i tuents o r clients. A t t he same time, much o f t he impetus for c i t izen par t ic ipat ion has come f rom an e f f o r t to redress inequali t ies in the pol icy process. Even the largely upper-middle-class publ ic in terest movement re f lects a des i re t o counterbalance in terests which a re perce ived as hav ing an u n f a i r edge in pol icy decisions (e.g., "B ig Business"). In i t s more radical ly democratic form, c i t izen par t ic ipat ion i s an e f f o r t t o empower g roups who have re la t ive ly l i t t l e

268 Policy Studies Review 3:2 Feb. 1984

o r no inf luence in formulating o r implementing publ ic pol icy-- in sho r t , t o " red i s t r i bu te " power.

While the two objectives, accountabi l i ty and equal i ty , t end t o go hand-in-hand in actual practice, it is he lp fu l t o d i s t i ngu ish between them fo r analyt ical purposes. In shor t , we may d i s t i ngu ish between cit izen-expert tensions inherent in the pol icy process, and broader concerns o f pol i t ical inequal i ty . In b o t h respects, t he c i t izen pa r - t icipation movement has had, a t best, l imited success.

Cit izen-Expert Tensions A n overview o f c i t izen par t ic ipat ion in education reveals tha t lay

input in to educational pol icy i s sharp ly l imited. In t h e i r s tudy o f a national sample o f school d is t r ic ts , Tucke r and Zeigler (1980) distin- gu ish three t ypes o f democratic responsiveness: "preference respon- siveness" (close paral lels between the pol icy preferences o f t he pub l i c and off icials), "congruence responsivenessn (paral lels between pol icy preferences o f t he pub l i c and pol icy behavior o f o f f ic ia ls) , and " rep- resentational responsiveness" (correspondence between actual pol icy demands made by the public and t h e pol icy behavior o f off icials). In democratic terms, c i t izen par t ic ipat ion embraces a l l t h ree types o f responsiveness in t h e i r sample o f school d i s t r i c t s (and the i r pub l i c opinion sample was skewed toward h ighe r socioeconomic groups) . In general, t he re was l i t t l e evidence o f e f fect ive publ ic input in to educa- tional pol icy decisions.

To a considerable degree, t h i s finding ref lects t h e ex ten t t o wh ich bureaucratization and the technocratic model discussed ear l ier p reva i l in education (as they do g e n e r a l l ~ ) . ~ A t t he same time, however, it i s important t o recognize ways in which t h e c i t izen par t ic ipat ion movement has made s ign i f icant inroads i n t o technocratic pol icymaking.

There are many examples of c i t izen e f fo r t s tha t have enhanced lay input in to educational p o l i ~ y m a k i n g . ~ Two o f t he more common t ypes o f c i t izen par t ic ipat ion are c i t izen adv isory counci ls and advocacy groups; t he former a re of ten establ ished a t t he school-distr ict o r school-site level by state and federal mandate, while the la t ter o f ten ref lect t he spontaneous e f fo r t s o f indigenous g roups t o protect the in terests o f identi f iable g roups o f pup i l s (e.g., minor i ty o r low- income chi ldren, those w i t h handicaps, etc.).

A l though i t i s f a i r t o say tha t these c i t izen par t ic ipat ion s t ruc tu res genera l ly have fai led t o l i ve up t o t h e i r promise, studies o f successful cases p rov ide ins ights i n to ef fect ive par t ic ipat ion (see Davies, 1979; Clasby, 1979; Moore and Weitzman, 1981; and Winecoff, 1982). As cit izen par t ic ipat ion takes on a g r o u p form--either t h r o u g h the orga- nization of advocacy g roups o r formalized adv i so ry coun- cils--effectiveness depends on the qua l i t y o f in teract ion between t h e g r o u p and school off icials w i th in the g roup , and between the g r o u p and i t s constituencies. These, in turn, requi re: ( 1 ) adequate re - sources (of ten a precondit ion fo r o the r requirements), ( 2 ) access t o and the ar t icu la te presentation of accurate information about t h e school system, ( 3 ) responsive school off icials, ( 4 ) a t tent ion to orga- nization building and close communication w i t h consti tuencies.

Ef fect ive c i t izen par t ic ipat ion has implications beyond mere pol icy input o r the monitoring o f pol icy implementation. In fact, evidence about "e f fect ive schools" seems t o ind icate t h e act ive involvement o n the p a r t of parents and students i s an essential i ng red ien t in enhanc- ing learn ing as well as fostering a const ruct ive school atmosphere.6

Horgan/Options f o r E d u c a t i o n a l Pol i c y 269

Leadership by the school p r i nc ipa l i s one key factor, f o r he o r she sets t h e tone and s ty le fo r in teract ion among the many school par t ic i - pants. Oppor tun i t ies fo r s tudent par t ic ipat ion and responsib i l i ty are also s ign i f icant , as are s ta f f expectat ions fo r pupil success.

Because ef fect ive par t ic ipat ion requ i res responsiveness by school off icials and s taf f , carefu l a t tent ion needs t o be g i ven t o personnel recru i tment and t ra in ing , and t o organizational and psychological pressures tha t impinge on personal f l ex ib i l i t y . In-service t ra in ing has played a c r i t i ca l role f o r school professionals and lay par t ic i - pants.

A t t he same time, however, t he p r inc ip le o f accountabi l i ty implies a degree o f counterva i l ing power on the p a r t o f parents , pupi ls , and other lay par t ic ipants . In many cases the existence o f an "external " presence (whether state o r federal government o r simply publ ic opinion) has faci l i tated the e n t r y o f lay par t ic ipants and has re in- forced t h e i r role. South Carolina, f o r example, has mandated pa r - ent-teacher adv isory counci ls a t each school s i te and has g i ven them the funct ion o f assist ing in the preparat ion o f school annual repo r t s ( w i t h the l icense t o w r i t e t h e i r own repor t if they deem it necessary) (Winecoff, 1982) . Or, a t t he federal level, t h e Experimental School Program has mandated "community" involvement in decisions govern ing the use o f school f unds (Jackson, 1981) .

B y and large, t he more successful e f fo r t s a t ci t izen part icipation would appear t o t ranscend adversar ia l relat ionships among var ious school I l interests." Not on ly a re the resources fo r part icipation available, but the focus o f par t ic ipat ion goes beyond the "protection o f interests." Tha t some instances o f successful part icipation o f t h i s t ype ex i s t is testimony t o the democratic credo tha t more part icipation i s be t te r part icipation. Tha t t h i s qua l i t y o f part icipation is not the norm i s testimony t o some o f t he more intractable, systemic obstacles tha t must be confronted.

Ci t izen Part icipation a n d Equal i ty The e f f o r t t o enhance pol i t ical equal i ty t h rough cit izen part icipa-

t i on also has i t s roots in democratic values; ye t , judged by ' t h i s norm, the reco rd o f c i t izen par t ic ipat ion may be even less successful. The c i t izen par t ic ipat ion movement, in shor t , has n o t reduced pol i t ical inequal i ty t o any s ign i f icant degree.

Not on l y does the general l i t e ra tu re on pol i t ical par t ic ipat ion reveal a consistent tendency fo r h ighe r socioeconomic g roups t o dominate pol i t ical act ivism (see Verba and Nie, 1972; and Mi lbrath and Goel, 1 9 7 7 ) , but empirical studies o f community organizations find s t rong socioeconomic biases. For example, t h e major s tudy o f c i t izen par- t ic ipat ion in education in i t ia ted by the National I ns t i t u te o f Education found tha t t h e more ef fect ive c i t izen organizations were those populat- ed by middle-income groups, while lower-income groups, o f ten man- dated by h ighe r levels o f government and funded external ly , spent more time on organization maintenance and const i tuent service than on pol icy advocacy. The p r inc ipa l obstacles t o pol icy effect iveness were t h e lack o f resources necessary t o sustain involvement ove r time and t h e absence o f an informal, middle-class ne twork w i t h decisionmakers (Gi t te l l , 1979) .

One o f t he most radical e f f o r t s a t c i t izen par t ic ipat ion-- the commu- nity contro l movement in the New Y o r k C i t y schools in 1966-1968-- evolved from t h e exasperation o f minor i ty g roups w i t h the i r inabi l i ty

270 Policy S t u d i e s Review 3 :2 Feb. 1984

to ga in any s ign i f icant school in tegrat ion from an unresponsive school bureaucracy. As a resul t , minor i ty parents demanded, under th rea t o f boycot t , t ha t major school pol icy decisions regard ing personnel, budget , and cu r r i cu lum be placed d i rec t l y in the hands o f t he local community. Because o f i t s radical nature, t h e community contro l movement t r i gge red a c i ty-wide s t r i ke by the teachers un ion (profes- sionals) and eventual legislation tha t replaced community contro l w i t h a watered-down school decentral izat ion scheme.

The " fa i lure" o f t he community contro l movement prov ides usefu l ins ights in to the reasons fo r l imited success in cit izen par t ic ipat ion e f fo r t s general ly. F i rs t , it is important t o recognize tha t the commu- nity contro l movement represented an instantaneous, radical ly demo- crat ic e f f o r t t o change the ex is t ing decisionmaking process. As such, it ref lected a separatist route to empowerment ra the r than an inte- g ra t i ve approach. As Barbara Hatton (1977) has observed, the former aims a t changes in the prevai l ing power s t r u c t u r e tha t d i rec t l y enhance the power status o f par t icu lar groups, while the la t ter t r i es t o in tegrate the disenfranchised i n t o the p reva i l i ng power s t ruc tu re .

Each approach t o empowerment re f lects a d i s t i nc t view of t he prevai l ing power s t ruc tu re . B y and large, t he in tegrat ive approach is consistent w i t h the p lu ra l i s t view o f power in American pol i t ics. In effect, decisionmaking is viewed as open to new challenges t o the status quo and based on competit ive in teract ion among affected i n te r - ests. The separatist approach t o empowerment, in turn, ref lects an e l i t is t o r neo-elit ist view o f t he p reva i l i ng power s t ruc tu re . in t h i s view, out-groups a re obst ructed in the i r e f fo r t s t o inf luence pol icy by the "mobil ization o f bias" inherent in mainstream organizations. Inst i tut ional izat ion, in shor t , mobilizes prevai l ing values, bel iefs, and goals in a manner tha t tends t o exclude those no t perce ived as legit i- mate. Racial, ethnic, sex, and pa r t i cu la r l y class characterist ics, are of ten the v is ib le lfsymbolsll o f legitimate or i l legitimate claims on the pol icy process.

Because o f i t s separatism, the community contro l movement was soundly cr i t ic ized by l iberals for isolat ing needy out -groups from mainstream educational and occupational oppor tun i t ies, as well as dev iat ing from the norms o f due process and impar t ia l i ty in b o t h the learning and decisionmaking process. In p a r t , t he community control movement rat ional ized these shortcomings by po in t i ng a t f laws in the in tegrat ive approach. In addit ion, however, it rested on the demo- crat ic be l ie f in the educational na tu re o f par t ic ipat ion and i t s corol- l a ry : t ha t education, o r real learn ing, must b e par t ic ipatory ( t h a t is, it must engage the subjective wor ld o f t he learner) . Because commu- nity contro l advocates saw mainstream schooling as i nhe ren t l y un re - sponsive, t h e y sought a s t r u c t u r e w i th in wh ich they could ta i lor learn ing to the subjective wor ld o f t h e i r ch i ldren.

In l i g h t o f t he shor t - l ived community contro l movement, one might d raw two lessons from the basic democratic challenge mounted by the broader cit izen par t ic ipat ion movement. F i r s t , t ha t time is a c r i t i ca l ingredient ; no t on l y might changes b e i ns t i t u ted more g radua l l y t han was done in the New York school system, but c i t izen par t ic ipat ion should b e g i v e n ample time t o work. In fact, t h e essence o f c i t izen par t ic ipat ion ( o r democracy) is t h a t it i s a never-ending process. The absence o f def in i t ive evidence demonstrat ing massive success in the c i t izen par t ic ipat ion movement i s n o t a reason for recoi l ing f rom these efforts; instead, much more should b e done. Furthermore, the

Morgan/Options for Educat ional Pol icy 271

evidence o f l imited success in terms o f pol icy outcomes may mask more fundamental changes in the at t i tudes and sk i l l s o f those who have been engaged in the c i t izen par t ic ipat ion movement. Thus, some ef fects may no t show up in t rad i t ional , t ime-bound social science research.

The community contro l movement carr ies a second and v e r y s ign i f i - cant lesson. One reason it "fai led" may b e t h a t i t contained the c r i t i ca l i ng red ien t f o r success in empowering out -groups: real, mean- i ng fu l par t ic ipat ion. Whether o r no t t he New Y o r k experiment allocat- e d the most appropr ia te decision areas t o parents , it gave parents real decisionmaking power ove r areas tha t were important t o them. As such, it recognized the importance of subject iv i ty in the deci- sionmaking process; what pa ren ts felt was impor tant was g i v e n tangi- b le recognit ion and release. Accord ing ly , t he community contro l movement avoided the many forms o f what Sher r i A rns te in ( 1 9 6 9 ) has cal led manipulat ive o r token part icipation. From a par t ic ipatory perspective, parent adv i so ry councils, publ ic hearings, admin is t ra t ive consultat ion, and the l ike, are doomed to fai lure; most parents and c l ients wi l l see them as a waste o f time ( j us t as many o f t h e i r ch i l - d r e n w i l l see the i r schooling experience as a waste of t ime) and wi l l remain alienated from the pol i t ical process.

In sum, the c i t izen par t ic ipat ion movement rests on a democratic ideology tha t poses a fundamental challenge to the technocratic model o f decisionmaking. One need on ly re f lect on the discomfort most school administrators and teaching professionals felt toward the com- mun i t y contro l movement t o appreciate t h e degree t o which it posed a radical depar tu re from technocracy.

While the remainder o f t h i s paper deals w i t h a l ternat ive mechanisms fo r balancing s t ra ins between democratic and technocratic deci- sionmaking, it is my contention tha t the cit izen par t ic ipat ion move- ment, t o the degree tha t it is democratic, re f lects a qual i tat ively d i f f e r e n t v is ion f rom tha t u n d e r l y i n g the technocratic model. The la t ter re f lects a fa i t h in progress th rough the impersonal mechanisms of technology, rat ional organization, and market capitalism. The former re f lects a fa i t h in the improvabi l i ty o f human beings t h r o u g h act ive par t ic ipat ion in a l i f e in common w i t h other^.^

T H E NEW FEDERALISM

The Reagan Admin is t ra t ion 's approach t o educational pol icy con- tains th ree p r imary t h r u s t s : ( 1 ) a s h i f t from categorical federal g r a n t s (o f ten targeted a t needy populat ions) to b lock g r a n t s to states for more general d i s t r i bu t i on , ( 2 ) an e f f o r t t o reduce federal " r e d tape" t h r o u g h deregulat ion o f educational policies l i nked to federal monies, and ( 3 ) an inc l inat ion t o enhance pa ren t choice by p rov id ing a id i n some manner fo r p r i v a t e education.

Under l y ing these th ree components i s a m ix tu re o f objectives. Block g r a n t s a re supposed t o bring decisions rega rd ing the use o f revenues close t o the affected publics. States w i l l have greater leeway to decide on the d i s t r i bu t i on o f funds, and those l i ke Penn- sylvania t h a t a re at tempt ing t o follow the b lock g r a n t model w i l l s h i f t greater responsib i l i ty t o localit ies. Th i s e f f o r t is t i ed in w i t h the emphasis on deregulat ion--an e f f o r t t o make educational spending more ef f ic ient by reducing the admin is t ra t ive personnel needed to apply for federal g r a n t s and t o manage mandated programs.

272 Policy Stud ies Review 3:2 Feb. 1984

In addit ion, t he Reagan Administrat ion has displayed l i be r ta r i an tendencies in advocating tu i t ion tax c red i t s for parents sending t h e i r ch i ldren to p r i v a t e schools. Educational vouchers also have been prominent in education pol icy discussions. E i ther po l icy approach would attempt t o p rov ide ind iv idual consumers o f education greater la t i tude in selecting schools. Both methods ref lect a market philoso- phy aimed at t h e pub l i c school llmonopoly."

How does the New Federalism IlfitlI on the eff iciency-accountabi l i ty and equal i ty - l iber ty dimensions? While it i s too ea r l y t o te l l in any def in i t ive manner, it would seem t h a t t he Reagan approach represents a clear s h i f t away from the goal o f equal i ty and a modest e f f o r t a t increased ef f ic iency couched in a manner tha t espouses greater ac- countabi l i ty .

F i r s t , the Reagan policies manifest ly s h i f t resources in a manner tha t reduces revenue "equal i ty" f o r schools. For example, t he admin- is t ra t ion 's proposed FY83 budge t contained a 38 percent reduct ion in funds for the compensatory T i t l e I programs from t h e i r FY81 level, and a 34 percent reduct ion in comparable T i t l e X X monies fo r Day Care. On the other hand, the Head S ta r t Program regis tered an 11 percent increase. Similarly, monies fo r var ious targeted purposes placed in the block g r a n t program were also reduced approximately 40 percent in a comparable time frame. Despite reduced revenues, t h e content of most l iberal programs remains in place, t h u s requ i r i ng local schools t o do the same job w i t h fewer resources (when the i r cl ientele is arguably more needy).

Second, the administrat ion's emphasis on b lock g ran ts , according t o several analyses ( c f . fducotion Week, March 24, 1982). w i l l r esu l t in a red i s t r i bu t i on o f revenues away from u rban , desegregating d i s t r i c t s to those w i t h sparser populat ion and from pub l i c t o p r i va te school--not exactly a move in the d i rect ion o f equal i ty . In com- b inat ion w i t h deregulat ion, the s h i f t from categorical t o b lock g r a n t s also i s l ike ly t o s h i f t the d i s t r i bu t i on o f f unds w i th in school d i s t r i c t s . A s Levy et al. (1974) have documented, federal monies have tended to have a modestly red i s t r i bu t i ve impact in u r b a n school systems, while state monies have not.

Final ly, because states d i f f e r in the i r resources and pol icy pri- ori t ies, the New Federalism i s l ike ly t o resu l t in regional inequit ies (and substantial var ia t ions in the treatment o f needy populat ions). In addit ion, many states face t h e i r own taxpayers ' revol ts and t h u s a squeeze on revenues from b o t h above and below. In Massachusetts, for example, despite evidence tha t suppor ters o f t he tax- l imi t ing Proposit ion 2 -4 were in p a r t demanding a more equitable system o f taxation, the resul t ing cutbacks in school spending have been most pronounced in u r b a n areas populated by large numbers o f minor i ty and lower-working-class pup i l s ( c f . Morgan, 1981, 1982a). Educa- tional equal i ty has suf fered in two respects. D is t r i c t s sending fewer graduates to four-year colleges and univers i t ies were l ike ly to make greater reduct ions in the i r inst ruct ional budgets, and educational spending i s l i ke l y to become more s t rong ly associated w i t h local p r o p e r t y wealth. Similar t rends seem l i ke l y in states l i ke Michigan, Idaho, and Cali fornia where vo te rs have res t r i c ted funds fo r educa- t ion. In addi t ion, the sh i f t away from educational equal i ty seems to be ev ident in the area of in tegrat ion, as challenges have been mount- e d to state au tho r i t y t o mandate desegregation in Cali fornia and 1 I l inois.

MorganfOptions f o r Educational Policy 273

In r e g a r d t o t h e e f f i c i ency -accoun tab i l i t y d imension, t h e New Federal ism i s more ambiguous. In la rge p a r t , t h i s i s because e f f i - c iency i s def ined in te rms o f "wha t t h e p u b l i c wants" u s i n g the marke t model. T h e New Federal ism claims t o b e e f f i c i en t in t w o re - spects. F i r s t , by "de regu la t i ng " p u b l i c educat ion ( remov ing federa l " s t r i n g s " ) , t h e Reagan Admin i s t ra t i on asse r t s t h a t it i s reduc ing fede ra l requ i remen ts t h a t have o f t e n taken a t ten t i on away f rom t h e cen t ra l educa t ing task o f schools a n d t h a t have added a n admin is t ra- t i v e l aye r t o school systems. Second, by s t r e n g t h e n i n g i n d i v i d u a l consumer choice, pol ic ies s u c h as t u i t i o n t a x c r e d i t s a n d vouchers w i l l s t reaml ine t h e d e l i v e r y o f educat ional serv ices by mak ing t h e p r o d u c t a n d i t s cost more accountable t o consumers. Accoun tab i l i t y i s also enhanced by bringing decis ions "c loser" t o a f fec ted p u b l i c s ( i .e. , s h i f t i n g them f rom Washington t o s ta te capi ta ls a n d local school d i s - t r i c t s ) .

In te rms o f i t s actua l impact , it i s n o t c lear t h a t t h e New Federal- ism, in fact , w i l l enhance e i t h e r e f f i c i ency or accoun tab i l i t y . One reason is t h a t t h e r e s u l t s s t i l l l ie down t h e road as does f u r t h e r Reagan Admin i s t ra t i on ac t i on in t h e area o f educat ional po l i cy . If, however , t h e e x i s t i n g f u n c t i o n s o f federa l a i d to educat ion a r e re - t a ined (as t h e y l i k e l y seem t o b e ) w i t h reduced funding, it may well b e t h a t e f f i c i ency w i l l su f fe r . A s Dav id Cohen ( 1 9 8 2 ) has a rgued , r a t h e r t h a n l i be ra t i ng local school d i s t r i c t s f rom ex te rna l l y imposed res t r i c t i ons , t h e New Federal ism w i l l leave in place local organizat ional f ragmentat ion a n d i n t e r e s t g r o u p a c t i v i t y . Ul t imate ly local school o f f i c i a l s w i l l have more problems w i t h fewer resources. T h i s i ne f f i - c iency w i l l p e r s i s t as long as equa l i t y i s re ta ined as a goal.

A t t h e same time, t h e r e a r e s igns t h a t accountabi l i ty also wi l l suf fer - -a t least in t h e s h o r t run. F i r s t , many o f t h e f isca l ly pressed s tates a n d local school d i s t r i c t s a r e engaged in ' lcr is is p lanning," w i t h t h e r e s u l t t h a t b u d g e t decis ions a r e less accessible t o pub l i c input t h a n i s normal ly t h e case (see Impact: 2 - f , 1982) . Second, the New Federal ism is l i k e l y t o r e s u l t in reduced federa l mandates f o r c i t izen pa r t i c i pa t i on in state a n d local decis ionmaking.

One reason l ibera ls have such d i f f i c u l t y w i t h the New Federalism i s t h a t it tends t o de f i ne e f f i c i ency in a manner t h a t i s accountable to t h e claims o f those who a r e more power fu l a t t h e state a n d local level , wh i l e l i be ra l s h a v e tended t o advocate pol ic ies t h a t f avo r economically needy const i tuencies w i t h re la t i ve l y g r e a t e r c lou t a t t h e federa l level . L ibe ra l s wou ld coun te r t h e New Federal ism by claiming t h a t t h e most e f f i c i en t way t o p r o v i d e revenue f o r needy populat ions i s t o t a r g e t it in a manner t h a t canno t b e r e d i r e c t e d through Ilsome- th ing - fo r -eve ryone" formulae a t t h e s tate level . Studies o f t h e implementat ion o f Great Society p rog rams , f o r example, suggest t h a t t i g h t e r r a t h e r t h a n looser s t r i n g s a r e needed i f r e d i s t r i b u t i v e objec- t i v e s a re t o b e met (see, f o r example, Pressman a n d Wi ldavsky, 1973) . T h u s it wou ld appear t h a t t h e c r u c i a l debate between l ibera ls a n d conserva t i ves is one o f equa l i t y v e r s u s l i b e r t y , n o t e f f ic iency v e r s u s accountabi l i ty .

One may a r g u e t h a t t h e Reagan Admin i s t ra t i on , l i k e i t s predeces- sors, has dev i sed a p o l i c y app roach t h a t r e w a r d s i t s more cen t ra l const i tuencies wh i l e appeal ing t o genera l p u b l i c d issat is fact ion w i t h e x i s t i n g p u b l i c serv ices a n d t h e i r costs. B y s h i f t i n g g r e a t e r respon- s ib i l i t i es t o t h e s tate a n d local level , t h e New Federal ism taps i n to p u b l i c sent iment t h a t something has been " lost " in t h e genera l

274 Policy Studies Revien 3:2 Feb. 1984

accoun tab i l i t y o f t h e p u b l i c sector. However , t h e r e i s l i t t l e ev idence t h a t t h e New Federal ism, in fac t , w i l l enhance c i t i zen p a r t i c i p a t i o n in educat ion o r a n y o t h e r a rea .

A s a r e s u l t , one canno t say t h a t t h e New Federal ism poses a demo- c r a t i c cha l lenge t o technoc ra t i c decis ionmaking. I ns tead o f rep lac ing " e x p e r t " dec is ionmakers w i t h c i t i zens , t h e New Federal ism wou ld appear mere ly t o change t h e e x p e r t s who make k e y po l i cy a n d admin- i s t r a t i v e decis ions. S ta te a n d local i n t e r e s t g r o u p s w i l l p l a y a g r e a t - e r ro le in po l i cy fo rmula t ion , wh i l e " federaI1l i n t e r e s t g r o u p s w i l l p l a y a d imin ished ro le , o n l y because t h e arena o f some dec is ions has been changed. T h e most "democra t ic " t h r u s t o f t hese proposa ls , educa- t iona l vouchers , may t h r e a t e n e x i s t i n g p u b l i c school o f f i c i a l s but ins tead w i l l r e w a r d e n t e r p r i s i n g a n d e f f i c i e n t p r i v a t e ( a n d p u b l i c ) o f f i c ia ls . Real consumer accoun tab i l i t y l i k e l y i s t o b e no s t r o n g e r t h a n i s c u r r e n t l y t h e case in t h e p r i v a t e sec to r genera l l y - -a debatab le po in t .

T h e o n l y hedge on t h i s b e t i s t h a t needy federa l po l i cy cons t i t u - encies w i l l b e energ i zed by c u t b a c k s t o focus t h e i r a t ten t i on on s ta te a n d local po l i t i cs . W i t h t h i s po ten t i a l f o r i nc reased po l i t i ca l ac t i v ism, t h e r e i s a n ou ts ide chance t h a t t h e New Federal ism w i l l enhance t h e ob jec t ives o f c i t i zen pa r t i c i pa t i on .

DEMOCRACY A N D TECHNOCRACY: E D U C A T I O N A L POLICY CHOICES A N D PARADOXES

T h e r e can b e l i t t l e d o u b t t h a t p u b l i c po l i cy , genera l l y , a n d educa- t iona l po l i cy , in p a r t i c u l a r , a r e in a p e r i o d o f t r a n s i t i o n - - b u f f e t e d by dec l i n ing p u b l i c con f idence a n d s h i f t i n g away f r o m unques t ion ing acceptance o f p r e v a i l i n g po l i cy approaches w i t h l i t t l e c lear v i s i o n o f wh ich d i rec t i on w i l l b e t a k e n in t h e y e a r s t o come. O n t h e one h a n d , one can de tec t a drift in t h e d i r e c t i o n o f smal ler u n i t s o f dec i - s ionmaking--a drift t h a t appeals t o those o n b o t h t h e right a n d l e f t who d e c r y t h e dec l ine o f communi ty . O n t h e o t h e r hand , one can p o i n t t o i nc reas ing g loba l i n te rdependence in economic, techno log ica l , a n d po l i t i ca l te rms.

A s n o t e d above, we d o n o t rea l l y know w h e t h e r smal ler-scale dec i - s ionmak ing u n i t s , in fac t , w i l l inc rease p u b l i c pa r t i c i pa t i on . Con- c lus ions abou t pa r t i c i pa t i on w i l l p r o b a b l y v a r y acco rd ing t o % par t i c ipa tes o r , more accu ra te l y , whom one w ishes t o see pa r t i c i pa te more.

I n essence, t h e n , po l i cymakers a n d t h e i r c o n s t i t u e n t s face a bas ic po l i cy choice a n d e n d u r i n g po l i cy paradoxes . First, we mus t ask w h e t h e r we w i l l p u r s u e t h e ob jec t i ve o f educat iona l e q u a l i t y more ( o r less) t h a n we have done in pas t yea rs . T o answer in t h e nega t i ve i s t o accept t h e ex is tence o f wha t i s r a p i d l y becoming a permanent underc lass i n Amer ican ci t ies--an exp los i ve a n d oppressed g r o u p made up d isp ropor t i ona te l y o f rac ia l m inor i t ies . P u t somewhat d i f f e r e n t l y , t o choose o t h e r p u b l i c va lues (e.g. , less gove rnmen t i n t e r v e n t i o n , a t wha teve r l eve l ) i s t o coun t these as c r i t i c a l t h a n equa l i t y . T h e Reagan New Federal ism, desp i te some o f i t s rhe to r i ca l f l ou r i shes , appears t o accept t h i s cond i t i on , a t least in t h e Nor theas t a n d Mid- wes te rn reg ions o f t h e c o u n t r y . T h u s f a r , t h e f i sca l l y s t rapped s ta tes o f t h i s r e g i o n have shown l i t t l e i nc l i na t i on o r a b i l i t y t o g e n e r - a te r e v e n u e s t o rev i ta l i ze t h e c i t ies , a n d t h e p rognos is f o r f u t u r e tendenc ies i n t h i s d i rec t i on is n o t good (see Bah l , 1 9 8 1 ) .

2 7 5

To the degree tha t educational equal i ty i s g i ven prominence in pol icy decisions, the question remains: how should we seek t o en- hance equal i ty - - through technocratic o r democratic means o r some combination o f the two? Much o f t h e p reva i l i ng dissatisfact ion w i t h publ ic services seem t o indicate t h e need f o r greater emphasis on cit izen par t ic ipat ion in educational decisionmaking, but t h i s conclusion s t i l l contains two paradoxes.

F i r s t , t he re is t he danger o f self-defeating "manipulat ive" o r "token" forms o f publ ic part icipation-- in e f fect , gestures toward c i t izen par t ic ipat ion tha t render them meaningless ( i n the eyes o f the lay public) and t h u s re in force nonpar t ic ipat ion. The answer suggest- ed by the community contro l movement would seem to be devolut ion o f educational decisionmaking t o small-scale u n i t s tha t inc lude substantial numbers o f affected cl ients. However, t h i s "answer," in turn, raises the shor t - term costs o f separatist policies. The answer t o th i s dilem- ma may be t o op t for long-term gains, an approach tha t is no t well su i ted t o t h e t rad i t ional electoral process.

The egali tar ian Ilanswer" t o problems raised by devolut ion general- l y po ints to a red i s t r i bu t i ve role on the p a r t o f the federal govern- ment--in pa r t i cu la r , policies t h r o u g h which the federal government red is t r ibutes income and economic resources, stimulates the rev i - tal izat ion o f u r b a n areas t h r o u g h targeted a id o f one t y p e or another, and mandates cer ta in protect ions o f lower-income out-groups. The problem is tha t these policies again place signif icant emphasis on central izat ion, no t devolut ion, o f power. I f one believes the maxim tha t cont ro l follows the dol lar, t he local decisionmaking un i t s would not have suf f ic ient real power t o make part icipation seem worthwhile; hence, we would once again face the l ibera l welfare state that seems to discourage widespread part icipation.

Two d i s t i nc t approaches might b e taken in attempting to forge a new educational po l icy . One--following some o f the in i t ia t ives o f the Reagan Administrat ion--might be t o disentangle federal and statellocal pol icy roles by pol icy area. In other words, one might allocate near ly al l responsib i l i ty f o r educational pol icy decisions and revenues to states and localit ies while the federal government takes over near- total responsib i l i ty f o r economic welfare policies. Such a approach would have the advantage o f increasing local decisionmaking leverage in education while re ta in ing fundamental red i s t r i bu t i ve policies in the more ef fect ive federal hands.

In the in terest o f equal i ty and c i t izen par t ic ipat ion, however, such a s h i f t would seem to requ i re th ree quali f icat ions. F i r s t , the level o f federal e f fo r t s t o enhance equal i ty would have t o b e f a r greater t han tha t proposed by the Reagan Administrat ion. Income red is t r i bu t i on would need to re f lect a level t ha t would faci l i tate the empowerment o f out-groups; t he federal government would also need to p rov ide reve- nues fo r community organiz ing and fo r t he rev i ta l izat ion o f u r b a n areas. Second, the federal government would need to play a continu- ing ro le in p ro tec t i ng basic educational r i g h t s of a l l pup i l s and would need t o ta rge t s ign i f icant revenues fo r programs l ike Head Star t . F ina l ly , federal mandates fo r c i t izen par t ic ipat ion a t t he local level might have t o accompany federal revenues. In effect, we are back where we s ta r ted from p r i o r t o t h e recent conservat ive sh i f t .

A second and more radical approach would be t o downplay the role o f states en t i re l y , op t i ng instead fo r more o f a b i leve l governmental s t r u c t u r e n o t un l i ke tha t found on a smaller scale in Greater London.

HorgadOptions for Educational P o l i c y

-

276 Policy Studies Review 3 : 2 Feb. 1984

A federal- local ( a n d even neighborhood) gove rnmen t p a r t n e r s h i p would seem t o fac i l i ta te t h e t w i n ob ject ives o f equa l i t y a n d pa r t i c i pa - t i o n more e f fec t i ve l y t h a n t h e mu l t i gove rnmen t fede ra l system t h a t c u r r e n t l y p reva i l s . Ev idence o f t h e ef fect iveness o f such a n ap - p roach can b e seen in t h e federa l Exper imenta l Schools a n d U r b a n l - Rura l Development p rog rams (see Jackson, 1 9 8 1 ) a n d t h e o r i g i n a l Community Ac t i on Program. Such an approach wou ld n o t el iminate t h e need f o r a s ta te a n d municipal- level presence in educat ional po l i cy , in p a r t because it would encoun te r s t i f f res is tance f rom o rgan ized i n t e r - ests a t these levels, but also because some po l i cy decis ions (e.g. , co l lect ive b a r g a i n i n g o r teacher ce r t i f i ca t i on ) m igh t b e bes t hand led a t these levels.

In such a scheme, t h e federa l emphasis wou ld i nc lude two p r i m a r y funct ions: revenue r e d i s t r i b u t i o n a n d maintenance of p r o c e d u r a l safe- g u a r d s . T h e former wou ld a r g u a b l y inc lude: ample income r e d i s t r i b u - t i on , revenue p rov i s ion f o r community organizat ion a n d communi ty development, a n d r e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f genera l educat ional f unds . T h e la t te r would i nc lude t h e p ro tec t i on o f bas ic educat ional r i g h t s a n d mandated p rocedura l safeguards t o ensu re decis ionmaking access t o a l l sectors o f t h e pub l i c .

A local emphasis wou ld i nc lude t w o main components: ( a ) re - s t r u c t u r i n g o f decis ionmaking t o d i s t r i b u t e access t o more c i t i zens ( i n c l u d i n g those who a r e e f fec t i ve l y d i sen f ranch ised ) , a n d ( b ) in- creas ing t h e ro le o f lay c i t izens in s ign i f i can t po l i cy decis ions. In each case, it i s poss ib le t o s t r i k e a more democrat ic o r more techno- c ra t i c balance. T h e l a t t e r m i g h t i nc lude ( a ) e lectora l re fo rm t o ensu re representat ion o f s u b u n i t s i n cen t ra l i zed (e .g . , munic i - pal- level) decis ionmaking, a n d ( b ) t h e i nco rpo ra t i on o f sub jec t i ve c l i en t evaluat ions in assessing personnel per formance a n d in develop- ing b u d g e t p r i o r i t i e s . T h e more democrat ic op t i ons wou ld b e (a ) t o devolve s ign i f i can t dec is ionmaking t o submunic ipa l o r ne ighbor - hood-school u n i t s , a n d ( b ) t o i nc lude lay c i t i zens , teachers, a n d admin i s t ra to rs in decis ions r e g a r d i n g c u r r i c u l u m , b u d g e t , a n d person- nel .

It becomes read i l y apparen t t h a t n e i t h e r po l i cy o p t i o n avoids t h e technocrat ic-democrat ic tens ions between central izat ion- local ism a n d exper t - c i t i zen con t ro l . These, in fact , a r e unavoidable tens ions f o r t hey a r e e n d u r i n g paradoxes o f educat ional po l i cy , democrat ic soci- et ies, a n d po l i t i cs genera l l y . However , t h e d i rec t i on one advocates fo r f u t u r e pol ic ies would seem t o r e f l e c t t h e degree t o w h i c h one has g r e a t e r f a i t h in t h e ef fect iveness of un ive rsa l , ra t i ona l o rgan iza t i on or in t h e power o f lay c i t izens t o become inc reas ing l y e f fec t i ve in sel f - government . T h e c u r r e n t ev idence o f cyn ic ism, al ienat ion, a n d va r ious forms o f u n r e s t would seem t o sugges t t h e need f o r more o f t h e l a t te r .

FOOTNOTES

1. F o r an e laborat ion o f t h i s v iew, see Morgan, 1982 ( b ) .

2 . Lowery a n d Sigelman (1981 ) d i scuss t h e "po l i t ica l d isaf fect ion" explanat ion o f t h e taxpayers ' r e v o l t but no te t h a t it has n o t been adequate ly tested. T h e r e i s ev idence t h a t t h e passage o f t a x - l im i t i ng re fe renda i s l i nked t o a pe rcep t ion o f "waste a n d

MorganfOptions f o r Educational Policy 277

c o r r u p t i o n " in government , t h o u g h n o t t o the q u a l i t y o f p u b l i c serv ices p e r se (Ladd , 1981; Pat terson e t al., 1 9 8 0 ) .

3 . These f i n d i n g s , a n d those o f o t h e r s tud ies, can b e i n t e r p r e t e d in d i f f e r e n t ways depend ing o n one's c r i t e r i a fo r democracy (see Lutz a n d lannaccone, 1 9 7 8 , f o r t h r e e a l te rna t i ve v i e w s ) .

4 . For a n a rgumen t t h a t organizat ional unresponsiveness re f l ec ts more t h a n bu reauc ra t i za t i on , see Cohen (1 982 ) .

5 . These a r e conven ien t l y reco rded in t h e pub l i ca t i ons o f t h e I n s t i - t u t e f o r Responsive Educat ion, in Boston. See, especia l ly , t he s u r v e y o f s ta te act ions (C lasby , 1 9 7 9 ) a n d t h e IRE newslet ter , "C i t i zen Ac t i on in Educat ion."

6 . See t h e d iscuss ion in Jackson ( 1 9 8 1 ) a n d s tud ies s u c h as R u t t e r e t a l . ( 1 9 7 9 ) a n d Edmonds a n d F reder i cksen ( 1 9 7 8 ) .

7 . For a d iscuss ion o f these t w o "v is ions," see t h e a u t h o r ' s "Demo- c r a t i c Ci t izenship: A n Evo lv ing Post-Modern Paradigm," unpub- l i shed manuscr ip t .

REFERENCES

A r n s t e i n , S . ( 1 9 6 9 ) . A ladder o f c i t i zen pa r t i c i pa t i on . American lnst i tu te of Planners Journol, 35, 216-225 .

Bahl , R. (1981 ) . Urban government finance: Emerging trends. B e v e r l y Hi l ls , C A : Sage Publ icat ions.

Clasby, M. ( 1 9 7 9 ) . State leg is la t ion f o r c i t i zen pa r t i c i pa t i on su rvey . In Davies e t a l . , 28-55 .

Cohen , D. K . ( 1 9 8 2 , November) . Pol icy a n d organizat ion: The impact of state a n d federa l educat ion po l i cy o n school governance. Har- vard Educational Review, 5 2 ( 4 ) , 474-499 .

Cron in , J.M. ( 1 9 7 9 ) . The control of urban schools. New Y o r k : T h e Free Press.

Davies, D. ( 1 9 7 9 ) . Federal and state impact on cit izen participation in the schools. Boston: I n s t i t u t e f o r Responsive Educat ion.

Edmonds, R.R., & F reder i cksen , J.R. ( 1 9 7 8 ) . Search for effective schools: The identif ication and analysis of c i ty schools that are instruct ional ly effective for poor ch i ld ren . Cambr idge: H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i t y Cen te r f o r U r b a n Studies.

Education Week. Marion, Ohio, v a r i o u s issues, 1981-1982 . Gal lup, G.H. ( 1 9 8 1 , September) . T h e t w e l f t h annual Gal lup pol l o f

t h e p u b l i c ' s a t t i t u d e s t o w a r d t h e p u b l i c schools. Phi Delta Kop- pan, 33-46 .

Gi t te l l , M. , e t al . (1 9 7 9 ) . Citizen organizations: Citizen participa- tion in educational decisionmaking. Boston: I n s t i t u t e f o r Respon- s i ve Educat ion.

Ha t ton , B.R. ( 1 9 7 9 ) . School a n d b lack community development: A reassessment o f communi ty con t ro l . Education and Urban Society,

lmpact 2-1. ( 1 9 8 2 . January 15 a n d F e b r u a r y 1 5 ) . Newslet ter o f lmpact 2-f (a u n i v e r s i t y co l l abo ra t i ve ) . Cambr idge, Mass. : Massa- chuse t t s I n s t i t u t e o f Technology.

9 . 215-233 .

Policy Studies Review 3:2 Feb. 1984 278

Jackson, B . L. (1981, November) Federal i n t e r v e n t i o n a n d new governance s t r u c t u r e s . Citizen Action in Education, 5 2 ( 2 ) , 6-7.

Katz, M.B. (1971). Class bureaucracy and the schools. New Y o r k : Praeger.

Ladd, H .F . , & Boatr ight -Wi lson, J. (1981, A p r i l ) . Proposi t ion 2 - 4 : Exp la in ing t h e vote. Research Repor t R81-1. Cambr idge, Mass. : John F. Kennedy School o f Government.

Levy , F.S., Mel tsner , A.J. , & Wi ldavsky, A. (1974). Urban out- comes. Berke ley : U n i v e r s i t y o f Cal i forn ia Press.

Lowery, D. , & Sigelman, L. (1 981 , December). Unders tand ing t h e t a x revo l t : E i g h t explanat ions. American Political Science Review,

Lutz, F.W., & lannaccone, L. (1978). Public participation in local school d is t r i c ts . Lex ing ton , Mass. : Lex ing ton Books.

M i lb ra th , L . W . , & Coel, M.L. (1977). Political porticipation ( 2 n d ed. ) . Chicago: Rand McNal ly.

Moore, D.R., & Weitzman, S. (1981, November) . Advocacy: A p r o v e n method f o r he lp ing ch i l d ren . Citizen Action in Education, 8 ( 2 ) , 1 ff.

Morgan, E. P. (1981, November) . Publ ic p re fe rences a n d pol icy rea l - i t ies: Proposi t ion 2-f in Massachusetts. Paper p resen ted a t t h e Nor theas te rn Pol i t ical Science Associat ion meet ing, Newark , NJ.

Morgan, E.P. (1982a. December). T h e e f fec ts o f p ropos i t i on 2-4 in Massachusetts. Phi Delta Kappan, 6 4 ( 4 ) , 252-258.

Morgan, E. P. (1982b. Fal l ) . Two paradigms o f u r b a n educat ional po l i cy : T h e ques t f o r equa l i t y a n d i t s cen t ra l dilemma. Poli ty,

Patterson, F . , O'Mal ley, P., & T o r t o , R. (1980. May) . University of Massachusetts poll on proposition 2-.4. Boston: Center for Studies in Pol icy a n d t h e Publ ic I n te res t .

Pressman, J.L., E Wi ldavsky, A .B . (1973). lmplementation. Berke - ley: U n i v e r s i t y o f Cal i forn ia Press.

R u t t e r , M., Maugham, B., Mort imore, P., & Our ton , J. (1979). Fifteen thousand hours: Secondary schools and their effects on ch i ldren. Cambr idge: H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i t y Press.

T u c k e r , t i . J . , & Ze ig ler , L. H. (1980). Professionals versus the publ ic : Att i tudes, communication, and response in school d is t r i c ts . New Y o r k : Longman.

Winecoff, S. Z. (1981, November) . C i t i zen pa r t i c i pa t i on in developing a n e f fec t i ve school. Citizen Action in Education, 9 ( 2 ) , 1 ff.

Verba , S., & Nie, N. (1972). Participation in America: Political democracy and social equal i ty . New Y o r k : H a r p e r a n d Row.

75, 963-974.

15(1), 48-71.