ABSTRACT
Federalization of educational governance over the last 60 years is the most prominent common theme explored by the authors contributing to this volume. There are distinct dimensions to this shift in policy-making power: (a) centralization and concentration of power at higher levels of governance, (b) shifting from specialized educational governance to what Wong and Farris identify as “integrated civic governance” mechanisms, and (c) eff orts to disperse power by introducing market mechanisms into local education delivery. Centralization. All the authors in this volume off er some evidence that policy-making power has shifted sharply toward state and, especially, federal policy makers. All see that responsibility for setting standards and enforcing consequences has moved from more than 18,000 districts in mid-century to the 50 states in the 1980s. And, by 2002, the federal Department of Education (DOE), an agency that did not even enjoy cabinet status until the late 1970s, had taken over responsibility for providing core direction to the nation’s 90,000 schools. Mid-twentieth century state governments had delegated virtually all of their constitutional responsibility for education policy to local school districts. By the fi rst decade of the 21st century, however, states fi nd themselves pressured by federal mandates, competing with one another for federal incentive grants, and looking to Washington for fi scal bailouts. As Betty Malen has noted, policy-making power is not necessarily a zero-sum game in which increased federal authority means equally reduced state or local authority. By aligning themselves with the federal agenda, state agencies have become better resourced and more powerful in their eff orts to infl uence local educators. The framework off ered by Wong and Farris off ers a similar take on the growing power of big city governments. A convergence of policy priorities aligning
city government and federal interests has strengthened the role of general civic governments at both levels.
