Reforming Again, Again, and Again

TLDR

Reforms repeatedly return, raising questions about why they fail or succeed, which is crucial for policy debates on educational mandates. The study aims to illustrate the validity of the question about recurring reforms by examining examples and exploring explanations. The author examines dominant explanations and proposes alternative political and institutional perspectives through analysis of instructional, curricular, and governance reforms that have recurred.

Abstract

Why do reforms return again and again? To illustrate that the question is valid, I offer three examples drawn from instructional, curricular, and governance planned changes that have returned more than once. To answer the question, I first examine the dominant explanation presented by researchers and policymakers: the lack of rationality in proposing and implementing planned change. I explore why the dominant explanation is flawed in its frequently used metaphors and analysis. I then offer alternative explanations for recurring reforms—a political and an institutional perspective harnessed together—to explain the puzzle of why reforms return. The point of this analysis is to enlarge the repertoire of explanations that researchers and policymakers use to examine potential and past reforms. The policymaking stakes run high for expanding the range of explanations because the questions of why reforms failed in the past and why they return go to the heart of present policy debates over whether federal, state, and district mandates to alter schooling will get past the classroom door.