Current Issues in Education > Volume 3, 2000 > Number 7

Citation Information

Garn, G. A. (2000, October 12). Arizona charter schools: A case study of values and school policy. Current Issues in Education [On-line], 3(7). Available: http://cie.ed.asu.edu/volume3/number7/.

Arizona Charter Schools: A Case Study of Values and School Policy

Gregg A. Garn
University of Oklahoma

Abstract

This research identified the values promulgated through the charter school legislation passed in Arizona. Four values- choice, efficiency, quality, and equity- were tracked using a qualitative case study methodology that triangulated data from documents, observations, and interviews. The researcher found that policy makers promoted choice and efficiency while placing less emphasis on quality and equity. The results of this case indicate that the charter school movement should not be viewed as a monolithic entity. Rather, policy makers in Arizona created charter school legislation with a specific policy intent. Moreover, this paper presents theoretical implications that examine how values reinforce and oppose one another within education policy.

Table of Contents

• Introduction
• Methodology
• Values and School Policy
• The Arizona Context
• The Policy Debate: 1991-1994
• Favored Values
• Choice
• Efficiency
• Forgotten Values
• Quality
• Equity
• Discussion
• Conclusion
• References

Introduction

In the last two decades, we have witnessed a growing belief in the United States that the district public school system must be restructured because it is failing to meet the needs of modern society. The charter school movement is consistent with this reform mentality. As of August 2000 Thirty-seven states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia approved charter school legislation, and several others were seriously considering the issue. Approximately 500,000 students enrolled in over 2000 charter schools, a significant increase of students and schools over previous years (The Center for Education Reform, 2000).

Although some people view the charter schools as a national reform initiative, state policy makers have shaped and modified charter legislation based on the legal, political, social, and economic circumstances within their state. For example, Arizona approved legislation in 1994, which encouraged the development of 350 fully autonomous charter schools and serve five percent of the public school students (Marento and Milliman, 1999). Conversely, Wyoming and New Hampshire approved legislation in 1995 and both states have failed to open a single charter school through August of 2000.

This policy study addressed the values manifest in the Arizona charter school legislation. A qualitative case study methodology, which relied upon document analysis, observations, and interviews, was employed to gain an understanding of the value orientation of policy makers. Two primary research questions structured this analysis.

1. What values were allocated during the development of the charter school legislation?
2. How were these values reflected in statute and through the working program?

Policy researchers argue that four values: choice, efficiency, quality, and equity are pursued in education policy (Marshall, Mitchell, & Wirt, 1989; Norton, Webb, Dlugosh, & Sybouts, 1996; Sergiovanni, Burlingame, Coombs, & Thurston, 1992). However, these values are distributed unevenly, based on the priorities of policy makers. Accordingly, the task of this research project was to identify which values Arizona's leading policy makers pursued through the charter school policy.

The necessity for this research was clear. The results confirm previous research on values and education policy and show that state level policy makers promote unique value combinations when creating charter school policy. As a result, the charter school movement in the United States cannot be viewed as a monolithic entity, because state policy makers promote different values under the banner of charter school legislation. Accordingly, this case illustrates the distinctive elements of the charter schools in Arizona derived from the value orientations of Arizona policy makers.

Methodology

The research questions that guided this study (what values were allocated during the development of the charter school legislation and how were these values reflected in statute and through the working program) lent themselves to an exploratory qualitative case study methodology. Data from documents and observations of key actors, along with interviews with policy élites were collected and analyzed.

The author examined Arizona newspapers, artifacts acquired during interviews, and documents obtained from site visits, civic meetings, and through public record requests. In addition, the language of the charter school statute and corresponding amendments was analyzed. The documents played four important roles. They provided background for interviews, they guided observations of important actors, they verified and strengthened data from other sources, and finally documents were employed as a confirmatory source after interviews and observations were conducted.

Observations were conducted in multiple contexts, including meetings of the State Board of Education and the State Board for Charter schools. In addition, Committee on Education meetings in the Arizona State Senate and House of Representatives were also surveyed. The researcher's role in the field was clearly toward the observer side of the participant observer continuum (Gold, 1969).

Interviews with key actors followed a semi-structured protocol. Marshall et al. (1989) developed a framework that identified leading legislators, the legislature as a whole, the State Board of Education, and the Superintendent of Public Instruction as insiders within the Arizona policy making context. Accordingly, interviews were completed with 24 insiders selected from the following groups:

1. board members and administrators from the two state sponsoring agencies (the State Board of Education and the State Board for Charter Schools),
2. individuals from the Arizona Department of Education (including the Superintendent of Public Instruction), and
3. legislators from the Arizona Senate and House of Representatives.

Interviews with political élites were based on the methods described by Hertz and Imber (1995). Sixteen interviews were recorded and transcribed. Eight interviews were conducted over the telephone and documented through extensive notes. Interviews proved to be a critical source of data for this policy study because participants had information that exceeded anything the observation or archival data had to offer.

Data collection and analysis occurred simultaneously. Tentative understandings were continually tested against the rest of the data and verified, modified, or discarded. When data from one source was collected, it was coded and compared with data collected from the same source at another time, as well as data collected from alternative sources. As this process continued, themes and patterns emerged (Miles and Huberman, 1994).

This study is limited by several factors. Although this qualitative case study provides a rich account of the Arizona policy making context, it restricts generalization to other states and provides us with little insight into national trends. A multi-state comparison would be useful in such a pursuit. Moreover, most of the data collected is based entirely on the perceptions of policy makers and implementors. The recent nature of the reform combined with the minimal reporting requirements for charter schools created a limited amount of objective data.

Values and School Policy

Social commentators have been examining the relationship between values and policy for generations. Alexis de Tocqueville commented on the "curious contradictions" in American political life (cited in Wirt & Kirst, 1989, p. 79). Tocqueville was alluding to the incongruity of policies that simultaneously guaranteed equal rights and protected slavery. Easton was one of the first modern political scientists to explore the nexus between values and public policy. He defined policy as "a web of decisions and actions that allocate values" (1953, p. 130); and developed the systems approach to understand the connections among persons, contexts, and political processes. Easton (1965) viewed political systems as "patterns of interaction through which values are allocated for society" (p. 57).

In the 1970s and through the early 1980s, political scientists continued to analyze the interaction between values and policy. Dye (1972) wrote that policy behavior stemmed from norms and values. Elazar, in three editions of American Federalism: A View from the States, identified three political subcultures (individualistic, moralistic, and traditionalistic) operating within the national culture; and he proposed that each subculture favored different value orientations. Elazar (1984) defined political culture as the “particular patterns of orientation to political actions in which each political system is embedded” (p. 109).

In spite of the work done by political scientists, with regard to values and public policy, Wirt (1989, cited in Benham & Heck, 1994) argued that

Attempts to understand the relationships between culture, politics, organizational structure, and the impacts of these on the types of value conflicts that affect state-level educational policy decisions are a relatively new area of research with a small database of empirical studies. (p. 421)

Several groups of researchers have taken up Wirt's call for additional research in educational policy. Sergiovanni et al. (1992) identified value interactions as the root of policy conflict. Norton et al. (1996) examined the interaction of politics and values. Marshall et al. (1989) completed the seminal work, with regard to the interaction of values and educational policy. Marshall and her colleagues examined the educational statutes of six states (including Arizona) and demonstrated that variations in policy making were correlated to discordant value orientations. In an antecedent work Marshall, Mitchell and Wirt (1985) contended that "There are distinctive cultures in each state policy making setting. Policy makers are socialized in these cultures and share understandings about what is right and proper" (p. 90). Political cultures offer a context within which policy initiators favor specific values over others when creating social programs.

Marshall et al. (1989); Norton et al. (1996); and Sergiovanni et al. (1992) all identified four fundamental values that interact in educational policy-making: choice, quality, efficiency, and equity. Using the behavioral definitions provided by Marshall et al. choice was defined as:

The presence of a range of options for action, as well as the ability to select a preferred option. Here Choice means a state mandate that offers a school clientele the opportunity either to make policy decisions or to reject them. (p.135)

The authors defined the value of quality by stating:

Popularly Quality means 'the best', and in this case public policy matches the public view. A two-stage behavior operates in the application of this value. First, the state will mandate the need for certain standards of 'excellence', 'proficiency', or 'superior ability'.  . . . A second stage of Quality requires that, in order to achieve these standards, public resources are applied across districts, or within districts across schools, with their typically uneven distribution of resources. (p.137)

They identified efficiency as a third value operating in education policy. They proposed that,

Efficiency appears in two forms: Efficiency has an economic form, as seen in the effort to minimize costs while maximizing gains in order to optimize program performance.  . . . Efficiency also has an accountability form. This is the mandating of those means by which superiors in an authority system can oversee and hence control their subordinates' exercise of power and responsibility. (p.136)

Equity was a fourth value identified by the authors. They argued that,

In the policy world Equity usually means the use of public resources to redistribute public resources for the purposes of satisfying disparities in human needs . . . this value involves two stages. In the first, a disadvantage, deficiency, or other measure of the gap between the norms of social life and the needs of citizens is found to exist in some public services.  . . . In the second stage of Equity policy making, public resources are applied through programs designed to close the gap between norm and need. (p.136)

Conflicts among these values frame educational policy making. Successful policy makers will reflect those preferred values in legislation, and politics is the arena where these value conflicts are resolved. Marshall et al. (1989) thus define policy as "a set of values expressed in words, issued with authority, and reinforced with power (often money or penalties) in order to induce a shift toward these values" (p. 6). Their book Culture and Education Policy in the American States presented comparative case studies of six states and examined the interaction of policy and values. This project attempted to identify the values incorporated by leading legislators via the Arizona charter school policy, using the Marshall et al. framework.

The Arizona Context

To understand how the charter school policy developed, requires a basic understanding of Arizona's traditionalistic policy making context. Republicans have controlled the state legislature and the governor's office over the last 25 years with few exceptions. Education Week's quality counts issue described Arizona's political context as:

A largely conservative state, Arizona is known for its 'don't tread on me' politics in which individual freedom looms large. . . Mainstream politics there means fierce protection of local control and a staunch belief in the forces of the free market. This is a pro-growth and anti-tax state. . . What many of the state's Republican leaders want to see in education policy—urban and otherwise, is local control, accountability, cost efficient management, high standards, parental choice, and competition. (Schnaiberg, 1998, p. 100)

Average daily membership has been increasing at a rate of nearly four percent per year in the 1990s. By 1998, 227 school districts operated more than 1,200 public elementary, middle, and high schools and served over 700,000 students. Enrollments in (public) charter schools increased rapidly during the first three years of operation from 7,000 in 1995-96, to 17,000 in 1996-97, to an estimated 25,000 students in the 1997-98 school year.

In general, policy makers have not paid significant attention to the interests of children, favoring limited governmental intervention. For example, the Annie E. Casey Foundation's 1998 Kids Count Report ranked Arizona 42 in the nation for the welfare of its children. The report concluded that 14 percent of Arizona teens dropped out of high school, the highest percentage in the country, and 25 percent of the children were living in poverty (Bland, 1998).

The Policy Debate: 1991-1994

Arizona legislators passed charter school legislation in 1994. However, in the early 1990s charter schools were an obscure and unpopular policy alternative. Vouchers were the policy option that received most of the attention. Over the course of four legislative sessions, charter schools became a compromise policy both Democrats and Republicans grudgingly accepted.

Operating within Arizona's conservative policy making context, one of J. Fyfe Symington's first official acts as the newly elected governor of Arizona in 1991 was to propose a voucher program. The governor's plan placed no limits on the amount that private schools could charge the state to redeem the voucher (Thompson, 1991). In response to the proposal, teacher unions and Democratic legislators mounted an effective rejoinder that mobilized public support against such a proposal. While this debate was raging in Arizona, Minnesota, a state known for vanguard education reform, became the first to approve charter school legislation (Thompson, 1991).

During the 1992 legislative session, charter schools received very little attention by policy makers or the media. Vouchers remained at the forefront of the school choice debate. The governor continued his strong support for voucher programs, which gained additional legitimacy when the Arizona State Board of Education developed a proposal to promote school choice (Lessons from Minnesota, 1992).

In 1993, the school choice debate was much more visible in Arizona newspapers. Vouchers remained the dominant policy option, with regard to school choice, but a charter school proposal (House Bill 2125) was initiated for the first time in the House of Representative's Committee on Education. In February of 1993, Senator Tom Patterson, a prominent Republican, sponsored a second charter school measure, Senate Bill 1200. A critical provision of the bill allowed any individual or group to open a charter school. Patterson also insisted on the creation of a State Charter Board with the power to sponsor a new school if the local district rejected the application. Antithetically, Democrats wanted all charter school approval controlled by the local district. Both sides realized the importance of the sponsorship provision. Several special interest groups crafted a third charter school bill in March (SB 1101). However, like HB 2125 and SB 1200, SB 1101 never made it out of committee.

The 1994 legislative session began with visits from nationally known educational figures, Chester Finn and Benno Schmidt, both of whom argued the merits of increasing school choice (Davis, 1994). Lisa Graham-Keegan, the chair of the House Education Committee, redoubled her efforts to approve choice legislation with a voucher plan for low-income families (Graham, 1994). Similar to previous voucher proposals, Graham-Keegan's bill was divisive and failed to make it into legislation. Democrats were united against the proposal and enough Republicans broke party ranks so that the measure was defeated.

Similar to 1991, 1992, and 1993, the 1994 regular legislative session ended without the approval of a school choice statute. The pressure to "do something" was evident through the dramatic increase in editorials calling for meaningful education reform. Taking heed of public sentiment, the governor called a special summer session to address education issues. Within this context, the legislature approved the Arizona Education Improvement Act (Arizona Legislative Information System, 1998). An important element of the legislation was a charter school program. What began as a call for a full-blown voucher program was transformed into a charter school policy after four years of rancorous debate.

Favored Values

In contrast to the extended and antagonistic voucher debate (between Democrats and Republicans and within the Republican Party), the charter school policy was developed in only three days in a closed door Republican caucus. Democrats were doubtful they could defeat another voucher plan and marshaled little resistance against the Republican proposal. After analyzing data from multiple sources, there was surprising uniformity on the value preferences among policy élites within the Republican Party. Choice and efficiency were the most frequently referenced values by policy makers.

Choice

Choice is explicitly expressed in the statute. The charter school program offers parents and pupils the opportunity for making decisions about which public school to attend. Arizona Revised Statute §15-181 states that one purpose of the charter school reform is to provide additional academic choices for parents and pupils. Marshall et al. (1989) viewed choice as "arguably the most basic of all American public values. It was the passionate belief of the American Federalists that good government is defined by its ability to preserve freedom of choice for its citizens . . . It was summed up succinctly by Thomas Jefferson in his declaration, 'That government governs best which governs least'" (p. 89). Practically, it is "a state mandate that offers school clientele the opportunity to either make policy decisions or to reject them" (p. 135). The charter school program allows parents and students to select the public school that best meets their educational needs, rather than authorizing the state to prescribe attendance. This is the epitome of popular sovereignty, favoring the authority of citizens over that of public officials.

Lisa Graham-Keegan chaired the House of Representative's Education Committee in 1994 and was the principal author of the bill that was passed into law. Graham-Keegan continued to be a strong advocate for the charter reform as the Superintendent of Public Instruction following her tenure in the Legislature. She reflected on the importance of choice in a 1998 telephone interview:

I did know there were some good principles in that legislation . . . Charter schools have just opened up one more venue for school choice. They vastly surpassed the number of schools that I or anyone else anticipated. And there are some bad things out there, but there are things that scare me in district schools also. Yes, I am happy with the program, and, yes I think it is working like I wanted it to. (Personal communication, April 21, 1998)

A leading member of the state legislature and the primary sponsor of the charter school legislation in 1994, Republican Senator Tom Patterson, underscored that choices made by parents were more highly regarded than decisions made by government bureaucrats.

Parents have a final approval. You can build a school if you want but if the parents don't come. . . you're not going to have a school for very long . . . I can understand from my experiences how charter schools have to treat parents in a very different way than [district] public schools do. It is not an option where they want to listen to the parents. You know if they [charter schools] have a weak teacher that parents are complaining about, they must respond to this in a very different way than [district] public schools have to. Having said that, the distinction is starting to blur a little bit and we're seeing a difference in the way [district] public schools would handle those parent dissatisfaction problems, too because parents are getting more choices, even ones who didn't have them before. But if parents are disinterested and parents don't exercise marketplace choice, school people, being human beings, I guess treat them very differently than parents that have choices. (March 16, 1998)

In addition to choices for parents and pupils, the charter school policy also grants charter school directors a range of options for action. The provision for financial reporting of schools sponsored by the State Board for Charter Schools provides one illustration of the autonomy provided to charter schools directors. Charter school directors have three options for financial record keeping. One alternative is to use the Uniform System of Financial Record Keeping (USFR). A second option is to report financial data using a simplified charter school version of the USFR, the USFR-CS. A third choice for charter school directors is to follow Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). Conversely, district public schools are required to follow the USFR format.

Charter schools also have discretion in creating a governing board. Arizona law requires that charter schools have a governing board, but the statute does not specify who should serve. Other areas in which charter school directors enjoy significant autonomy include transportation, hiring and firing teachers, and textbook selection. Data from multiple sources confirmed that leading legislators believed in the legitimacy of charter school operators, parents, and students in making appropriate educational choices. Choice was distinctly favored in the policy.

Although choice was a dominant value orientation for key policy makers in developing the charter school policy, it was not the only value allocated by Arizona policy makers. Sergiovanni et al. (1992) maintained that a single value rarely provides the impetus for reform, rather two of the four values in concert are required.

Efficiency

Efficiency was a second value frequently employed by key actors to justify the charter school policy. Marshall et al. (1989) identified that,

Americans have had an intense love- hate relationship with efficiency as a public policy value since the founding of the Republic. The cruel efficiencies of totalitarian governments are recognized and feared. But the productive efficiency of American business and industry are just as frequently held out as a model after which to design public service agencies. (p. 90)

Lisa Graham-Keegan's comments in the Arizona Republic newspaper convey an affinity for economic efficiency and a rejection of bureaucratic accountability that she accentuated when developing the charter school policy: "I hope this [reform] will begin to demonstrate that you don't need all the bureaucratic overlay we now have in public schools. . . What they [charter schools] are getting is freedom from regulations in return for greater accountability" (Mattern, 1994, p. A1).

Other leading legislators articulated the economic dimension of efficiency and ignored the bureaucratic accountability notion, similar to Graham-Keegan's value orientation.

The bureaucratic administration and the monopoly that public schools used to have is now being eroded by charter schools. . . Charter schools have to compete in a market for students. So, if they for whatever reason can't attract children to go to that school, they are not going to have a school. And that is the whole key to charter schools; that's what disciplines them and that's their accountability mechanism. . . If you don't think markets work then you probably are going to have a problem with that way of regulating charter schools, because that's what it is. (Senator Tom Patterson, March 16, 1998)

The chair of the House Education Committee echoed the same belief that a more productive and economically efficient system of public education would result from the charter school policy.

But like I said, a few of them [charter schools] have failed and we anticipated those failures, whereas in a public school setting, if a school fails, we just continue to fund it and it continues to operate. So that's what I was looking for in the charter schools. . . if they're not working, if they're not going to perform, then they go away. (Representative Dan Schottle, March 25, 1998)

While the economic form of efficiency was a compelling force for the charter legislation, the bureaucratic accountability aspect of efficiency was not emphasized. Key actors argued that subjecting public schools to the rigors of competition rather than mandating that charter school directors follow detailed procedures for school operations would force them to be more productive with limited resources. Thus, efficiency was expressed through the framework of private sector competition, which encouraged powerful groups in Arizona's political culture to support this reform policy.

Forgotten Values

We noted earlier that the four values: choice, efficiency, quality, and equity are distributed unevenly in education policy based on the priorities of policy makers. In contrast to the prominence of choice and efficiency, Arizona policy makers were less concerned with incorporating the values of excellence and equity into the charter school policy.

Quality

Marshall et al. (1989) contended that,

Given the primary role played by choice or liberty in the American political system, positive public policy actions must be justified in terms of their ability to enhance the quality of life for citizens. Indeed, governmental action to provide direct services is defensible only if the quality of the services provided is on the whole at least as good as could be reasonably expected to arise through private action. (p. 90)

The first line of the charter school statute states that "charter schools may be established to provide a learning environment that will improve pupil achievement". Despite this reference to excellence, policy makers failed to establish minimum standards for quality or even to collect consistent performance information.

An important factor in the charter school statute was absence of certification requirements for charter school teachers. Certification is generally aimed at ensuring standards of practice for various professions. The Arizona legislation did not require charter school teachers to have state certification, a degree in education, or even a college degree. Consequently, some charter schools allowed teachers with a high school education to teach high school students (Garn & Stout, 1998). Policy makers neglected to include provisions for teacher quality in order to increase the number of individuals charter school directors could select for faculty positions. Rather than forcing charter school teachers to endure the bureaucratic process of state certification, charter school directors were given the choice of determining their own quality standards.

Test scores, however fallible, were one source of information about school performance that was available. Senator Patterson argued that parents could determine school quality based on how the students in a charter school scored on a standardized test.

I think the test scores are very important to them [charter schools] in proving to their customer base, their clients that they are doing a good job for the students. I think the charter schools are going to have to prove to those parents that. . . learning is taking place [and it] is worth the trouble of getting your kid in the charter school and to the school every day, and giving up the opportunity of course of going to the [district] public school.

. . . I'm not very interested frankly in the argument over measurement. I don't have a dog fight really. And most of the objections to the measurement methods come from the people who aren't doing very well by them. . . But tests I think, my personal old fashioned opinion is that filling in a bubble is a reasonable proxy for learning. The kids will learn more and fill in bubbles better. And I know a lots left out. You don't test creativity and you don't test loyalty, but if the kid can do well on a standardized test something good has happened and if he does better every year than the year before then I think in general we know that he is learning. (March 16, 1998)

However, the usefulness of test scores was reduced because of changes in testing policy. Arizona first administered the Iowa Test of Basic Skills, but then switched to the Stanford Nine during the second year of the charter reform. This change in testing policy disrupted the collection of trend data and greatly complicated measurements of school improvement or decline.

A second potential source of information to evaluate charter school quality was a school report card required of all public schools. Two problems surfaced with regard to the report cards. The first was that not all schools turned them in, and even fewer turned in completed ones. There were no sanctions for not sending report card information to the Department of Education, and many public schools (charter and district) failed to comply. A second problem was that the report card information was posted on the Arizona Department of Education Web Site (School Report Cards, 1998). This web site was frequently down and not accessible even to individuals who had access to the World Wide Web (Nowicki, 1998). This posed a greater problem for a large percentage of parents who did not have access to the Internet. The school report card had the potential to provide information parents would require before enrolling their children in a charter school. Yet, because they were so incomplete and not easily accessible, report cards were not much use for parents trying to evaluate charter school quality.

Charter school contracts represented an additional area where quality could have been incorporated. Rather than mandating the terms of the charter school contract in the legislation, legislators allowed charter schools to negotiate the terms directly with a sponsoring agency. Charter schools are required to abide by the terms of the negotiated contract. Each contract includes the academic goals a school must achieve in order for their charter to be renewed at the end of the 14th year of operation. A content review of the contracts (School Report Cards, 1998) revealed that charter schools are responsible for meeting goals that are difficult to quantify and therefore complicated to evaluate. Some examples include:

1. To organize and establish an atmosphere for learning based on support and trust
2. To acquire basic skills by using programs designed to present concepts in a sequential/systematic way
3. To apply basic skills in subject areas using themes that encompass general understanding and in-depth study
4. Development of employability skills needed to be successful in the world of work
5. To foster cultural awareness
6. To utilize today's technology in the classroom

Consequently, from 1994 through 1998 there was little performance information available for parents to determine the quality of Arizona charter schools. Even key policy insiders, including Senator John Huppenthal, recognized the problem:

To make that purchase decision something that means something, they have to have maximum information, so the things that . . . we don't have yet are academic productivity and quality ratings and, to a lesser extent, student quality ratings and teacher job satisfaction. If you know those things, I think you know a tremendous amount about the quality of the school. Right now, we don't have any of that data. So right now, in terms of any kind of data that's available on schools, almost all of the data that we have now in my mind is worthless, so right now we have no way of keeping score. None of the methods right now, none of the data we have right now coming in has a whole lot of value for someone making a purchase decision. (March 23, 1998)

Although charter school advocates recognized the lack of evidence that would indicate any impact charter schools were having on academic achievement, Senator Huppenthal, and other leading policy makers, went on to state that the program had exceeded all expectations and repeatedly referred to it as a success. Even policy makers who were not strong advocates of the charter school policy recognized the emphasis on choice and efficiency along with the subordination of quality. Democrat Senator Mary Hartley stated:

Well, right now, currently, there's an atmosphere in the state that the "buyer beware," "let the market forces drive them," "people are voting with their feet," any number of clichés. As far as voting with their feet or the rhetoric, you hear that charter schools are more accountable because there's an actual contract they have to adhere to, well the oversight of this contract is lame at best. The Department of Ed[ucation] and even the charter school boards themselves, and local districts that have all chartered, there has been very little monitoring of activities and adhering to their charter. (March 23, 1998)

The data indicated that references to quality were based upon the number of choices for parents and pupils rather than the quality of individual charter schools. Thus, excellence as a policy value was subordinate to choice and efficiency.

Equity

Equity was a fourth value in the Marshall et al. (1989) typology. They declared that although quality was

The very first 'self-evident' truth set forth in the Declaration of Independence is that 'all men are created equal', Americans have had considerable difficulty embodying this core value in public policies. Nevertheless, equity is a core public value and one which can be powerfully invoked as a basis for creating or changing policy decisions. (p. 91)

There was scant evidence of this value within the charter school policy. One example that equity was ancillary is that with the exception of special education students, charter schools have no obligation to provide transportation. If parents cannot afford to transport their child to the school of their choice, that option is effectively eliminated. The statute grants a flat payment to charter schools of $174 per student, whether or not the school provides transportation. There has been no attempt by policy insiders to identify or remedy this deficiency.

Special education is a second area that illustrates the disinclination toward equity by Arizona's leading legislators. Most of the charter schools have spent little on education for special needs students. Financial data from the Annual Report of the Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction for the 1995-96 school year indicated that the 46 charter schools approved by the two state sponsoring boards spent $503,707 on special education out of the $35,495,925 total they received from state and federal funds combined. This amounts to 1.4% of the charter school budget. Comparatively, district public schools spent about ten percent of their total operating budget on special needs students ($387,385,037 of $3,805,813,156). Furthermore, one charter school spent $217,760 of the $503,707 total. In fact, five charter schools alone accounted for 79% of the total money spent on special education, and 22 schools reported no expenditures on special education students (Garn & Stout, 1998). In sum, policy makers failed to identify deficiencies faced by these groups and also failed to design the program so that resources would be allocated in a way that would adjust for these inequities.

Discussion

The Marshall et al. (1989) framework was useful in understanding the specific orientations of Arizona's élite policy makers. Marshall et al. concluded that of the six states analyzed, key actors in Arizona were the least likely to stress the values of equity and quality in education policies. Conversely, they were the most apt to emphasize the values of efficiency and choice (p. 96). That the findings in this current case study reinforce Marshal, Mitchell, and Wirt's conclusions, can be explained in large part by the political stability in Arizona. Republicans have retained power since the Marshall et al. study was completed in the mid 1980s. More relevant is the fact that many policy makers responsible for the 1994 charter school legislation remained in office through 1998.

Despite the strong agreement among key legislators about which values were to be promoted in the charter school policy, conflicts across party lines continued through 1998. Democratic legislators were wary of this policy because it promoted choice and efficiency while largely trivializing issues of equity and quality. Democrats repeatedly offered amendments that required bureaucratic accountability mechanisms (similar to district schools) they believed would enhance equity and quality dimensions of the charter statute. As the minority party, they were unsuccessful in altering the core values appropriated in the policy. Republican legislators were just as determined to preserve the original policy aims. Legislators involved in passing the charter law in 1994, who remained in office through 1998, articulated their role in protecting the values expressed in the statute. Senator John Huppenthal stated that "[Charter schools] are still getting sucked back into it [the bureaucracy]. . . . I've been able to defeat any legislation that would harm the charter schools" (March 23, 1998). And Senator Patterson asserted that

They [charter schools] do not have as many rules and regulations, and that's the whole point of the movement. Most of the arguments . . . talk about leveling the playing field, they're talking about making charter schools more like other public schools and that's the fight. And I'm totally dedicated to not letting that happen. (March 16, 1998)

When policy is defined as the authoritative allocation of values, as long as power is maintained, the original intentions can be more easily preserved. The sustained political support and stable nature of the policy making context in Arizona contributed to the maintenance of preferred values.

Theoretically, this case provides two interesting challenges to the ways in which values are currently understood to interact in policy. Sergiovanni et al. (1992) contended that

Though none of the four values alone represents a sufficiently strong banner under which to launch school reform, value pairs seem to have enough credibility and strength for this purpose. Particularly powerful are pairs that combine either excellence or equity with one of the other values. (p. 15)

Marshall et al. (1989) also held that quality is the first value concern of policy makers. This case challenges their notion that quality drives most school reform. One possible explanation is the view that each value has been over emphasized at various times (Sergiovanni et al. 1992). Marshall et al. provided a general sketch of when each value was accentuated in the United States. Efficiency was strongly endorsed as a policy priority from the 1920s through the 1950s. Equity was emphasized during the social programs from the mid 1950s into the 1960s. Excellence was the dominant value orientation from the early 1960s through 1980s, and choice was persistent throughout (p. 13). If the rapid spread of charter school legislation in the 1990s provides any insight into the future, choice may be coming into vogue as a preeminent education policy goal as we begin the new millennium. However, a single case study of a single statute does not come close to the standard of evidence required to make anything more than a speculative statement. More comprehensive and widespread research of the shifting nature of paramount values would be useful.

This case also challenges the current understanding of how values oppose and reinforce one another. Timar and Guthrie (1980) and Guthrie, Garms, and Pierce (1988) identified tensions among liberty (a.k.a. choice), efficiency, and equality. Guthrie et al. (1988) argued "at their roots, the three desired conditions are inconsistent and antithetical. Exclusive pursuit of one violates or eliminates the others" (p. 23). Marshall et al. (1989) also contended that the values are not hierarchical. They included a fourth value (quality or excellence) and provided a more sophisticated perspective on interactions. The authors reasoned that choice opposes all other values, that efficiency reinforces all values except choice, and that quality opposes all but efficiency (Marshall et al., p. 147).

Table 1. Dimensions of Value

Note. From "Culture and Education Policy in the American States," by C. Marshall, D. Mitchell, and F. Wirt, 1989, p. 147. Copyright 1989 by the Falmer Press.

Arizona policy makers challenged Marshal, Mitchell, and Wirt's reasoning. They advanced choice and efficiency; two values that Marshall et al. (1989) asserted oppose one another. The important factor in this discrepancy is that efficiency is a multifaceted value with economic and accountability dimensions. There is clearly a tension between choice and the accountability dimension of efficiency. If the state mandates that schools follow a 'one best way orientation', there is little room for choice. However, Arizona policy makers essentially argued that economic dimension of efficiency does not necessarily come into conflict with choice; in that providing parents and pupils with choices among schools will require schools to become more productive and efficient.

Table 2. Dimensions of values for Arizona's policy making insiders

Note. Adapted from "Culture and Education Policy in the American States," by C. Marshall, D. Mitchell, and F. Wirt, 1989, p. 147. Copyright 1989 by the Falmer Press.

Key political insiders asserted that choice among schools is actually more efficient than the 'one best way' method exemplified by district public schools. A popular metaphor used by key legislators to justify the charter school policy also denotes the value orientation of Arizona policy makers. During an observation of an Education Committee meeting, one leading legislator provided some insight into his value preferences in a vignette on the similarities of the American automobile industry and district public schools. In the 1960s and 70s, he stated the American automobile manufacturers dominated the world market. However, their monopolistic position allowed these organizations to become lazy. As such, the cars they produced in the 1970s were expensive, inefficient, and unreliable. In the late 70s, when Asia began to produce more efficient, reliable, and inexpensive automobiles, customers recognized a better product when they were offered a choice. United States automobile manufacturers were forced to respond to the competition and did so by increasing efficiency to gain back market share. Thus, competition in the market place required U.S. auto-makers to become more efficient, which in turn led to the production of better automobiles.

Arizona policy makers overlooked the differences between making cars and providing human services and adopted this same faith in market ideology to the public school system. Through the charter school policy, legislators intended to inject competition into the public school system by giving parents and students choices about which school to attend. They declared that, in essence, they were breaking up the public school monopoly (the one best way mentality). Policy makers argued that parents would select the charter school that best met their educational needs and expectations. Consequently, they held that charter schools would respond to customer demands and make sure they were satisfying parent expectations. If charter schools failed to do so, they would lose the student and the per-pupil allocation that followed each student. If charter schools lost enough students, policy makers theorized they would be forced to close.

In a 1998 interview with Senator Tom Patterson, he articulated the market-based view of accountability that combines choice with economic efficiency while rejecting bureaucratic notions of accountability.

That charter schools are in a way a test of an entirely different accountability method which is decentralized, which depends, rather than on bureaucratic rules and regulations, on first of all these being schools of choice. It's accountability that comes from the parents and the consumers. And it is an accountability that is, rather than dictating the methods of instruction, the details of curriculum, it is an accountability that is strictly for the results of learning. And those are the things that people don't understand. Yes, they do not have as many rules and regulations, that's the whole point of the movement . . . But the main threshold really is you have to have students that are willing to come to your school. (March 16, 1998)

Conclusion

Arizona legislators "authoritatively allocated" the values of choice and efficiency through the charter school policy. However, the ways that these values interacted deviated from the framework proposed by Marshall et al. (1989). Rather than assuming choice can only be maximized at the expense of efficiency, this research indicated that Arizona policy makers exhibited an alternative perspective on value interactions. Because insiders rejected the bureaucratic accountability dimension of efficiency, they reasoned that the conflict between economic efficiency and choice was eliminated. The logic of free market theory was strongly embedded into the consciousness of policy makers in Arizona, and market mechanisms were employed in a way that capitalized upon choice and efficiency, the dominant values in Arizona's political culture.

Authors

Gregg Garn received his Ph.D. from Arizona State University in Educational Leadership and Policy Studies. He is currently an Assistant Professor Educational Leadership and Policy Studies at the University of Oklahoma where he teaches classes in school policy and politics. His research interests include school choice, policy development and implementation, and the politics of education. He has authored articles on charter schools in Education Policy Analysis Archives and Educational Leadership. Dr. Garn can be reached via e-mail at garn@ou.edu.

References

Arizona Department of Education. (1998). Arizona department of education Home Page. [On-line]. Available: http://ade.state.az.us/.

Arizona Legislative Information System. (1998). ALIS online. [On-line]. Available: http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/15/title15.htm.

Benham, M. K. P., & Heck, R. H. (1994). Political culture and policy in the state controlled educational system: The case of educational politics in Hawaii. Educational Administration Quarterly, 30(4),419-450.

Bland, K. (1998, May 5). 25% of state kids in poverty: Arizona slips to 42nd in report on their welfare. The Arizona Republic, pp. A1, A8.

Davis, L. (1994, January 13). Let business run schools? The Phoenix Gazette, p. A12.

Dye, T. R. (1972). Understanding public policy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Easton, D. (1953). The political system. New York: Knopf.

Easton, D. (1965). A system analysis of political life. New York: Wiley.

Elazar, D. T. (1984). American federalism: A view from the states. New York: Crowell.

Garn, G., & Stout, R. (1998). Arizona Charter Schools. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona School Boards Association.

Gold, R. L. (1969). Roles in sociological field observation. In G. McCall & J. L. Simmons (Eds.), Issues in participant observation (pp. 30-39). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Graham, L. (1994, February 7). Multifaceted education reform. [letter to the editor] The Arizona Republic, p. B4.

Graham-Keegan, L. (1998). Telephone interview with author. April 21, 1998. Phoenix, AZ.

Guthrie, J. W., Garms, W. I., & Pierce, L. C. (1988). School finance and education policy: Enhancing educational efficiency, equality and choice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Hartley, M. (1998). Recorded interview with author. March 23, 1998.Phoenix, AZ.

Hertz, R., & Imber, J. B. (Eds.). (1995). Studying elites using qualitative methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Huppenthal, J. (1998). Recorded interview with author. March 23, 1998. Phoenix, AZ.

Lessons from Minnesota. (1992, December 1). The Phoenix Gazette, p. A16.

Marento, R., & Milliman, S. (1999, October 11). In Arizona charter shools work. The Washington Post, p. A25.

Marshall, C., Mitchell, D., & Wirt, F. (1985). Influence, power and policy making. Peabody Journal of Education, 62(4), pp. 7-115.

Marshall, C., Mitchell, D., & Wirt, F. (1989). Culture and education policy in the American states. New York: The Falmer Press.

Mattern, H. (1994, October 4). It's not much now. It's humble, but that will change: Phoenix site will give rise to one of state¹s 1st charter schools. The Arizona Republic, p. A1.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). An expanded sourcebook: Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Norton, M. S., Webb, L. D., Dlugosh, L. L., & Sybouts, W. (1996). The school superintendency: New responsibilities, new leadership. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Nowicki, D. (1998, August 28). Governor aims at charters: Says schools need more oversight from state, better business plans. The Tempe Tribune, pp. A1, A4.

Patterson, T. (1998). Recorded interview with author. March 16, 1998. Phoenix, AZ.

School Report Cards. (1998). Arizona department of education. [On-line]. Available: http://www2.ade.state.az.us/srcs/

Schnaiberg, L. (1998). Arizona: A dose of competition. Quality counts '98: Education Week, vxvii (17), January 8, 1998.

Schottle, D. (1998). Recorded interview with author. March 25, 1998. Phoenix, AZ.

Sergiovanni, T. J., Burlingame, M., Coombs, F. S., & Thurston, P. W. (1992). Educational governance and administration (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

The Center for Education Reform. (1999). Charter school highlights and statistics. [On-line]. Available: http://www.edreform.com/pubs/chglance.htm.

Thompson, C. (1991, September 6). Education panel OK's choice plan: Restrictions placed on private schools. The Phoenix Gazette, p. B3.

Timar, T. B., & Guthrie, J. W. (1980). Public values and public school policy in the 1980's. Educational Leadership, 38(2). pp. 112-115.

Wirt, F. M., & Kirst, M. W. (1989). The politics of education: Schools in conflict (2nd ed.). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.