Clearinghouse on Educational Policy and Management College of Education · University of Oregon
	"Search Help" Note that this is a web site search and will not search our databases ("Directory of Organizations", "In-Process Abstracts", the ERIC Database, "Publications").	Trends and Issues: Educational Governance Abstracts Discussion References Resources Evolving Federal Policy The move toward greater flexibility has also reached the federal level. The Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994 gave schools the chance to use Title I money more creatively. While federal programs must still be accounted for separately, they can be combined and coordinated in ways that support local goals and state accountability systems (Margery Ginsberg and colleagues 1997). Another shift is the emphasis on "whole-school reform." Schools are now being encouraged to engage in systemic change rather than narrowly targeted areas. In other areas, change in federal policy is less apparent. For example, the 1997 revision of IDEA special-education regulations presents a mixed picture. On the one hand, local districts were granted greater authority to deal with special-needs students who create discipline problems. On the other hand, recent amendments to the law resulted in a 109-page set of administrative rules that some schools are viewing as confusing and burdensome. While supporting the intent behind the changes, school leaders have pointed to the fiscal and organizational impact of the new rules, particularly one requiring regular classroom teachers to participate in writing IEPs (Joetta Sack 1997). In addition to these efforts, the government continues to play a role as "national cheerleader," using a combination of rhetoric and money to encourage change. The Goals 2000 program remains the heart of this effort, but its current direction and effectiveness are in doubt. The National Education Goals Panel (1997) has reported a mixed picture of progress toward the eight goals; some indicators have improved, some have declined, and others have shown no change. The panel has noted that progress from state to state is uneven, and that in many cases they lack reliable data to serve as indicators. Supporters of Goals 2000 complain that the program has lost coherence and focus, becoming little more than a funding mechanism that gives money to states for whatever purposes they define as good. Conservative opponents, fearing a national curriculum or "national school board," have forced the government to downplay the emphasis on standards (David Hoff 1997). For similar reasons, proposals for voluntary national testing face a hostile climate. Compiled by Larry Lashway, freelance research analyst.