Regime Theory, State Government, and a Takeover of Urban Education

Abstract

State government possesses the resources and authority to directly shape urban education policy but regime theorists understate the roles governors, state legislatures, and other state actors play as members of urban education regimes. This article examines the state takeover of schools in Newark, New Jersey to demonstrate why and how a state government leads an urban education regime. The Newark case illustrates how politics and structural conditions motivated state government to change the nature of the education regime and directly shape education policy at the local level. It highlights the role state government played in reshaping an educator-centered coalition that operated a poorly performing school district. Despite the existence of a new regime, Newark students' achievement scores have not significantly improved, and in some instances they have declined under the state-led regime. This article encourages scholars of city politics to continue to investigate state government's role in urban governing coalitions because state political players maintain the capacity and motivation to join urban regimes.Most regime theorists focus upon how local actors affect changes to education policy when they examine urban education reform. By concentrating primarily upon the effect of local interests on urban education, many regime theorists understate state government's direct influence on education reform. Regime theory does not specifically include governors, state legislatures, state departments of education, and other state-level actors as education regime members, and this oversight represents a gap in our understanding of urban governance and education reform in cities. In this article, I use an examination of New Jersey's takeover of the Newark school system to demonstrate why and how a state government can join an urban education regime. The Newark case illustrates how politics and structural conditions encouraged New Jersey's state government to change the nature of the education regime and shape education policy at the local level. It highlights the role state government played in reshaping an educator-centered coalition that operated a poorly performing school district. This work also adds to the state takeover literature, which emphasizes the importance of the structural factors but overlooks the role politics plays in state interventions.

Into the twenty-first century: North American urban governance and development in a global context

“…In the years that followed, many studies went to lengths to identify and characterize the varying regime types governing in multiple US cities. Regimes were also considered from the perspective of race and ethnicity (e.g., Bennett 1993) as well as intergovernmentally (Burns 2003;Hamilton 2002). Comparative work, where it did exist, might look at regime types in a set of cities in the US (Ferman 1996) or abroad (DiGaetano 1997).…”

Progressive and Sustained School Reforms: Framing and Coalition Building in Swiss Cities

“…Additionally, the constellation of actors and their stakes often depends on the institutional venue in which school policy is addressed. In this regard, many scholars have highlighted the role of higher‐level governments in shaping education policies (Burns, 2003; Kantor, Savitch, & Haddock, 1997). Thus, in cases where school authorities are subordinated to state‐level decision‐making, urban school reforms are potentially subject to interventions from above.…”

“Re-Stating” Theories of Urban Development: The Politics of Authority Creation and Intergovernmental Triads in Postindustrial Chicago

“…Scholars of urban education have also focused on the role of state government in local decision making (Berman, 1995; Burns, 2003; DiLeo, 1998; Henig, Hula, Orr, & Pedescleaux 1999; Wong & Shen, 2002). Namely, states’ role has increased in areas of fiscal management, political accountability, criteria establishment for students with special needs, the allocation of federal grants, and the creation of academic standards (DiLeo, 1998, p. 117).…”

“…Namely, states’ role has increased in areas of fiscal management, political accountability, criteria establishment for students with special needs, the allocation of federal grants, and the creation of academic standards (DiLeo, 1998, p. 117). In some instances, state governments have taken complete control over school districts to ensure both accountability and increased educational attainment (Burns, 2003; Wong & Shen, 2002). State governments have also played a central role in mayoral takeovers of urban school districts.…”