One way of putting flexibility into the system is to allow freedom from regulation. Several states have taken steps to allow teachers and principals with good ideas to improve their schools unencumbered by state regulations. In Texas, for example, teachers can be granted waivers from exam requirements, staff development time, and so on. In Tennessee, 3,700 education regulations were eliminated, and local boards can waive state regulations without having to obtain final approval from the state. Nearly 200 South Carolina schools with a history of superior academic achievement have been granted automatic release from numerous state regulations. Illinois, Florida, and Maryland waive state regulations that stand in the way of experimental programs or restructuring or general school improvement.
The impact of waivers is questionable, however. According to a General Accounting Office report, Regulatory Flexibility (1994), on regulatory flexibility efforts in three states, it is difficult to determine whether school improvement efforts that are a result of waivers will be of significant value to all children. Kentucky, for example, gave all schools greater flexibility; California gave flexibility to selected schools that chose to participate in particular programs; and South Carolina gave flexibility as a reward to schools with high-performing students. The numbers of schools participating and the results varied widely. Perhaps charter schools, with their accompanying release from regulations, will be a better determiner of whether deregulation makes a difference. It is important to remember that many of the constraints surrounding schools stem from legal requirements rather than state mandates (i.e., fair employment practices, student health and safety, desegregation, etc.). Thus, in states such as Washington, where waivers were offered, very few districts asked to have regulations removed.
Some would credit these changes to continued pressure from the conservative side of the political aisle, but the growth of the charter schools movement seems to be directly related to bipartisan efforts. The unifying element in the acceptance of the charter school idea is the notion that schools need major change or systemic reform. Moreover, the idea of centralizing reform in state mandates seems to have fallen from favor, while the notion of giving teachers, parents, and community representatives a chance to propose new approaches seems to offer enough hope that a wide spectrum of legislators can support the idea.