report, Time for Results (NGA, 1986), and their 1989 education summit in Charlottesville, VA, the governors released a short agenda for change--standards, testing, and technology. In an interview on National Public Radio (June 14, 1996), Wisconsin's Governor Tommy Thompson, Co-chair of the Palisades conference, argued that the governors tried to cover much at the Charlottesville summit. Using early childhood preparation for school as an example, he observed that previous reform agendas had been too ambitious. This time, he explained, the governors sought simplicity and concentrated on the foundations of education-high-quality academics. The governors' recommendations bring into sharp focus a (Argyris & Schon, 1974) about change that has been at the core of education policy since A Nation at Risk was published (USDE, 1983). A central premise of this theory is that problems of schooling are due in large part to lack of direction, excessive discretion, and low accountability within the education system. This theory claims that these conditions can best be corrected through external regulation and bureaucratic control (Rowan, 1990). A substantial amount of evidence indicates that this theory-of-action is naive and incomplete. Organizational theory and research have long told us that formal bureaucratic controls, such as standard work rules and sanctions, are largely ineffective in professional and semiprofessional organizations, such as schools, where work is uncertain, nonroutine, and requires employee judgment and flexibility (Etzioni, 1964). Indeed, formal bureaucratic controls may actually compromise work quality when employees must solve problems and exercise discretion to meet the needs of clients (Lipsky, 1980). At best, policies that legislate and regulate behavior in schools have met with uneven success. Cross-national studies indicate that standards, assessments, and other policies, such as common curriculum frameworks, can increase the consistency with which subject matter is taught (Cohen & Spillane, 1992). They can prompt teachers to devote more time and effort to teaching tested material (Darling-Hammond & Wise, 1985; Smith, 1991). They can also influence teachers' instructional strategies. At the same time, research reveals that the effects of these policies may be limited. Frequently, teachers see them less as an imperative to change their practice than as something to be done over and above their current work (Black, 1994; Wilson & Corbett, 1990). These policies may be ignored, treated as add-ons to basic routines, or reshaped by teachers to make them more compatible with prevailing practices (Cohen & Ball, 1990). Even teachers in districts with intensive and coordinated guidance policies seem to maintain substantial discretion over their instructional strategies (Archbald & Porter, 1994). Research also indicates that standards and assessments can create new problems. These policies have been found to constrain teachers' ability to serve their students (Darling-Hammond & Wise, 1985; Smith, 1991). Their tendency toward standardization can limit teachers' ability to make pedagogical decisions that accommodate the wide range of learning needs of diverse student populations. These policies are typically implemented with little attention to developing the knowledge and skills required for teachers to implement them (Cohen & Spillane, 1992). And, while they contain mechanisms for teacher accountability, these policies generally lack incentives for teachers to improve their practice. On the contrary, they often introduce disincentives, such as work overload, value conflicts, role conflicts, and reductions in professional autonomy, that constrain creativity and innovation (Porter, 1989). The incentive value and usefulness of these policies are diminished further if, as reported by a number of studies (e.g., Wilson & Corbett, 1990), teachers gain little relevant information about students' learning needs or how to teach them more effectively. By presenting this evidence, I do not mean to argue against standards and assessments per se. Theory and research consistently point to the importance of goals, monitoring, and feedback to guide individual and organizational behavior (Miskel & Ogawa, 1988). No doubt, it is the responsibility and prerogative of states and school districts to set goals and standards for student learning and moni-