cally significant for any of the seven indicators, suggesting that the level of competition has limited impact on teacher involvement in school governance in the short run.
The results suggest that increases in competition do foster behavioral change in both school and district leadership. That said, this overall finding must be placed in context. First, the changes reported are generally slight to moderate, a finding consistent with Rofes ( 1998). Although competition has an impact, the short-run effect is not a massive one. Second, the observed changes may or may not be beneficial. Education scholars, for example, disagree over whether teachers should be encouraged to experiment with curriculum matters. Further, change itself may impede educational performance. That said, many of the changes observed-- increased emphasis on in-service training, professional development, and greater involvement by teachers in school governance--appear likely to be positive if pursued consistently and implemented thoroughly.
There are multiple long-run scenarios consistent with these short-run results. It is possible that these short-run changes will intensify across time and will have an impact on the teaching and learning core. Alternatively, these initial changes may be the extent of the likely reaction; additional changes will not be forthcoming, and these changes may not impact the classroom core.
Careful study of the early data from Arizona and Nevada suggests that charter school competition has impacted traditional public school districts in ways likely to be positive. Arizona schools facing potential competition experienced greater change than Nevada schools lacking competitive concerns, and Arizona schools that faced higher levels of actual competition were the most likely to have changed in significant ways. These findings help fill out part of the picture in Arizona; however, future research is needed to determine the extent and true impact of such changes.