In the 2011–12 school year, the Newark Public School district (NPS) launched a set of educational reforms supported by a gift from Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan. Using data from 2008–09 through 2015–16, the authors evaluate the change in Newark students’ achievement growth relative to similar students and schools elsewhere in New Jersey. They measure achievement growth using a “value-added” model, controlling for prior achievement, demographics, and peer characteristics. By the fifth year of reform, Newark saw statistically significant gains in English language arts (ELA) achievement growth and no significant change in math achievement growth. Perhaps because of the disruptive nature of the reforms, growth declined initially before rebounding in later years. Much of the improvement was attributed to shifting enrollment from lower- to higher-growth district and charter schools.
AbdulkadirogluAtilaAngristJoshua D.DynarskiSusan M.KaneThomas J.PathakParag A.2011. Accountability and flexibility in public schools: Evidence from Boston’s charters and pilots. Quarterly Journal of Economics126(2): 699–748.
2.
AbdulkadirogluAtilaAngristJoshua D.HullPeter D.PathakParag A.2016. Charters without lotteries: Testing takeovers in New Orleans and Boston. American Economic Review106(7): 1878–920.
3.
AngristJoshua D.DynarskiSusan M.KaneThomas J.PathakParag A.WaltersChristopher R.2010. Inputs and impacts in charter schools: KIPP Lynn. American Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings100(2): 239–43.
4.
AngristJoshua D.DynarskiSusan M.KaneThomas J.PathakParag A.WaltersChristopher R.2012. Who benefits from KIPP?Journal of Policy Analysis and Management31(4): 837–60.
5.
BailyMartin N.HultenCharlesCampbellDavid. 1992. Productivity dynamics in manufacturing plants. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Microeconomics, pp. 187–267.
BartelsmanEricHaltiwangerJohnScarpettaStefano. 2013. Cross-country differences in productivity: The role of allocation and selection. American Economic Review103(1): 305–34.
8.
BrummetQuentin. 2014. The effect of school closings on student achievement. Journal of Public Economics119(C): 108–24.
CarlsonDevenLavertuStephane. 2016. Charter school closure and student achievement: Evidence from Ohio. Journal of Urban Economics95: 31–48.
11.
ChandraAmitabhFinkelsteinAmySacarnyAdamSyversonChad. 2016. Healthcare exceptionalism? Performance and allocation in the U.S. health care sector. American Economic Review106(8): 2110–44.
12.
ChettyRajFriedmanJohn N.RockoffJonah E.2014. Measuring the impacts of teachers I: Evaluating bias in teacher value-added estimates. American Economic Review104(9): 2593–632.
ConoverWilliam J.1999. Practical Nonparametric Statistics, volume 3. New York: Wiley.
15.
DeeThomas. 2012. School turnarounds: Evidence from the 2009 stimulus. NBER Working Paper No. 17990. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
16.
de la TorreMarisaGwynneJulia. 2009. When schools close: Effects on displaced students in Chicago Public Schools. Research Report. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
17.
EngbergJohnGillBrianZamarroGemaZimmerRon. 2012. Closing schools in a shrinking district: Do student outcomes depend on which schools are closed?Journal of Urban Economics71(2): 189–203.
18.
FosterLuciaHaltiwangerJohn C.KrizanC. J.2001. Aggregate productivity growth: Lessons from microeconomic evidence. In HultenCharles R.DeanEdwin R.HarperMichael J. (Eds.), New Developments in Productivity Analysis, pp. 303–72. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
19.
FosterLuciaHaltiwangerJohnSyversonChad. 2008. Reallocation, firm turnover, and efficiency: Selection on productivity or profitability?American Economic Review98(1): 394–425.
20.
FryerRoland. 2014. Injecting charter school best practices into traditional public schools: Evidence from field experiments. Quarterly Journal of Economics129: 1355–1407.
21.
FulbeckEleanorCitkowiczMartynaHesterCandaceManzeskeDavidYisakMelissaEisnerRyan. 2016. Newark Public Schools and Newark Teachers Union teacher contract evaluation: Year 1 report. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.
22.
GillBrianZimmerRonChristmanJolleyBlancSuzanne. 2007. State takeover, school restructuring, private management, and student achievement in Philadelphia. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation and Research for Action.
23.
GordonRobertKaneThomas J.StaigerDouglas O.2006. Identifying effective teachers based on performance on the job. The Hamilton Project, Discussion Paper 2006-01. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
24.
HarrisDouglas N.LarsenMatthew F.2016. The effects of the New Orleans post-Katrina school reforms on student academic outcomes. Technical Report. New Orleans: Education Research Alliance for New Orleans.
25.
HeisselJennifer A.LaddHelen F.2016. School turnaround in North Carolina: A regression discontinuity analysis. Economics of Education Review62: 302–20.
26.
HessFrederick M.2007. Adequacy judgments and school reform. In WestMartin R.PetersonPaul P. (Eds.), School Money Trials, pp. 159–94. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
KaneThomas J.StaigerDouglas O.2008. Estimating teacher impacts on student achievement: An experimental evaluation. NBER Working Paper No. 14607. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
29.
KaneThomas J.OwensAntoniya M.MarinellWilliam H.ThalDaniel R. C.StaigerDouglas O.2016. Teaching higher: Educators’ perspectives on Common Core implementation. Center for Education Policy Research Report. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
30.
KempleJames. 2015. High school closures in New York City: Impacts on students’ academic outcomes, attendance, and mobility. New York: Research Alliance for New York City Schools.
PapayJohn.2015. The effects of school turnaround strategies in Massachusetts. Paper presentation at the Association of Public Policy and Management. Miami, Florida.
39.
RussakoffDale. 2015. The Prize: Who’s in Charge of America’s Schools?New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
40.
SchuelerBeth E.GoodmanJoshua S.DemingDavid J.2017. Can states take over and turn around school districts? Evidence from Lawrence, Massachusetts. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis39(2): 311–32.
41.
StrunkKatherine O.MarshJulie A.HashimAyesha K.Bush-MecenasSusanWeinsteinTracey. 2016. The impact of turnaround reform on student outcomes: Evidence and insights from the Los Angeles Unified School District. Education Finance and Policy11(3): 251–82.
YoungViki M.HumphreyDaniel C.WangHaiwenBosettiKristin R.CassidyLaurenWechslerMarjorie E.RiveraElizabethMurraySamanthaSchanzenbachDiane Whitmore. 2009. Renaissance Schools Fund-supported schools: Early outcomes, challenges, and opportunities. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
44.
ZimmerRonHenryGary T.KhoAdam. 2017. The effects of school turnaround in Tennessee’s achievement school district and innovation zones. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis39(4): 670–96.
