This study documents the collective capacity of the external support providers working to improve K-3 reading outcomes in New York City. Interviews and social network surveys with a sample of the 112 providers at work in this “reading improvement sector” showed that they serve as a conduit for sharing reading-related resources and expertise throughout a large part of New York City. However, the collective impact of the sector remains limited because their goals vary widely; support is unevenly distributed; and many programs work in isolation and are informed by funders and sources of expertise that are unlikely to be connected.
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Section 14007, Title XIV P. L. 111-5 (2009).
2.
Annenberg Foundation & Annenberg Institute for School Reform. (2002). The annenberg challenge: Lessons and reflections on public school reform. St. David’s Center, PA: The Annenberg Foundation.
3.
BerendsM.BodillyS.Nataraj KirbyS. (2002). A decade of whole-school reform: The new American schools experience. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
4.
BinghamG. E.Patton-TerryN. (2013). Early language and literacy achievement of early reading first students in kindergarten and 1st grade in the United States. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 27(4), 440-453.
5.
BorgattiS. P.EverettM. G.FreemanL. C. (2002). Ucinet for windows: Software for social network analysis. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies.
6.
BrykA.SchneiderB. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
7.
ChildsJ.RussellJ. L. (2017). Improving low-achieving schools: Building state capacity to support school improvement through race to the top. Urban Education, 52, 236-266.
8.
CoburnC. E.BaeS.TurnerE. O. (2008). Authority, status, and the dynamics of insider–outsider partnerships at the district level. Peabody Journal of Education, 83, 364-399.
9.
CohenD. K.
BallD. L. (1999). Instruction, capacity, and improvement. CPRE Research Report Series RR-43. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania.
10.
Comprehensive School Reform Quality Center. (2006). Comprehensive School Reform Quality (CSRQ) Center report on elementary school comprehensive school reform models. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.
11.
DatnowA. (2005). The sustainability of comprehensive school reform in changing district and state contexts. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(1), 121-153.
12.
DatnowA.HonigM. I. (2008). Introduction to the special issue on scaling up teaching and learning improvement in urban districts: The promises and pitfalls of external assistance providers. Peabody Journal of Education, 83, 323-327.
13.
DukeN. K.PearsonP. D.StrachanS. L.BillmanA. K. (2011). Essential elements of fostering and teaching reading comprehension. In SamuelsS. J.FarstrupA. E. (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (4th ed., pp. 51-93). Newark, DE: International Reading.
14.
ElmoreR. F. (2009). The problem of capacity in the (re) design of educational accountability systems. In RebellM. A.WolffJ. R. (Eds.), NCLB at the crossroads: Reshaping the federal effort to close the achievement gap (pp. 230-245). New York: Teachers College Press.
15.
FerrareJ. J.ReynoldsK. (2016). Has the elite foundation agenda spread beyond the gates? An organizational network analysis of nonmajor philanthropic giving in K12 education. American Journal of Education, 123, 137-169.
16.
FinniganK. S.BitterC.O’DayJ. (2009). Improving low-performing schools through external assistance: Lessons from Chicago and California. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 17(7). Retrieved from http://www.redalyc.org/pdf/2750/275019727007.pdf
17.
FountasI. C.PinnellG. S. (2011). Fountas and Pinnell benchmark assessment systems 1 and 2 (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
18.
FrenchR. (2001). “Negative capability”: Managing the confusing uncertainties of change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 14, 480-492.
19.
FreyB.LohmeierJ. H.LeeS. W.TollefsonN. (2006). Measuring collaboration among grant partners. American Journal of Evaluation, 27, 383-392.
20.
GamoranA.AndersonC. W.QuirozP. A.SecadaW. G.WilliamsT.AshmannS. (Eds.). (2003). Transforming teaching in math and science: How schools and districts can support change. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
21.
GoertzM.FlodenR.O’DayJ. (1995). Studies of education reform: Systemic Reform (Vol. 1, Findings and Conclusions). New Brunswick, NJ: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
22.
HatchT. (2013). Innovation at the core: What it really takes to improve classroom practice. Phi Delta Kappan, 95(3), 34-38.
HillP. (2006). A foundation goes to school. Education Next, 6, 45-51.
25.
HonigM. I. (2004). The new middle management: Intermediary organizations in education policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26, 165-187.
26.
HonigM. I. (2009). External organizations and the politics of urban educational leadership: The case of new small autonomous schools initiatives. Peabody Journal of Education, 84, 394-413.
27.
IvankovaN. V.CreswellJ. W.StickS. L. (2006). Using mixed-methods sequential explanatory design: From theory to practice. Field Methods, 18, 3-20.
28.
KaniaJ.KramerM. (2011). Collective impact. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 9, 36-41.
29.
KerrK. A.MarshJ. A.IkemotoG. S.DarilekH.BarneyH. (2006). Strategies to promote data use for instructional improvement: Actions, outcomes, and lessons from three urban districts. American Journal of Education, 112, 496-520.
30.
KraglerS.MartinL. (2012) Learning to read in first grade: Developing effective programs in urban schools, The Educational Forum, 76(2), 248-258.
31.
LagemannE. C. (1983). Private power for the public good: A history of the carnegie foundation for the advancement of teaching. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press.
32.
MannaP. (2006). School’s In: Federalism and the National Education Agenda. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
33.
MarcjaA.ToffaloriC. (2012). A guide to classical and modern model theory. New York, NY: Springer Science+Business Media.
34.
MeyersC. V.Van GronigenB. A. (2018). So many educational service providers, so little evidence. American Journal of Education, 125, 109-139.
35.
MilnerH. R. (2012a). But what is urban education?Urban Education, 47, 556-561.
36.
MilnerH. R. (2012b). Beyond a test score: Explaining opportunity gaps in educational practice. Journal of Black Studies, 43, 693-718.
37.
MintropH.SundermanG. (2009). Predictable failure of federal sanctions-driven accountability for school improvement and why we may retain it anyway. Educational Researcher, 38, 353-364.
38.
NewmanF.KingB.YoungsP. (2000). Professional development that addresses school capacity: Lessons from urban elementary schools. American Journal of Education, 108, 259-299.
39.
Nichols-BarrerI.HaimsonJ. (2013). Impacts of five expeditionary learning middle schools on academic achievement. Cambridge, MA: Mathematica Policy Research.
40.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, ESEA, 2001, Title 1, Part B, Subpart 1. P.L. 107-110, 20 U.S.C. (2002).
41.
Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. (2001). Catalog of school reform models. Portland, OR: Author.
42.
O’DayJ.BitterC.GomezL. (Eds.). (2011). Education reform in New York City: Ambitious change in the nation’s most complex school system. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
43.
ParkV.DatnowA. (2008). Collaborative assistance in a highly prescribed school reform model: The case of Success for All. Peabody Journal of Education, 83, 400-422.
44.
PattonM. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
45.
PeurachD.CohenD.SpillaneJ. (2019). Governments, markets, and instruction: Considerations for cross-national research. Journal of Educational Administration, 57, 393-410.
46.
QuintJ.ZhuP.BaluR.RappaportS.DeLaurentisM. (2015). Scaling up the Success for All model of school reform: Final report from the investing in innovation (i3) evaluation. New York, NY: MDRC.
47.
ReckhowS. (2012). Follow the money: How Foundation Dollars Change Public School Politics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
48.
ReckhowS.SnyderJ. W. (2014). The expanding role of philanthropy in education politics. Educational Researcher, 43, 186-195.
49.
RowanB. (2002). The ecology of school improvement: Notes on the school improvement industry in the United States. Journal of Educational Change, 3, 283-314.
50.
ScottJ.DiMartinoC. (2009). Public education under new management: A typology of educational privatization applied to New York City’s restructuring. Peabody Journal of Education, 84, 432-452.
51.
ScottJ.JabbarH. (2014). The hub and the spokes: Foundations, intermediary organizations, incentivist reforms, and the politics of research evidence. Educational Policy, 28(2), 233-257.
52.
SlavinR. E.LakeC.ChambersB.CheungA.DavisS. (2009). Effective reading programs for the elementary grades: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 79, 1391-1466.
53.
SmylieM.CorcoranT. (2006, April). Nonprofit organizations and the promotion of evidence-based practice. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
54.
SpillaneJ. P.HallettT.DiamondJ. B. (2003). Forms of capital and the construction of leadership: Instructional leadership in urban elementary schools. Sociology of Education, 76(1), 1-17.
55.
StullichS.EisnerE.McCraryJ. (2007). National assessment of title I, final report: Volume I: Implementation (NCEE 2008-4012). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
56.
StichA. E.CipolloneK. (2017). In and through the urban educational “reform churn.” The illustrative power of qualitative longitudinal research. Urban Education, 0042085917690207.
57.
SundermanG. (2006). Do supplemental educational services increase opportunities for minority stu- dents?Phi Delta Kappan, 88(2), 117-122.
58.
SupovitzJ. (2008). Melding internal and external support for school improvement: How the district role changes when working closely with external instructional support providers. Peabody Journal of Education, 83, 459-478.
59.
TinsleyH. E. A.WeissD. J. (2000). Interrater reliability and agreement. In TinsleyH. E. A.BrownS. D. (Eds.), Handbook of applied multivariate statistics and mathematical modeling (pp. 95-124). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
60.
U.S. Department of Education. (2000). Promising initiatives to improve education in your community: Comprehensive school reform demonstration program. Washington, DC: Author.
61.
U.S. Department of Education. (2008). Evaluation of the comprehensive school reform program implementation and outcomes: Third-year report. Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. Department of Education. (2018). The investing in innovation fund: Summary of 67 evaluations: Final report (NCEE 2018-4013). Washington, DC: Author.
64.
WeismanJ. (1991). New-schools group rethinks its strategy to cast a wider net. Education Week, 11(1), 42.
