School district decentralization typically shifts authority and resources from central office administrators at the district level to leaders at the school level. Although decentralization reforms have been prevalent in urban educational contexts for decades, they often yield poor results for low-income, minoritized communities. In this article, we examine stakeholder rationales behind decentralizing a large, diverse countywide district and the extent to which equity was part of these rationales. The findings suggest that although stakeholders aim to improve student achievement, financial and administrative efficiency, and family/community engagement through decentralization, many failed to consider how school-level disparities might result in sustaining or worsening inequities.
AnyonJ. (2014). Radical possibilities: Public policy, urban education, and a new social movement (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
2.
AuW.FerrareJ. J. (2015). Introduction: Neoliberalism, social networks, and the new governance of education. In AuW.FerrareJ. J. (Eds.), Mapping corporate education reform: Power and policy networks in a neoliberal state (pp. 1–22). New York, NY: Routledge.
3.
BimberB. (1994). The decentralization mirage: Comparing decision making arrangements in four high schools. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
BjörkL. G.BlaséJ. (2009). The micropolitics of school district decentralization. Educational Assessment, Evaluation, and Accountability, 21(3), 195–208.
6.
BrykA. S.HessG. A.Jr.MirelJ.WongK. (1999). Policy lessons from Chicago’s experience with decentralization. Brookings Institution Press, 2, 67–127.
7.
BuddeR. (1996). The evolution of the charter concept. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(1), 72–73.
Darling-HammondL. (2013). Inequality and school resources: What it will take to close the opportunity gap. In CarterP. L.WelnerK. G. (Eds.), Closing the opportunity gap: What America must do to give every child an even chance (pp. 77–97). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
DiemS.BrowningL. G.SampsonC. (in press). In/exclusive engagement of school communities through school district decentralization. In WintonS.ParekhG. (Eds.), Critical perspectives on education policy and schools, families and communities. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
14.
DiemS.SampsonC.BrowningL. G. (2018). Reorganizing a countywide school district: A critical analysis of politics and policy development toward decentralization. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 26(1), 1–31.
15.
DixsonA. D.RoyalC.HenryK. L. (2013). School reform and school choice. In Milner IVH. R.LomoteyK. (Eds.), Handbook of urban education (pp. 1214–1289). New York, NY: Routledge.
EdwardsD. B.Jr.DeMatthewsD. E. (2015). Historical trends in educational decentralization in the United States and developing countries: A periodization and comparison in the post-WWII context. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22(40), 1–20.
19.
FiskeE. B.LaddH. F. (2017). Self-governing schools, parental choice, and the need to protect the public interest. Phi Delta Kappan, 99(1), 31–36.
20.
FrankenbergE.Siegel-HawleyG.DiemS. (2017). Segregation by district boundary line: The fragmentation of Memphis area schools. Educational Researcher, 46(8), 449–463.
21.
FullerB. (2009). Policy and place—Learning from decentralized reforms. In SykesG.SchneiderB.PlankD. N. (Eds.), Handbook of education policy research (1st ed., pp. 855–875). Routledge.
22.
GalianiS.GertlerP.SchargrodskyE. (2008). School decentralization: Helping the good get better, but leaving the poor behind. Journal of Public Economics, 92(10–11), 2106–2120.
GreenT. (2017). Community-based equity audits: A practical approach for educational leaders to support equitable community-school improvements. Educational Administration Quarterly, 53(1), 3–39.
25.
Guinn Center for Policy Priorities. (2015, October). Breaking up is hard to do: Issues to address in the reorganization of the Clark County School District. Las Vegas, NV: Author.
26.
GuthrieJ. W.HaywardG. C.KirstM. W.KoppichJ. E.McCuneM. L.SmithJ. R. (1996). Nevada school district organization and control: Meeting the challenges of growth and diversity. Berkeley, CA: Management Analysis & Planning Associates. Retrieved from http://edconsultants.com/documents/nv-final-report1.pdf
27.
HansenJ. S.RozaM. (2005). Decentralized decision making for schools: New promise for an old idea?Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
28.
HorsfordS. D. (2016). Race and education in the Mountain West: Charting new territory in America’s racial frontier. In NogueraP.A.PierceJ.AhramR. (Eds.), Race, equity, and education: Sixty years from Brown (pp. 155–173). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
29.
HorsfordS. D.SampsonC.ForlettaF. M. (2013). School resegregation in the Mississippi of the West: Community counternarratives on the return to neighborhood schools in Las Vegas, Nevada, 1968-1994. Teachers College Record, 115(11), 1–28.
30.
JohnsonA. W. (2012). “Turnaround” as shock therapy: Race, neoliberalism, and school reform. Urban Education, 48(2), 232–256.
31.
LipmanP. (2011). The new political economy of urban education: Neoliberalism, race, and the right to the city. New York, NY: Routledge.
MalenB. (2003). Tightening the grip? The impact of state activism on local school systems. Educational Policy, 17(2), 195–216.
34.
MalenB.OgawaR. (1988). Professional-patron influence on site-based governance councils: A confounding case study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 10(4), 251–270.
MerriamS. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
37.
MeyerH.-D. (2009). Saying what we mean, and meaning what we say—Unpacking the contingencies of decentralization. American Journal of Education, 115(3), 457–474.
38.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
PearmanF. A. (2020). Gentrification, geography, and the declining enrollment of neighborhood schools. Urban Education, 55(2), 183–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085919884342
SaldañaJ. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
52.
SaltmanK. J. (2010). Urban school decentralization and the growth of portfolio districts. East Lansing, MI: The Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice.
53.
SampsonC. (2017). So it “became White activists fighting for integration?” Community organizations, intersectional identities, and education reform. The Urban Review, 49(1), 72–95.
54.
Siegel-HawleyG.DiemS.FrankenbergE. (2018). The disintegration of Memphis-Shelby County, Tennessee: School district secession and local control in the 21st century. American Educational Research Journal, 55(4), 651–692.
55.
StakeR. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
56.
StoneC. N.HenigJ. R.JonesB. D.PierannunziC. (2001). Building civic capacity: The politics of reforming urban schools. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.
SuperfineB. M. (2010). Court-driven reform and equal educational opportunity: Centralization, decentralization, and the shifting judicial role. Review of Educational Research, 80(1), 108–137.
59.
SupervilleD. R. (2015, July8). Nev. moves to split Clark Co. district. Education Week, 34(36), 1, 9.
TerriquezV.FlashmanJ.Schuler-BrownS.OrfieldG. (2009). Expanding student opportunities: Prime 6 program review, Clark County School District, Las Vegas, Nevada. Los Angeles, CA: The Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles, University of California, Los Angeles.
62.
TyackD. (1993). School governance in the United States: Historical puzzles and anomalies. In HannawayJ.CarnoyM. (Eds.), Decentralization and school improvement (pp. 1–32). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
63.
Van LangenA.DekkersH. (2001). Decentralisation and combating educational exclusion. Comparative Education, 37(3), 367–384.
WrightJ.WhitakerR. W.II.KhalifaM.BriscoeF. (2020). The color of neoliberal reform: A critical race policy analysis of school district takeovers in Michigan. Urban Education, 55(3), 424–447. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085918806943
