Historically, schools in the United States have been governed at the local level by elected school boards, and finances have been raised primarily through local property taxes. While local control theoretically allows for greater responsiveness to local concerns, it does not take into account the vast inequality among and between communities in the United States, nor does it take into account the ways in which poverty can limit the ability of parents in particularly to influence decision making in public schools that serve their children. Drawing on the experience of Oakland, California, this article explores the ways in which poverty and racial discrimination limit the effectiveness of local control as a mechanism for school accountability. It also examines the factors that constrain the ability of schools to be responsive to the needs of the communities that they serve. In making the case for greater parental empowerment in school governance, the article explores how social capital and civic capacity building can enhance the democratic possibilities of local control and help to overcome the effects of concentrated poverty.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdaA. F. (1988). The Pajaro Valley experience: Working with Spanish speaking parents to develop children's reading and writing skills through the use of children's literature. In Skutnabb-KangasT., & CumminsJ. (Eds.), Minority education.London: Multilingual Matters.
2.
Alameda County Health Department. (1998). By the numbers: A public health dataview of Oakland.
3.
AndersonJ. (1988). The education of Blacks in the South, 1860–1935.Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
4.
AnyonJ. (1997). Ghetto schooling: A political economy of urban educational reform.New York: Teachers College Press.
BrownA. (1997, January 7). Governor calls for greater school accountability. San Diego Tribune.
7.
BrownP. (2001, August 24). Oakland's schools military bearing rankles some. The New York Times,
8.
BushR. (1984). The new Black vote.San Francisco: Synthesis Publications.
9.
CarterS. C. (2002). No excuses: Lessons from 21 high performing, high poverty schools.Washington, DC: Heritage Foundation.
10.
CarnoyM., & LevinH. (1986). School and work in a democratic state.Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
11.
ChubbJ., & MoeT. (1990). Politics, markets and America's schools.Washington, DC: Brookings Institute.
12.
CibulkaJ. (2001, Winter). Old wine, new bottles. Education Next. Retrieved August 31, 2004, from www.educationnext.org
13.
City of Oakland. (1994). West Oakland community—Existing conditions.Oakland, CA: Office of Economic Development.
14.
ClarkW. (1998). The California cauldron.New York: Guilford Press.
15.
ClinchyE. (Ed.). (2000). The new small schools.New York: Teachers College Press.
16.
ColemanJ. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94(Supp.), 95–120.
17.
ColemanJ., ColemanJ., CampbellE., HobsonC., McPartlandJ., & MoodA. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare.
18.
Commission for Positive Change. (1990). Good education in Oakland.Oakland, CA: Author.
19.
ConchasG. (2001). Structuring success and failure: understanding variability in Latino school engagement. Harvard Educational Review, 70(3), 475–504.
Education Trust. (2002). Dispelling the myth … over time.Washington, DC: Author.
25.
ElmoreR. (1996). The new accountability in state educational policy. In LaddH. (Ed.), Performance-based strategies for improving schools.
26.
EpsteinJ. (1993). A response. Teachers College Record, 94(4), 710–717.
27.
FineM. (1993). (Ap)parent involvement: Reflections on parents, power and urban schools. Teachers College Record, 94(4), 26–43.
28.
FranklinJ., & MossA. (1988). From slavery to freedom.New York: Knopf.
29.
GoldE. (2001). Clients, consumers or collaborators? Parents and their roles in school reform. Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
30.
GormleyW. (Ed.). (1991). Privatization and its alternatives.Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
31.
HenigJ., HulaR., OrrM., & PedescleauxD. (1999). The color of school reform: Race, politics, and the challenge of urban education.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
32.
HessG. A. (1999). Community participation or control? From New York to Chicago. Theory Into Practice, 38(4), 217–224.
33.
HortonM., & FreireP. (1990). We make the road by walking.Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
34.
JamesD. W., JurichS., & EstesS. (2001). Raising minority academic achievement.Washington, DC: American Youth Policy Forum.
JencksC., & PhillipsM. (1998). The Black-White test score gap.Washington, DC: Brookings Institute.
37.
KatznelsonI., & WeirM. (1994). Schooling for all.Berkeley: University of California Press.
38.
KozolJ. (1991). Savage inequalities.New York: Crown Books.
39.
LareauA. (1989). Home advantage: Social class and parental intervention in elementary education.New York: Falmer Press.
40.
League of Cities. (2004). Stronger schools, stronger cities.Washington, DC: Institute for Youth, Education and Families.
41.
LinnR. (2000). Assessments and accountability. Educational Researcher, 29(4).
42.
LipmanP. (1998). Race, class, and power in school restructuring.Albany: State University of New York Press.
43.
MaeroffG. (1989). Withered hopes and stillborn dreams: The dismal panorama of inner-city schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 69, 632–638.
44.
MasseyD., & DentonN. (1993). American apartheid.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
45.
MillerS. L. (1995). An American imperative.New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
46.
NogueraP. (1996). Confronting the urban in urban school reform. Urban Review, 28, 1–19.
47.
NogueraP. (2001). The role of social capital in the transformation of urban schools in social capital and low income communities. In SaegertS., ThompsonP., & WarrenM. (Eds.), Social capital and poor communities. A volume in the Ford Foundation Series on Asset Building.New York: Sage.
48.
NogueraP. (2003). City schools and the American dream.New York: Teachers College Press.
49.
NogueraP., & AkomA. (2000, June 5). Disparities demystified. The Nation.
50.
NogueraP., & BlissM. (2001). A four year evaluation study of youth together.Oakland, CA: Arts, Resources and Curriculum.
51.
Oakland Unified School District. (1994). Report of student mobility. Unpublished district report.
52.
Oakland Unified School District. (1998). Report on student achievement. Unpublished district report.
53.
Oakland Unified School District. (2001). Progress report. Unpublished district document.
54.
Office of Economic Development. (1994). Creating a community vision: Community goal statements and proposal implementation strategies.Oakland, CA: City of Oakland.
55.
OrfieldG., & EatonS. (1996). Dismantling desegregation.New York: The New Press.
56.
PerryT., & DelpittL. (1997). The real Ebonics debate. Rethinking Schools, 12.
57.
PutnamR. (1995). Bowling alone: America's declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6(1), 65–78.
58.
RavitchD., & ViterittiJ. (2000). City schools: Lessons from New York.Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
59.
RouceC. (1999). Rhetoric versus reality.Washington, DC: Rand Corporation.
60.
RothsteinR. (2004). Social class and schools.New York: Economic Policy Institute, Columbia University.
61.
SaegertS., ThompsonP., & WarrenM. (2001). Social capital in low-income communities.New York: Russell Sage.
62.
SampsonR. (1998). What community supplies. In FergusonR., & DickensW. (Eds.), Urban problems and community development.Washington, DC: Brookings Institute.
63.
StoneC. (2001). Building civic capacity.Lawrence: University of Kansas Press.
64.
ThernstromS., & ThernstromA. (2003). No excuses: Closing the racial achievement gap in learning.New York: Simon and Schuster.
65.
ThompsonC. (2001). Class struggle. East Bay Express, 23(27).
66.
Tyack (1980). The one best system.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
67.
WacquantL. (1998). Negative social capital: State breakdown and social destitution in America's urban core. In Netherlands Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 13.
68.
WilgorenJ. (1997, April 27). Young Blacks turn to school vouchers as civil rights issue. New York Times.
69.
WoolcockM. (1998). Social capital and economic development: Toward a theoretical synthesis and policy framework. Theory and Society, 27, 151–208.
