The authors examine the influence of teacher and administrator representation by race and ethnicity on disciplinary tools and standardized test scores within traditional public elementary schools and charter schools. The authors argue that school officials within charter schools will be less likely to consider race and ethnicity when making schooling decisions because of their attention to the culture and norms within charter schools. As a result, the authors expect that the translation from passive to active representation will be more difficult in charter schools than in traditional elementary schools. Using data from Georgia, the authors analyze this question empirically and find a statistically significant influence of representation among teachers on disciplinary tools and test scores and a more limited influence of administrative representation on standardized tests. Findings also support the central research question of this study, that is, whether the effects of racial and ethnic representation appear more limited among charter schools than traditional public schools.
BakerB. D.DickersonJ. L. (2006). Charter schools, teacher labor market deregulation, and teacher quality—Evidence from the schools and staffing survey. Educational Policy, 20(5), 752-778.
2.
BidwellCharles E.QuirozPamela A.1991. Organizational Control in the High School Workplace: A Theoretical Argument. Journal of Research on Adolescence. 8(3): 211-29
3.
BuckleyJ.SchneiderM. (2007). Charter Schools: Hope or Hype?Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.
4.
BurtlessG. (1996). Does money matter? The effect of school resources on student achievement and adult success. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
5.
Center for Education Reform. (2008). Charter school laws across the states (10th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
6.
DealT.HentschkeG. C. (2004). Adventures of charter school creators: Leading from the ground up. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Education.
7.
DolanJ.RosenbloomD. H. (2003). Representative bureaucracy: Classic readings and continuing controversies. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
8.
Georgia Department of Education. (2007). 2006-2007 annual report on Georgia’s charter schools. Atlanta: Author.
9.
GreenJ.BarnesD. (1993). Discipline in secondary schools: How administrators deal with student misconduct. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 357-507.
10.
HarrisD. C. (2006). Lowering the bar or moving the target: A wage decomposition of Michigan’s charter and traditional public school teachers. Educational Administration Quarterly42(3), 424-460.
11.
HillP.LakeR.CelioM. B.CampbellC.HerdmanP.BulkleyK. (2001). A study of charter school accountability. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
12.
HolyokeT.JeffreyH.HeathB.Natalie Lacireno-PaquetN. (2007). Institution Advocacy and the Political Behavior of Charter Schools. Political Research Quarterly, 60(2), 202-214.
13.
KeiserL. R.WilkinsV. M.MeierK. J.HollandC. A. (2002). Lipstick and logarithms: Gender, institutional context, and representation. American Political Science Review, 96(3), 553-564.
14.
MalloyC. L.WohlstetterP. (2003). Working conditions in charter schools: What’s the appeal for teachers?Education and Urban Society, 35(2), 219-241.
15.
McDonaldA. J.RossS. M.BolL.McSparrin-GallagherB. (2007). Charter schools as a vehicle for education reformml: Implementation and outcomes at three inner-city sites. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 12(3), 271-300.
16.
MeierK. J. (1993). Representative bureaucracy: A theoretical and empirical exposition. In PerryJ. L. (Ed.), Research in public administration (pp. 1-35). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
17.
MeierK. J.BohteJ. (2001). Structure and discretion: Missing links in representative bureaucracy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 11(4), 455-470.
18.
MeierK. J.O’TooleL. J.Nicholson-CrottyS. (2004). Multilevel governance and organizational performance. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 23(1), 31-47.
19.
MeierK. J.WrinkleR. D.PolinardJ. L. (1999). Representative bureaucracy and distributional equity: Addressing the hard question. Journal of Politics, 61(4), 1025-1039.
20.
MironG.ChristopherN. (2002). What’s Public about Charter Schools? Lessons Learned About Choice and Accountability. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
21.
MorrisonR. R. (2006). The impact of character education programs on student discipline referrals in Texas public schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University.
NielsenL. B.WolfP. J. (2001). Representative bureaucracy and harder questions: A response to Meier, Wrinkle, and Polinard. Journal of Politics, 63(2), 598-615.
24.
PittsD. W. (2005). Diversity, representation, and performance: Evidence about ethnicity in public organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(4), 323-339.
25.
PittsD. W. (2007). Representative bureaucracy, ethnicity, and public schools: Examining the link between representation and performance. Administration and Society, 39(4), 497-526.
26.
PodgurskyM.DaleB. (2001). Personnel Policy in Charter Schools. Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.
27.
RitterG. W.MarantoR.BuckS. (2009). Harnessing private incentives in public education. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 29(3), 249-270.
28.
RochC.PittsD. W.NavarroI. (2010). Representative bureaucracy & policy tools: Ethnicity, student discipline, and representation in public schools. Administration & Society, 42(1), 38-65.
29.
SayrsL. (1989) Pooled time series analysis. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
30.
SchneiderA.IngramH. (1990). The behavioral assumptions of policy tools. Journal of Politics, 52, 511-529.
31.
SchneiderA.IngramH. (1993). Social construction of target populations: Implications for politics and policy. American Political Science Review, 87(2), 334-347.
32.
SchneiderA.IngramH. (1997). Policy design for democracy. Lawrence: Kansas University Press.
33.
SchneiderM.TeskeP.MarschallM.RochC. (1998) Shopping for schools: In the land of the blind, the one-eyed parent may be enough. American Journal of Political Science, 42, 769-779.
34.
SeldenS. C. (1997). The promise of representative bureaucracy: Diversity and responsiveness in a government agency. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
35.
SeldenS. C.BrudneyJ. L.KelloughJ. E. (1998). Bureaucracy as a representative institution: Toward a reconciliation of bureaucratic government and democratic theory. American Journal of Political Science, 42(3), 717-744.
36.
ShortP. M.ShortR. J.BlantonC. (1994). Rethinking student discipline: Alternatives that work. ERIC Document Reproductive Service No. 378-658
37.
SowaJ. E.SeldenS. C. (2003). Administrative discretion and active representation: An expansion of the theory of representative bureaucracy. Public Administration Review, 63(6), 700-710.
38.
WeickK. E. (1976). Educational Organizations as Loosely Coupled Systems. Administrative Science Quarterly. 21, 1-19.
39.
WilkinsV. M.KeiserL. R. (2006). Linking passive and active representation for gender: The case of child support agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16, 87-102.
40.
WilkinsV. M.WilliamsB. N. (2008). Black or blue? Racial profiling and representative bureaucracy. Public Administration Review, 68, 652-662.
41.
WilkinsV. M.WilliamsB. N. (2009). Representing blue: Representative bureaucracy and racial profiling in the Latino community. Administration and Society, 40(8), 775-798.
42.
WoolridgeJ. (2002). Econometric analysis of cross-section and panel data. Boston: MIT Press.
