District Effectiveness: A Study of Investment Strategies in New York City Public Schools and Districts

Abstract

Educational reform over the past two decades has focused primarily on schools as the critical units of change, often ignoring the role of districts and their effect on schools’performance. Although national reform efforts such as the recently reauthorized Elementary and Secondary Education Act (the No Child Left Behind Act), are directed primarily at schools, local school districts are responsible for a number of functions critical to schooling effectiveness (e.g., hiring, collective bargaining, curriculum development, assessment, fiscal operations, and ancillary functions). Refocusing attention on districts and their effect on schools, this study found differences between high-and lowperforming community school districts, or administrative subunits, within the NewYork City school system in terms of educational goals, instructional focus, leadership development, teacher recruitment and retention, and professional development.

Keywords

district effectiveness urban districts urban schools

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Chubb, J. E. , & Moe, T. M. (1990). Politics, markets, and America’s schools. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

Elmore, R. F. , Abelmann, C. H. ,& Fuhrman, S. H. (1996). The newaccountability in state education reform: From process to performance. In H. F. Ladd (Ed.), Holding schools accountable: Performance-based reformin education(pp. 99-127). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

Elmore, R. F. , & Burney, D. (1997a). Investing in teacher learning: Staff development and instructional improvement in Community School District 32, New York City. New York: National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future.

Elmore, R. F. ,& Burney, D. (1997b). School variation and systemic instructional improvement in Community School District #2, New York City. Pittsburgh, PA: High Performance Learning Communities Project, Learning Research andDevelopment Center, University of Pittsburgh.

Goertz, M. E. , Duffy, M. C. ,& LeFloch, K. C. (2001). Assessment and accountability systems in the 50 states: 1999-2000.Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania, Graduate School of Education.

Hallett, A. (Ed.). (1995). Reinventing central office: A primer for successful schools. Chicago: Cross City Campaign for Urban School Reform.

Hightower, A. M. , Knapp, M. S. , Marsh, J. A. ,& McLaughlin, M. W. (Eds.). (2002). School districts and instructional renewal. New York: Teachers College Press.

Iatarola, P. , Stiefel, L. ,& Schwartz, A. E. (2002). School performance and resource use: The role of districts in NewYork City. In C. Roellke & J. K. Rice (Eds.), Fiscal issues in urban education(pp. 93-116). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

Malen, B. , Ogawa, R. T. , & Kranz, J. (1990). What do we know about school-based management? Acase study of the literature—A call for research. In W. H. Clune & J. F. Witte (Eds.), Choice and control in American education(Vol. 2, pp. 289-342). New York: Falmer.

10.

Resnick, L. B. , & Glennan, J., Jr. (2002). Leadership for learning: A theory of action for urban school districts. In A. M. Hightower , M. S. Knapp , J. A. Marsh ,& M. W. McLaughlin (Eds.), School districts and instructional renewal(pp. 160-172). NewYork: Teachers College Press.

11.

Siegel, D. , & Fruchter, N. (2001). Final report on the evaluation of the New York City Board of Education’s performance driven budgeting initiative. New York: Institute for Education and Social Policy, New York University, Steinhardt School of Education.

12.

Snipes, J. , Doolittle, F. , & Herlihy, C. (2002). Foundations for success: Case studies of how urban school systems improve student achievement. Washington, DC: MDRC.

13.

Stone, C. , Jones, B. D. , Henig, J. R. ,& Pierannunzi, C. (2001). Building civic capacity: The politics of urban school reform. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press.