Using urban regime theory, the article examines two Rust Belt cities that tried to break the cycle of social reproduction in their communities by reforming their schools. The article contributes to the development of urban regime theory by comparing an emerging regime to an established regime. The comparison highlights the interdependent nature of regimes’ engagement, purpose, and civic capacity.
Brown, M. ( 1999). Reconceptualizing public and private in urban regime theory In AIDS politics. Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 23, 70-87.
2.
Bryk, A.S., Schneider, B., Greenberg, S., & Kochanek, J. ( 2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
3.
Bulkley, K.E. ( 2007). Bringing the private into the public: Changing the rules of the game and new regime politics in Philadelphia public education. Educational Policy, 21, 155-184.
4.
Burns, P. ( 2002). The intergovernmental regime and public policy in Hartford, Connecticut. Journal of Urban Affairs, 24(1), 55-73.
5.
Burns, P. ( 2003). Regime theory, state government, and a takeover of urban education. Journal of Urban Affairs, 25, 285-303.
6.
Christman, J.B., & Rhodes, A. ( 2002). Civic engagement and urban school improvement: Hard-to-learn lessons from Philadelphia. Philadelphia: Research for Action.
7.
Coburn, C.E. ( 2005). The role of non-system actors in the relationship between policy and practice: The case of reading instruction in California. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27(1), 23-52.
8.
Cuban, L., & Usdan, M. ( 2002). Powerful reforms with shallow roots: Improving America’s urban schools. New York: Teachers College Press.
9.
Dowding, K. ( 2001). Explaining urban regimes. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 25, 7-19.
10.
Dryfoos, J.G., & Maguire, S. ( 2002). Inside full-service community schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
11.
Elmore, R. ( 2002). Building a new structure for school leadership. Washington, DC: Albert Shanker Institute.
12.
Epstein, J.L., & Sanders, M.G. ( 2000). Connecting home, school, and community: New directions for social research. . In M. T. Hallinan (Ed.), Handbook of the sociology of education (pp. 285-306). New York: Klower Academic/Plenum.
13.
Friedman, T.L. ( 2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux
14.
Ghysels, M., & Thibodeaux, K. (2006). A new approach to business partnerships. Leadership, 36(2), 18-21.
15.
Gibbs, R.M., & Cromartie, J.B. (1994). Rural youth outmigration: How big is the problem and for whom? Rural Development Perspectives10, 9-16.
16.
Gold, E., Christman, J.B., Herold, B.2007. Blurring the Boundaries: A Case Study of Private Sector Involvement in Philadelphia Public Schools. American Journal of Education. 113(2), 181 -212.
17.
Goldring, E.B., & Hausman, C. ( 2001). Civic capacity and school principals: The missing links for community development. In R. L. Crowson (Ed.), Community development and school reform (Vol. 5, pp. 193-210). Amsterdam: JAI Press.
18.
Gruenewald, D.A. ( 2003). Foundations of place: A multidisciplinary framework for place-conscious education. American Education Research Journal , 40, 619-654.
19.
Henig, J.R., Hula, R.C., Orr, M., & Pedescleaux, D.S. (1999). The color of school reform: Race politics, and the challenge of urban education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
20.
Honig, M. ( 2004). The new middle management: Intermediary organizations in education policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26(1), 65-87.
21.
Horan, C. ( 1997). Coalition, state and market: Postwar development politics in Boston. In M. Lauria (Ed.) Reconstructing urban regime theory: Regulating urban politics in a global economy (pp. 149-170). London: SAGE.
22.
Marschall, M., & Shah, P. ( 2005). Keeping policy churn off the agenda: Urban education and civic capacity. Policy Studies Journal, 33, 161-180.
23.
McLendon, M., & Cohen-Vogel, L. (2008). Understanding educational policy-making in the American states: Lessons from political science. In B. S. Cooper, L. Fusarelli, & J. Cibulka (Eds.), Handbook of educational politics and policy (pp. 30-51). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Mitra, D.L. ( 2006). Educational change on the inside and outside: The positioning of challengers. International Journal of Leadership Education , 9(4), 315-328.
26.
Mitra, D.L., Frick, W.C., & Movit, Marcela A. (2008). Brain drain in the Rust Belt: Can educational reform help to build civic capacity in struggling communities ? Educational Policy, 22, 731-757.
27.
Moore, M. ( 1988). What sorts of ideas become public ideas? In R. B. Reich (Ed.), The power of public ideas (pp. 55-84). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
28.
Mossberger, K., & Stoker, G. ( 2001). The evolution of urban regime theory: The challenge of conceptualization. Urban Affairs Review, 36, 810-835.
29.
National Center on Education and the Economy. ( 2007). Tough choices or tough times: The report of the new commission on skills of the American workforce. Washington, DC: Jossey-Bass.
30.
Opfer, V.D. & Denmark, V. ( 2001).Sorting Out a Sense of Place: Principal and School Board Relationships in the Midst of Decentralization Rhetoric. Peabody Journal of Education, 76(2), 102-118.
31.
Rothman, R. (Ed.). (2007). City schools: How districts and communities can create smart education systems . Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
32.
Shillen, J.K. ( 2003). Preservation of human capital: The importance of retaining young adults. In Retaining and attracting young adults to the Pennsylvania heart-land. Williamsport, PA: Industrial Modernization Center Pennsylvania.
33.
Shipps, D. ( 2003). Pulling together: Civic capacity and urban school reform . American Education Research Journal, 40, 841-878.
34.
Stake, R.E. ( 1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
35.
Stoker, G., & Mossberger, K. (1994). Urban regime theory in comparative perspective. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 12, 195-212.
36.
Stone, C. ( 2001). The Atlanta experience re-examined: The link between agenda and regime change. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research25(1), 20-34.
37.
Stone, C. ( 2003). Civic capacity: What, why and whence. In S. Fuhrman & M. Lazerson (Eds.), Institutions of democracy: Public education. Cambridge, UK: Oxford University Press. (pp. 209-234).
38.
Stone, C. ( 2005a). Looking back to look forward: Reflections on urban regime analysis. Urban Affairs Review, 40, 309-341.
39.
Stone, C. ( 2005b). Civic capacity: What, why and from whence. In S. Fuhrman & M. Lazerson (Eds.), Institutions of democracy: Public education (pp. 209-235). Cambridge, UK: Oxford University Press.
40.
Stone, C.N. ( 1998). Changing urban education. Lawrence KS: University Press of Kansas.
41.
Stone, C., Henig, J., Jones, B., & Pierannunzi, C. (2001). Building civic capacity: The politics of reforming urban schools. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
42.
Stone, D.A. ( 1989). Causal stories and the formation of policy agendas. Political Science Quarterly, 104, 281-300.
43.
Weis, L. ( 1990). Working class without work: High school students in a de-industrializing economy. New York: Routledge.
44.
Wilson, C. ( 2000). Policy regimes and policy change. Journal of Public Policy, 20, 247-274.
45.
Yin, R.K. ( 1994). Case study research: Designs and methods (Vol. 5. 2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
